Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 April 11 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy close. This is apparently referring to Commons:File:Iran-Ethnic_map.PNG and the appropriate deletion procedure on commons (whatever that is) should be invoked instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-Ethnic map.PNG[edit]

Iran-Ethnic map.PNG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

original research Alborz Fallah (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. WWGB (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (NAC)[reply]

2009 Santa Maria, Bulacan explotion[edit]

2009 Santa Maria, Bulacan explotion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable event Habanero-tan (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn, article had the wrong text as a placeholder during , confused me Habanero-tan (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Front Porch Country Band[edit]

The Front Porch Country Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Drops a buttload of names, makes a few vague claims, but I found no reliable third party sources. Seems to fail WP:V, and by extension WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of county routes in Suffolk County, New York. stuff's in history for the merge Fritzpoll (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

County Route 31 (Suffolk County, New York)[edit]

County Route 31 (Suffolk County, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no evidence of notability for this road. This road fails WP:USRD/NT as a county route of a local county route system. In addition to this, the road is only four miles long. Rschen7754 (T C) 23:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cut down to a few sentences and merge into the notes column of List of county routes in Suffolk County, New York. This doesn't look like a major road (Old Riverhead Road north from Westhampton Beach). --NE2 23:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • that's it? I'm curious? Do we need this one? - I'm with NE2 on this one Merge  — master sonT - C 00:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per NE2. – TMF 00:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I know of far less important roads in Suffolk County. This is no CR 15 in Smithtown. It serves Westhampton Beach, and the nearby airport, not to mention having a huge cloverleaf interchange with NY 27, like County Route 104 (Suffolk County, New York). It's obvious that Suffolk County DPW and NYSDOT had greater ambitions for the road, back when they were willing to make true road improvements. ----DanTD (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:USRD/NT to a list the list suggested by NE2. No clue on best target, but that's what the guideline suggests. Hobit (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per NE2 above. --LJ (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I feel that many county roads, such as this one, are short routes that generally serve local interests and are better suited to a list. There are many unnumbered roads that probably have more notability than this road. This is the reason why I am reluctant to do a mass creation of articles for 600-series county routes in New Jersey. Dough4872 (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wow. After reading this, I need a nice relaxing trip to a spa Fritzpoll (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dariusz Zawiślak[edit]

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

Cross-wiki spam based on primary sources (Original research). Probably COI because all articles in different languages were created by user:Kirk diamond and user:MARTHA WARTA 2000. Deleted 10 times in Polish wikipedia, the last one as non-notable: [1]. Several wikipedias have deleted the article:

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —AntiCross (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can see your point. What's Martha's relationship with Zawislak? A gf perhaps? Possible COI, no independently demonstrated notability. JamesBurns (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a director and producer of several films including 2 movies with Faye Dunaway and if movies are ency and actors too, so director also (i gues), all articles on other wiki was speedy deletion cose was't external links or notes to the articel and maybe wikiwars too, see all in same days, but in some countries they definitelly keep and even enlarge. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.62.223 (talk)
  • I would like to say only that informations about Dariusz Zawiślak are based on: hollywood reporter, the bussines of film, variety - very serious film bussines newsletters and film dedicated webs like IMDb Kirk (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't like this promotionlike campaign. But the person Zawislak is real, any motivations of article creation have no matter to its quality. Just now it looks like a normal small article about a living person with notable achievements in film industry. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This is rubbish! Не dirty encyclopedia! --Many baks (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I even prepare french article for this subject and specially the movies--SMALLMEE (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Unless the polish wiki is more strict then wiki (like the German is) i think we should to. Also, being a director of a movie doesn't make you notable just as being an actor in am ovie doesn't make you notable. --Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep ::polish wiki keep article about Zawislak two movies: swiateczna przygoda and balladyna They keep after DNU after they (so fast in my opinion) deleted - (Notable: He produced few international productions -again my opinion) Zawislak. That was MY FAULT and they BLAME me but I only put new information to polish wiki (Im not a spammer just only ad NEW article to wiki. OK I dont do so professional like MARTHA do and I understand they decide to delete all what i do but Martha made small professional article and please dont blame director for my work and consider without emotional angry this person. All the best. I see my mistake I should prepare links and notes to these article and find more info like Marth do. --Kirk diamond (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: interesting how the editors above voting keep have very few edits on wikipedia, not helped by their Polish IP addresses. JamesBurns (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very boring cross-wiki spam. MARTHA WARTA 2000 is a sockpuppet of Kirk diamond, look checkuser request on French Wp. Holder (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentto JamesBurns: don't discuss about the participants, but discussion topic only, please. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Holder: yes MARTHA WARTA 2000 & Kirk diamond are the same IP. But nobody can tell me is the quality of the article unacceptable for Wiki? Nobody knows about wikieditor motivations - we need decide about this article. Is this arcticle satisfactory? MARTHA WARTA 2000 & Kirk diamond behaviour at discussion pages is not legal, but the article (not discussion) is more important for wiki. Only unprofessional, agressive promotion campain paid an attention. If MARTHA WARTA 2000 & Kirk diamond made articles repliques in all wikies not like clone attack - it would be a normal wiki editing. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Do you delete this the article? --Many baks (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Could you express if U see anything wrong on unclear in this article?--83.24.143.29 (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article author has made a lot of effort to make the subject appear notable, but unfortunately the sources just don't live up to it. The first is a press release; the second only mentions the subject in passing; the third to fifth are simply listings from movie databases that substantiate the work he has done without providing any commentary; the sixth is a directory listing; the seventh is a catalogue, again only substantiating that he has done work on a particular film without contributing to notability; the eighth is an IMDB listing; the ninth is a youtube video and hence unreliable; the tenth is a primary source that substantiates merely that he was a losing candidate in an election. None of these sources offer substantial coverage in line with the requirements of WP:BIO. Given the amount of effort that has apparently gone into this article already, I would be very surprised to find better sources out there that haven't been included. JulesH (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this person is not a Playboy playmate (this kind of artists are notable persons for Wiki), he is a film maker. As I see two (or more) movies were made in the international coproduction. The author is Polish Film Academy member, so why not? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because our guidelines are that we should only have coverage on people who have received substantial coverage in reliable sources, and nobody has pointed us to any such sources. Now, I'll admit that I don't speak Polish so can't realistically check that there aren't any such sources available, but it seems clear that this article has received substantial attention from Polish speakers who have failed to point us in the direction of any such sources, which suggests that they probably don't exist. Where are the magazine articles or newspaper articles about his work? I would expect to see these for any notable film director. JulesH (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion definitelly notable, (Yes,Bogomolov -good comment) --83.19.4.26 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JulesH; lots of puff but no real substance. Also note the abundance of single-purpose accounts that came out for this. ThemFromSpace 06:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuador-Serbia relations[edit]

Ecuador-Serbia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bilateral relationship. Contested prod. This stub has no sources at all, and i can find no sources of any kind that would support this content fork from Foreign relations of Serbia and Foreign relations of Ecuador. There are no sources that demonstrate this subject is notable by itself (Serbia and Ecuador are very far away from each other and don't have much in the way of dealings with each other, so that's not so surprising.) So, it's a content fork, it's unsourced and unsourcable beyond trivia along the nature of "Serbian and Ecuadorean ministers shared cordial handshakes at international conference X" and is the very definition of what an encyclopedia is not. Bali ultimate (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agreed this is a non-notable relationship between two countries. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of many of the random combinations that have been used to mass produce articles. Ecuador (13 million) and Serbia (7 million) are both small nations and it's doubtful that they would have any notable bilateral relations. Barring some conspiracy theory that the so-called death of Slobodan Milosevic is a hoax and that he is secretly living in Quito... never mind. Mandsford (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seeing as one of the countries (Serbia) doesn't have an embassy in the other country, it's hard to imagine that this is a notable relationship. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - random bilateral pairing with no evidence of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 15:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two more random countries with less of a combined impact on the world stage you would be hard pressed to find. Not notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete if there's nothing more added by the close of the AfD in 7 days. Weak because I admit I haven't myself actually searched. DGG (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wolfenstein (video game). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endrant Studios[edit]

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

I can't find enough coverage in reliable sources regarding this company, therefore I don't think it meets notability criteria. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 22:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Withdrawn, see comment below. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 17:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 22:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 22:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I found a handful of sources, but they were short, 95% press release, or both. Will likely be notable darn soon, so it's a shame to delete. But there you are. Hobit (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, a redirect to Wolfenstein might be a better bet. They are referenced there and that's they only thing they are 'notable' for at the moment. Plus if they meet WP:N later (and I suspect they will) we can simply remove the redirect and reinstate the article. Hobit (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish to withdraw this deletion nomination, I agree with User:Hobit that a redirect would probably be a better idea for now. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 17:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my first wikipedia page. It is a shame it is up for deletion. After reading up on notability, I realize that until there is more 3rd party information it may be best to redirect to Wolfenstein. Gunsmoke84 (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirection It's withdrawn anyway, but just wanted to say that the redirect can always be reversed if and when the company starts getting press due to this or other projects in the future. Someoneanother 01:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eriogonum heracleoides[edit]

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

Very poorly written article about a semi-notable topic. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. There are individual articles on most Eriogonum species, and this one doesn't appear significantly less notable than the rest. Tevildo (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is the intention of the various biological projects that there will be at least a stub article on all scientifically recognised species with links to Wikispecies. I've done an initial cleanup by going to just one reference book - don't have time for more at the moment. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - all plants, especially ones with common names like parsnipflower , are per se notable. If you do not like how it is written, tag it WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's Tiger rockfish (AfD discussion) all over again. Uncle G (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is Articles for Deletion, not Articles for Clean-up. Tag it before you nominate it.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that notability has not been established in independent, third-party reliable sources. I will preempt the cries of abuse to my talkpage on this one, by asking that anyone who is unhappy with the outcome go straight to deletion review Fritzpoll (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cullenism[edit]

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

I've just declined the speedy on this as notability has been asserted. The community needs to reach an opinion on this I think. --GedUK  21:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with no prejudice towards recreation if it becomes a phenomenon of note. The history of the idea seems to be fan websites/blogs -> one article in the Examiner (cited) -> a few people reporting the Examiner story. I don't see anything which would make anything verifiable or reliable. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this article. You say that my sources are unreliable because they are from blogs and fan websites. I would like to disagree and explain to you why I used those resources. Cullenism is a religion, and religion is centred around belief. I thought that it was best if I found out what real people actually thought on the matter so that I could write this atricle in an unbiased way. Cullenism is a more casual religion, and there are few sites which give an outward look on the subject. There are either websites which rave about the religion or blogs which criticise it. I though that by using all of this information I could put together an article that would give readers both the facts and opinions on Cullenism. (MerthyrGirl10 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Thanks for the note. While primary sources are useful as you suggest (provided a blog by a Cullenist can be taken as evidence of what all Cullenists believe), it is secondary sources--coverage by independent media--which is mainly of use in establishing notability. See notability guideline for more information. Thanks (MerthyrGirl10 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)),--TeaDrinker (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making that clear for me. However, I have to point out that there are not really any unbiased media reports on Cullenism on the internet which was my reason for creating this article. The only sources that I could really use were blogs and fansites. I am doing more research for more reliable sources and I will post it onto the article if I find any. If you know of anywhere I could go to find a more reliable source I would appreciate your contribution, thank you. (MerthyrGirl10 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete. This article is a clear case of why the general notability guidelines require independent sourcing. Currently, it's heavily laden with the original editor's opinion. Unless sources are forthcoming from independent sources which back up the claims that this is a religion, among others made in the article, it should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the writer of this article, I believe that it is written in an unbiased way http://www.twilightseries.co.za/tag/cullenism/ Maybe this source will clarify some doubts. I am aware that it is still someone's opinion but it still shows facts on Cullenism and is from one of the main twilight wesites. (MerthyrGirl10 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The issue we're trying to decide here is less a question of unbiased writing, but whether it is notable at all. Independant reliable sources that talk about the subject is the way wikipedia works this out. --GedUK  20:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information. I cannot actually find any independant sources which was my reason for writing this atricle. I hoped that this article could be an independant source for people, and you cannot deny that there is a lot of interest on the subject from the blogs I have directed you to. However, I would much prefer the article to be edited than deleted, so I would be happy if anyone could help me to improve it up to wikipedia standards. Thank you. (78.147.195.216 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

sorry, the comment above this is mine, I forgot to sign it. (MerthyrGirl10 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete. I put the original speedy on this as unlike Ged I could find no assertion of notability. Even if we can now find one, the author states they "cannot actually find any independant sources which was my reason for writing this atricle" so it should be deleted for having no references to support notability or as original research. Pontificalibus (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with your comments. I have used many sources to write this article and just because they are not independant it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used. I wanted this article to be a place where people could come to for information on the subject. I think you'll find that all independent sources originally use other sources to get their information from which is what I actually did. It is after all a religion (or if you prefer it not to be classed as this a club centred around believing in something) so what better than people's actual opinions to use on the subject. I will say again that I would much prefer this article to be edited rather than it be deleted. So if anyone has any contribution to improve this atricle I would be very grateful. I will continue to look for an independant source that I could use to improve the article. Thank you. (MerthyrGirl10 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private Trainers Association[edit]

Private Trainers Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is likely a result of paid editing (see my COIN posting)

The subject itself doesn't meet WP:N or WP:CORP as it's not discussed in any detail in reliable, third-party sources. The only reference in this article is irrelevant and leads to a spammy promotion. A Google search fails to turn up anything that evidences notability per our guidelines. And a google news search doesn't help either. ThemFromSpace 21:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Hrabalek[edit]

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

Nominated by Bricology with reason: "I'm going to propose this entry for deletion. There are no sources cited, and Hrabalek simply does not meet the standards for WP: Notability. As for "Please refer to Google and other search engines with 'Chris Hrabalek' for verification" -- 705 Google hits (many of them pointing to things like Hrabalek's Facebook and LinkedIn pages) do not count as notability." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This individual and his past and contemporary influences within the automotive industry are important and notable. I oppose deletion of this entry. Previous assumptions were incorrect, Hrabalek does meet the standards for WP and is frequently featured in automotive magazines, books and journals. 19:14, 12 April 2009 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.97.154 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 April 2009
  • My opinion is Keep- Hrabalek has global significance in the field of cars. Schreyer 18:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting -- the two "keeps" are from the entry's main contributor, and an anon. Not too compelling. Hrabalek's "influences within the automotive industry are important" and he has "global significance"? Rubbish. He writes a column for a small British magazine, he designed and bankrolled the production of a one-off "retro" version of a vintage Lancia sports car, and that's about it. The onus is on the claimant to demonstrate significance, not just to make blank assertions. STILL no footnotes on the entry, but each of his columns listed individually, to pad the entry. Delete. Bricology (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous post by 'Bircology' is not accurate. Keep by two separate individuals that share the same IP server- hence two opinions by two separate individuals. The apparently 'small' british magazine Hrabalek writes for is 'The world's leading Italian car magazine' (reference: www.auto-italia.co.uk) with according relevance in the automotive field. It seems that the two 'Delete' proposals - which were posted by one and the same person - were done by someone with little (or no) knowledge of the automotive industry. There are enough references on an international level by various authors and contributors of both books, magazines and journals that demonstrate the significance of Hrabalek and DO make the 'Hrabalek Wikipedia Entry' meet the standards for WP. There seems to be a problem that 'Bricology' has with the 'Hrabalek Wikipedia Entry' on a personal level, which is unprofessional, hence I recommend this user and his user IP to be banned from Wikipedia and this topic to be concluded.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.97.154 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15th April 2009
  • "Two separate opinions by two separate individuals that share the same IP server", eh? Not exactly convincing. And all it takes to prove that my post was accurate is to examine the entry in question. No citations. Full of weasel words. For example, the so-called "world's leading Italian Car Magazine", is actually a British publication with a circulation of just 12,000. There are dozens of Italian car magazines with circulations far larger than that. One magazine that deals with vintage Italian cars, "Ruotoclassiche", has a circulation of over 50,000. The entry is full of such weasel words as "design masters", "icon" and "regarded highly". WP is an encyclopedia, not a public relations site. As for Mr. Hrabalek's relative noteworthyness: the entry supplies exactly two mentions (one at one page, one at two pages) in books, and 8 mentions in magazines. It even lists Hrabalek's University Alumni Association newsletter as a "Reference source"! Pure listcruft. As for banning me and my IP: I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. I've been a contributor here for 3 years. You, apparently, aren't even registered. If you expect to have any credibility, sign up, sign in and learn how things work here. Bricology (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Bircology' has had one BLP warning (18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC) and two warnings regarding Wikipedia's 'personal attacks policy' (November 2008 and February 2009). I fear that this is personal attack number three and appeal for help from an WP administrator. Bricology seems to be on a personal mission which is unprofessional and surely can not reflect the standard, image or quality of Wikipedia. Bircology's accusations in his previous posts are unfounded and speculative. I would like to propose a block for disruption for user 'Bircology' by a WP administrator. Please check previous offences by this individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bricology). Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.97.154 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15th April 2009
  • The unsigned poster (possibly Hrabalek himself, since their IP address resolves to London, where Hrabalek lives, and their use of English suggests that their native tongue is German) STILL does not seem to get it. This isn't about me, and it certainly isn't any kind of "personal attack". I care absolutely nothing about the subject matter of this WP entry. The ONLY reason I ProD-ed it was because it was so non-Wikified that it read like a public relations release. Listcruft (every column Mr. Hrabalek ever wrote for a magazine, listed individually?!), weasel words ("icon", "master", etc.), NO citations to primary sources, claims that are prima facie incredible, such as that Mr. Hrabalek worked for 7 different major car makers over the course of 7 years (with no link to a CV or any other corroboration), and so on. Pure puffery. If Mr. Anonymous, who is so clearly invested in maintaining the hyperbole on Mr. Hrabalek's entry, is interested in contributing to WP, he needs to understand how WP works, and in particular, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons -- especially the section "Creative Professionals". Mr. Hrabalek simply does not meet the requirements spelled out there. And even if he did, the entry lacks the citations to primary sources to demonstrate that notability, but in fact, it lacks both. Again, Mr. Hrabalek's "notability" seems to hinge on the fact that he writes a monthly column for a small magazine, and that he designed and produced a prototype car that was shown at a couple of auto shows. The car was never put into the production it was claimed to be entering. Beyond that, the list of his "accomplishments" are as trivial as having worked with (or for) certain other barely-notable people, and being the "official design consultant" for two small magazines. Not notable. Bricology (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Bircology' is incorrect and continues to make statements without substance that are based on pure speculation. The circulation of a media is not necessarily linked to the quality of said media (e.g. circulation of UK 'SUN' or German 'Bild' Zeitung outnumbers those of the 'FT' in either market- does this pass judgement to the quality of the according paper?). Next, the circulation figures that Bircology previously cited are all incorrect (where are the references for these figures?)- this is with regard to "Auto Italia", "Classic Driver" and also "Ruotoclassiche"; "Ruotoclassiche" is also a classic car related magazine, quite different in content and target group to both "Auto Italia" and "Classic Driver", so one can only assume that Bircology meant the more contemporary targeted 'Quattroruote'. Again proof that Bircology neither does his research well nor that he/she has any profound knowledge of the automotive field. Without having to lower myself to Bircology's level of argumentation, the fact that none of the people he (allegedly) knows within the automotive industry are able to work for seven different car companies in seven years, only suggests that the people he speaks of are not in the position to do so- nothing more and nothing less. As a matter of fact, the contrary is the case in this industry! Professionals (especially in vehicle design) can work at multiple companies sequentially or in parallel- even within a 12-month period. Lastly, the fact that Bircology could not find any information on Benoit Jacob, does NOT imply that Benoit Jacob does not exist (or is unimportant), but rather that Bircology has once again NOT done his research properly. Benoit Jacob is the author of the Renault Fiftie Concept, the Renault Sport Spider and Renault Laguna production cars. Finally it must be said that Anders Warming is the author of the BMW Z4 as well as the BMW Mille Miglia Concept and has contributed significantly on the BMW G.I.N.A. Concept and the BMW X Coupe Concept. All four vehicles created the stylistic basis for the 'Flame Surfacing' automotive form language; arguably the most important automotive design contribution of the decade. So much for 'other barely-notable people'. The bottom line is: Bircology's statements are badly researched, unprofessional, speculative and essentially false! This member should be barred for disruption and his/her account and IP address should be blocked by a WP Administrator- previous offences by this individual speak for themselves and also his bad-language and tone of voice. I sincerely hope a WP Administrator takes notice of this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bricology) .Schreyer 01:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

"The circulation of a media is not necessarily linked to the quality of said media" You're still not getting it. The entry formerly claimed that the magazine in question was "the world's leading Italian car magazine". You're clearly unfamiliar with the WP term "weasel words". Entry claims must be verifiable. How do you propose verifying that "Auto Italia" is "the world's leading Italian car magazine"? You can't. Unverifiable weasel words. "Next, the circulation figures that Bircology previously cited are all incorrect (where are the references for these figures?)" Where? Why, right here on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Lancia-037-development-history-Champion/dp/1845840763 "As a matter of fact, the contrary is the case in this industry! Professionals (especially in vehicle design) can work at multiple companies sequentially or in parallel- even within a 12-month period." The onus is on the claimant to provide verification of claims. Hrabalek claims to have worked at these 7 different companies over the course of 7 years. This should be the easiest thing in the world for you (him) to prove: simply post a link to Mr. Hrabalek's CV. Any problem with doing that? If I claimed to have worked at R-R, Bentley, Aston-Martin, Morgan, Bristol, Jaguar and TVR over the course of 7 years, I'd have to prove it. It's no different for Mr. Hrabalek. Go back and look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. WP does not allow unverified claims. Back it up or take it off. "the fact that Bircology could not find any information on Benoit Jacob, does NOT imply that Benoit Jacob does not exist (or is unimportant), but rather that Bircology has once again NOT done his research properly." I never claimed that Mr. Jacob "didn't exist". YOU claimed that Mr. Jacob was a "master" (there you go with the weasel words again). I did a simple Google search which turned up nothing specific about Benoit Jacob. I added "Renault" to the search and found exactly 97 hits. Compare that to the relatively unknown Ken Okuyama, who was the lead designer at PininFarina (37,000 hits). Even more so, compare M. Jacob's 97 hits to recognized "masters" of automotive design like Sergio Pininfarina (34,000 hits), Marcello Gandini (58,000 hits) or Giorgetto Giugiaro (110,000 hits). My research is sound, but ultimately it doesn't matter, since I didn't author this WP entry. Apparently you did, but you filled it with hyperbole and left out all of the source material. Again -- the onus is on you to justify what you put in an entry, not on me to disprove it. And as for "bad language" and "tone of voice" -- yet more news to you: WP does not care one bit about such things. What it does care about is credibility, and its credibility as a reliable resource is more harmed than helped by blather such as makes up the majority of Mr. Hrabalek's entry. There's no Niceness Police that's going to come help you, so you might as well either do what's expected of WP contributors, or stop whining about it. Bricology (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Discussion to merge and/or redirect should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firearm (tool)[edit]

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

POV fork apparently created just to spite a consensus (here and here) that the lead sentence in Firearm should say it's a weapon, not a tool... The article in question includes no new content, and is barely more than a copy/paste job using a few other previously created articles... most of the content does not even discuss the use of firearms as tools, as the creator claims, but instead alternative ammunition choices that can be used with firearms... A small bit of the content could easily be merged into Firearm, but there is no need for this POV fork... Adolphus79 (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Classic POV fork. Tevildo (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. this is neither a POV fork nor anything to spite any consensus. First, there is no consensus. Second, the edit warriors on the "Firearm" article refuse to allow any distinction that allows a firearm be used for anything other than as a weapon. This defies reality and is quite POV in and of itself. There is a concerted effort to squelch the reality that firearms aren't always weapons. This is censorship and in quite poor taste. I'll agree that this article includes the same content, but in light of the fact that there is stuburn exclusionism going on with the other article, I find it difficult to vote to censor this information by deleting it. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - if an article has POV issues, then they should be resolved within that article through the appropriate channels, not by forking. See WP:POVFORK (already quoted in nomination). This article is about the same subject as Firearm. Tevildo (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - But, there are no firearms used as tools mentioned in the Firearm (weapon) article, and the lede sentence in that article even defines a firearm as a weapon (ONLY)? There are clearly firearms that are not weapons, and they have no summary article at present such as this one, as do the firearms that are weapons. Yaf (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a whole class of firearms that are not weapons (Manby Mortar, Lyle gun, powder-actuated tool, flare gun) for which there is no summary article at present. The consensus to date on firearm (weapon) has been that the firearms on that page are weapons only. This article clearly provides coverage of a neglected class of firearms on Wikipedia, in WP:Summary style. It should be kept. Yaf (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is obviously a non-trivial content dispute with legitimate opinions on both sides - but forking is not the way to resolve it. Tevildo (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - please note that there has been no discussion from the members of the "tool" side of these discussions to add a small section to the Firearm article about firearms not primarily used as weapons, the only discussion has been regarding the lead sentence (also note that Firearm (weapon) is a redirect created in the POV fork process)... I said in the nomination that a small bit of this article could be merged with Firearm... the Flare guns and powder-actuated tools could both have a brief mention at the bottom of the Firearm article (but certainly no need to copy/paste those articles)... that I can remember, no one has ever argued that content could not be added to the Firearm article, but that the lead should not make the statement that firearms are primarily used as tools... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - There was a proposal to list a firearm as both a weapon and as a tool, with cites. It was vehemently removed, with malice, amongst talk discussions that a firearm was ONLY a weapon. It doesn't make sense to start an article stating that a firearm is a weapon (ONLY) and then put content into the article on non-weapons. It wouldn't be amongst the scope of the lede. This article, firearm (tool) should stand, as should firearm (weapon). They are duals, reflecting different usages of firearms. Yaf (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork. I see that some of the material has been appropriated from other articles via a copy and paste, so there is little point to merger. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. POV fork, redundant article with content consisting of mostly either copy and pasted material from other articles, or unsourced content. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article's content is currently not covered in the Firearm article. While it could be merged into the firearm article, that is not what has been proposed or discussed. Until that time, it should be kept. --Hamitr (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a lot of the article's content is just copied verbatim from other articles. see the article's talk page for some evidence of that. of the remaining content that is original and sourced, it can be placed into the main article. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then a merge template should be put on the article if it remains after this AFD closes. --Hamitr (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge without prejudice against later recreation. The content in the article is sourced and encyclopedic, and not repeated elsewhere. It is not a POV fork, and should not be deleted. Either keep the current article with a link to it from Firearm, or merge the information to Firearm. LK (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
most of the first paragraph is stolen from the main firearms article. most of Firearm_(tool)#Background is stolen from Firearm's 'background'. Firearm_(tool)#History is copied directly from Firearm#History and so on throughout the whole article. I'm not sure where you came up with "the content in the article ... is not repeated elsewhere" also, see [[4]] for more examples of stolen material Theserialcomma (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true, that would mean that a firearm was, indeed a tool and exclusion of that fact amounts to censorship. You want there to be no mention of the word Tool or any mention that a firearm can be something other than a weapon. You can't have it that way and then also want to delete the article that defines firearms that are clearly not weapons such as flare guns, line throwing guns, nail guns... as much as you want to, you cannot have it both ways. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's not censorship just because people disagree with you. do you have any comments that are actually factual and related to this AFD? Theserialcomma (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just because some of the material is repeated elsewhere, does not mean that the whole article should be deleted. I have reviewed all the relevant articles, and I reiterate, there exists sourced encyclopedic content that is not repeated elsewhere. LK (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - If the definition of firearm is that it is a weapon, and the definition of weapon is that it is a tool (Yep, that's right - see for yourself!), then there's no need for us to have a separate article about firearms as tools. This content should be merged with the firearms article. -- MaverickSolutions (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that a merge is acceptable, however, you're committing a logical fallacy here. You've made an argument logically equivalent to: 'All Chickens are Birds. We have an article on Chickens, so, we do not need an article on Birds. The content should be merged to the article on Chickens.' LK (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it hard to classify a flare gun as a weapon. Ditto for a powder-actuated tool, categorized in Australia as a firearm. Likewise for a Manby Mortar used to throw a line for a breeches buoy. Likewise for a Lyle gun, that performs a similar function. Yet, these are all are, or are considered, or are legislatively defined as --- firearms. There are a host of firearms that clearly are not weapons. (Analagous to Birds that are not Chickens, there are firearms that are not weapons...) It is silly to define these non-weapon firearms as weapons. As for claims that the content of this article was "stolen" or "plagiarized", see WP:Summary style, where it is defined that the use of articles that summarize the contents of other articles while providing additional information is not a POV fork. Looks like a clear case of a missing article, summarizing firearms that are not weapons, but that are tools. Yaf (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a flare gun is defined as a gun that fires flares, not a weapon. because, after all, not all "guns" are weapons. some guns, like soldering guns, flare guns, staple guns, etc. are not designed to be weapons, and hence are not firearms, since firearms, by dictionary definition and talk page consensus, are weapons. the word 'gun' has multiple definitions, however, and one of them is "devices for shooting something under pressure," which isn't necessarily a weapon. therefore, if we all defaulted to the dictionary and believed it the first time around, we wouldn't have wasted our time with this POV fork article. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article seems fine. The issue of forking would be resolved by merger not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Kumar Nair[edit]

Jai Kumar Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy, contested prod. Non notable person. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Antouri[edit]

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

This is likely a result of paid editing (see my COIN posting)

The subject himself doesn't meet WP:N or WP:BIO as he's not discussed in any detail in reliable, third-party sources. Of the references in this article, the first is irrelevant and leads to a spammy promotion, and the second appears to be minor coverage of a product he's affiliated with. A Google search fails to turn up anything that evidences notability per our guidelines. And a google news search leads to only one article from over 20 years ago, and the coverage is sensational, not encyclopedic, so it is against WP:NOT#NEWS. ThemFromSpace 20:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Rise Against. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Wleklinski[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Wleklinski is listed on allmusic and other websites without any accompanying biography and only because of his previous association with Rise Against. Timmeh! 20:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Three Days Grace. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Walst[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. The little information in the article is unsourced, and a Google search and news search reveal no reliable sources doing anything more than mentioning Walst as a member of Three Days Grace. Timmeh! 20:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Lakin[edit]

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

The subject of this article has, apparently, requested its deletion ten times. Count them: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 It has been reverted as vandalism every time bar one, on three occasions by Wikipedia administrators. On the one remaining time, where Proposed Deletion was used, it was contested because the editor didn't put the rationale, given several times over in immediately preceding edits, into the {{subst:prod}} template. This, again, was by a Wikipedia administrator. On this occasion the subject is quite right, and on the side of policy. There are no sources documenting this person, either cited in the article or to be found in books, scholarly articles, WWW pages, news articles, or even book catalogue listings by book sellers. How can we know that anything that the article says, from the purported death of the subject's brother, through how the subject's works have been touted and what the subject thinks of New Orleans, to where the subject lives and studies, is true? We cannot. No sources, therefore no article, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. This person is, simply, not publicly documented. It's time that we stopped reverting the subject's apparent wish not to be documented here, too, as vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per subject's wish and Uncle G's explication, as well as his argument re: notability. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP's presumption in favor of privacy and WP:V/WP:N. Bongomatic 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete There are a number of sources including [5], but they'd support a weak keep at best and I think we should defer to the subject of a BLP unless notability is blindingly clear. Hobit (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You made me wonder why my searches didn't turn that up. (I've just scanned all of the search results again, to check that I didn't simply overlook it.) I've discovered why. I used "'" for the apostrophe in "Devil's". That article uses "’". Uncle G (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I totally disagree that we should delete on request, or do more than let the subject make an argument like anyone else why the article is inappropriate, because that amounts to letting the subjects of the less than extremely notable BLPs censor. For the most notable, we'd have NPOV articles. For the others, we'd have positive only. This will turn Wikipedia into Who's who in the East (etc), where the subjects do exactly that. On the other hand, this is clearly a promotional article, whoever wrote it -- it was written by a series of anons in the days when anons could introduce new articles. And her books are not notable--none of them are even in worldCat. whether or not she wanted the article, this should be deleted. The interview found would not be enough in my view for even the weakest of keeps. The absence of the books from the basic sources is decisive. DGG (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personally, I have no problem with the idea that there is a grey area in which a person nominally may be notable enough for an article, but sufficiently not-notable that we can consider their request for deletion. Such individuals often are having a small facet of their lives unfairly emphasized, with little prospect of the article ever improving to provide proper balance. This, however, is not such a case - the subject simply is not notable, as reflected by the dearth of sources. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:BLP policy on reliable sources. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gai sang atid[edit]

Gai sang atid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable dish Ysangkok (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Google reveals very few hits for either "sunlight-grilled chicken" or "Gai sang atid", the only ones being either mirrors of the Wikipedia article itself or non-notable mentions. The background section borders on advertising, too, not to mention some other sections such as the lead of the article. —Cyclonenim | Chat  21:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional, notability not proved. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has WAAAAAAY to many problems to continue, and it seems promotinal. Thanks! Old Al —Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Smith[edit]

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

Lack of third party sources to demonstrate an artist's notability. Enigmamsg 19:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B1shop[edit]

B1shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested CSD, non-notable rapper, no indication that he passes WP:MUSIC. Google only turns up a few youtube videos and a myspace page. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero Google news hits [6], very little in the way of good sources can be found; no evidence of national touring. It actually is also the name of a game that is possibly notable. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avec A[edit]

Avec A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Nothing to surpass WP:BAND. JaGatalk 19:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The nominator nominates this for a redirect? This is not an appropriate use of the Articles for Deletion process. Consensus is, regardless, to keep Fritzpoll (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian wedding photography[edit]

Indian wedding photography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't see why this topic deserves its own article, especially considering that there are already articles about Wedding photography and Hindu wedding. I propose that this article be redirected to one of these two articles. TillsTalk 19:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on please. The article has just been started.--ISKapoor (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Indian wedding photography is totally different from western wedding photography.--ISKapoor (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference I can see is that the wedding themselves are different; but what difference is there in the actual act of the photography of the weddings? TillsTalk 19:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Photography for an Indian wedding is very different. Indian weddings are colorful and chaotic. There is no white. Many of the events do not allow the use of controlled light conditions. The bride wears heavy bridal jewellery with brightly colored clothes. No lace.--ISKapoor (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't show why the photography is any different, just that the weddings are. Tavix |  Talk  20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to wedding photography. The content of this article is not likely to be much different, and the differences between western and indian weddings pertain to the weddings themselves, not to the photography. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A significant part in Indian wedding. Deserves an article of its own.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the possibility of a merge to be discussed elsewhere once the AFD is closed. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with an appropriate article. Prefer keep. Article clearly focuses on differences between this genre of wedding photography and other genres of wedding photography. Fg2 (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's enough here to demonstrate that this is its own "industry" among photographers (ex. "By convention a photographer is required to include each guest in at least one photograph which includes the bride and the groom.") and the list of poses that are expected to be photographed has no comparison in the West. Like a dowry, there is more detail than can be merged to an article about Indian weddings in general. Mandsford (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or it can as well be a sub topic in Indian wedding. Salih (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Indian wedding. This article contains only a few bits of information that are particular to Indian wedding photography, which can be easily be included in that article. Much of the article is close to original reporting/synthesis of different sources (such as news reports on some celebrity weddings) - which is not surprising given the scarcity of reliable sources (books, articles etc) dedicated to the subject. Abecedare (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Stock[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. The little information in the article is unsourced, and a Google search and news search reveal no reliable sources doing anything more than mentioning Stock as a member of Three Days Grace. Timmeh! 19:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy A7 by Ged UK. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARN Hanuman[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. JaGatalk 19:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete -- no notability asserted, nothing comes up on a Google Scholar search.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7 (I've added the tag.) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for lack of notability and assertion thereof. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Comment on discussion: guidelines may be treated with the occasional exception, but they are documents of community norms, and so a good reason needs to be given for deviating from them. Verifiability is required, but not sufficient for inclusion, no matter how many accusations of one -ism or another are thrown around. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Body Transfer[edit]

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

A search for sources for this pornographic anime OVA only turns up one review from a reliable source. This, however, is not enough to meet the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" requirement of WP:NOTE. --Farix (Talk) 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Farix (Talk) 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • How many countries it's been released in is irrelevant to the notability guidelines. Significant coverage is based on the amount and depth of coverage the work has received. Multiple reliable, third-party sources has almost always been a requirement for notability unless a source covers so thoroughly, that additional third-party sources isn't required. --Farix (Talk) 19:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, "multiple" implies a number greater than one. If another is found, say, in French...? 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends largely on how well the review covers the subject. If it is just a short review, then more will be needed. If it is similar to the Mania review, then its more likely to be counted towards notability. --Farix (Talk) 14:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnotable OVA that fails WP:N and WP:NF. Specifically it is NOT "widely distributed", it has not "received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics", it is not "historically notable", it has not "received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking", it has never been "selected for preservation in a national archive" and finally, it is not "'taught' as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google gave me 17,300 for "肉体転移". Seems like a lot of coverage by some people, which is far more important than the coverage of just a small number of people working for media outlets such as newspapers and magazines. Can someone who speaks Japanese please search for whatever words would be used in referring to the series, along with the name, if its possible some of the hits might be for something else? The ones I clicked on are all for this series though. And I don't care what the notability guidelines/suggestions recommend. You can verify it exist, and it seems to have enough mention to be assumed notable. Dream Focus 17:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits are not a sign of notability, and never will be no matter how many times you try to use this flawed arguement. Find valid evidence of notability within those links. You've been giving a link to a valid review, find another review or such on another good source and you'll have a much easier job keeping the article. We know you don't care what the guidelines are, by saying that you really aren't helping your case. Find proof to support your claims, or don't bother. Existing does not prove anything other then existing. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not find proof to support your claims that the notability guidelines should be followed, despite having many obvious flaws? And I'm not trying to convince the three deletionists who have posted here thus far, since we all know what you will say, just as you are aware of my view on things. We'll just wait for others to join in and state their views on it, and see what the consensus is, be it to follow those guidelines, or simply ignore them, since you can't expect this type of thing to get reviewed in any magazine or newspaper that I'm aware of. Dream Focus 12:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it is the other way around. You have to provide evidence as to why the guidelines shouldn't be followed. Like policy, guidelines are descriptions of standards that have community consensus, the only difference is that they have more exceptions then policy. But just like with policy, if the guidelines are to be ignored, then it must be done in a way that leaves the guidelines intact rather then undermine them. --Farix (Talk) 14:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might be a little out of date here, but doesn't WP:N say something like "an article only needs sufficient evidence that it may be notable?" The whole released in two countries thing and one review already existing points to others existing too. Why must you turn AfD into a hurdle-jumping exercise? It's not like a link to some other dude on a porn review site giving this a thumbs-up will make the article content any more legitimate or actually noteworthy. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:N: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. After that, there are explanations as to the meaning of certain terms, such as "significant coverage", but there is nothing about "sufficient evidence". In fact, I don't ever remember it saying anything about "sufficient evidence" since it became a guideline. --Farix (Talk) 00:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your bad faith accusations of deletionists to yourself, it's pathetic and has no place here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh yeah, that was really uncalled for, needlessly defensive and much more of a "bad faith accusation" than my comment. Getting all mad over something so trivial is really pathetic and has no place anywhere. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that aimed at me? I think the positing of my comment is giving you the wrong impression - not helped by me taking a few minutes to save the page. As for getting mad, you seem to be mistaken. However, this doesn't change the fact that afd is being used to air dirty laundry in public (DF's opinion of editors who have made vastly more constructive contributions then he has). It doesn't belong. Your comment is constructive to the debate, the comment I was replying too wasn't (at least regarding the deletionist issue, the rest well - thats open to interpretation) wasn't. Apologies for any confusion Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry about that lol. You should probably be more specific in who you're talking to next time. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I should just post quicker, rather then try and watch an episode, write its summary and reply to afd at the same time :P Then there wouldn't have been any confusion as my post would appear in the right place :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to remember that Dream Focus is in this mindset that he must save Wikipedia from "THE EVIL DELETIONIST CABAL". --Farix (Talk) 00:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(DF's opinion of editors who have made vastly more constructive contributions then he has)." Wow. You make vastly more constructive contributions by deleting articles? That's not a contribution. You don't help the wikipedia by destroying parts of it. Anyway, back on topic, unless someone can speak Japanese, then finding out information about this, isn't going to be possible. Dream Focus 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find that between involvement in deletion discussions, the people you accuse of being deletionists have not only contributed greatly project work and wikipedia in general, but have written or greatly contributed to large numbers of GA and FA articles (and I can say that because they frequently appear on pages I watch, performing maintainance tasks and fixing issues with the pages. Never mind all the project pages). AFD is a normal wikipedia practice, don't make it out to be some group of editors who have nothing better to do, especially when most of the votes and large quantitys of nominations come from other people. Don't confuse participation in AFD with destroying wikipedia.
In other news, have you tried using one of the many translation tools available on the web (such as google?). They won't be perfect, but they will give you an idea. I use them all the time. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are here now. You are trying to delete an article that couldn't possibly hurt anyone, and which most would never even happen upon unless they were looking up information about it. You aren't helping wikipedia in any possible way. You are just destroying parts of it. And the Japanese sentence structure is so different than that of English speaking people, those translation tools are a chore to use, any site found not coherent enough to figure out what they are saying. Dream Focus 00:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I? point me to where I said delete. Good luck, I haven't "voted" due to having no opinion either way, so don't give me that rubbish. If you paid attention, you'll notice I've tried to keep several articles recently (a couple of them were heavily leaning towards delete before I stated the case and shockingly enough, actually improved the pages!) and even provided actual page improvements to pages I wasn't fussed about (such as reviews) . Just stick to the deletions, and not passing judgement on peoples motives. You aren't doing yourself any favors when you do and aren't in any position to question peoples motives anyway. AFD is not your soapbox for broadcasting your personal opinions on wikipedia's editors. As for the tools being a chore to use, don't complain when someone offers you a solution to help you achieve something you are moaning you can't do. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources that say anything about it? No encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If reliable sources don't exist, how would we write about it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless substantial coverage in reliable sources comes to light. Without that, this article fails WP:N and WP:V, since there is no way to write an encyclopaedic article on the subject. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The classic teaser article. "Licensed in France" is not substantial coverage. If NOT PLOT prevents anything, it's this. But only Weak delete because a time is needed to permit Japanese-speaking editors to comment. DGG (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - the sole English review pointed out above actually suggests to me that there may be more coverage in Japanese and (maybe) French. If anyone can produce such reviews, I'll change my !vote, but until then, I'd like to remind several people that licenses in other languages aren't evidence of notability; at most, they are a suggestion that the notability may be there. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 16:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Userfy - it's ben shown that the anime was adapted from a video game of the same name, which could potentially demonstrate its notability better than the anime was able to. Potential notability is pretty high here, but it still needs someone willing to take the time and search for the sourced that will allow it to pass at least WP:GNG. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't see any reason it should be included really! Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Body Transfer is originally a visual novel (a game), that it has got itself an OVA adaptation speaks something about the game's notability. _dk (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a reliable source that can prove this, then you'll need to prove the game is also notable, then rework the article to focus on the visual novel first, ova second. If a article for the visual novel already exists, this article needs merging into it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getchu.com has the OVA in its database, and it says the OVA is 原作：シルキーズ　ＰＣゲーム『肉体転移』(Original by: Silky's, PC game "Body Transfer"). The game is notable, as I demonstrated, because it has had an independent adaptation based on it. This is akin to many a rationale saying "the manga has an anime adaptation, it's notable". _dk (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't disagree, but that doesn't fix the issue with the anime article. If the game is notable due to its adaption, then the article needs a overhaul to reflect the game, and have the anime discussed as a secondary work. Currently the article doesn't even mention the game. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is an issue that can be dealt with outside the AfD process. _dk (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The game may be notable. Of those 17,300 google hits, it appears that somewhere around 15,000 of them are for the game. I've just taken the time to wade through the first hundred hits of the 2370 for 肉体転移 OVA, and can't find a single reliable source for the video. It certainly exists, people sell it, it's in a whole pile of lists of hentai anime for sale, but no one seems to have said much about it. The game at least appears in detailed write-ups, although the notability conferred by sites like erogamescape.dyndns.org is a bit questionable. The Japanese Wikipedia article focuses on the game, but, unfortunately, it's weak on sourcing. Net result: I'm pretty confident the video doesn't warrant an article, but I can't be so sure on the game. It'd take a few hours to wade through the sources on that one and be sure (not surprisingly, I don't read Japanese as rapidly as English or Dutch, and I'm not familiar with what sites generally are considered reliable and independent with respect to hentai anime). We talk sometimes about the cost of verifying some articles not being worth it, and this is a classic example ... it's a piece of hentai, equivalent to "Backdoor Ghetto Girls #963", and I'm not going to spend any more time becoming more certain about it.—Kww(talk) 02:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The history of the article reveals another review. _dk (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hentai Neko, now Otaku Fringe (http://www.otakufridge.com), is a self-published website with user submitted reviews, so it can't be considered reliable. You can see the discussion here where WP:ANIME evaluated the websites. --Farix (Talk) 10:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - perhaps we can hold open this AfD discussion for another two days to develop consensus? Bearian (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katharina Sophia Schultz[edit]

Katharina Sophia Schultz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:BIO. Unsourced BLP. Enigmamsg 18:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; nn, most of the Google hits I get are Wikipedia copies. But note that there are a few links to this article from other Wikipedia pages. Kingpin13 (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bologna sandwich card games[edit]

Bologna sandwich card games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining db-nonsense; taking to AfD in part to get a feel for consensus regarding G1 and A1, but also because AfD seems appropriate. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. No evidence the card game is notable. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable game and pretty much a random game developed by the creator of the article. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 18:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bullshit (game), its essentially the same thing, except that some kid gave it another name. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:MADEUP; do not redirect per TonyBallioni - some kid giving an existing game a different name does not confer notability on that name. I42 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I have no objections to deleting, simply pointing out that the article is simply a kid making up a new name for BS, redirects are cheap and don't do any damage, since redirecting is a possible alternative to deletion I thought I would bring it up. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clean it up, though. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Howell[edit]

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

Questionable notability, and the main contributing author has a COI as evidenced by the user name. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No references other than his Facebook and Myspace pages, and I can't find anything else on Google. Laurent (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep Sources found. AFD to the rescue! --Ryan Delaney talk 04:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing but promotion from a user who most likely has a COI. With no notable sources we have not choice but to delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBallioni (talk • contribs) 18:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per sources provided by SarekOfVulcan, I do advise a review of the article, however because of the possible COI issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per SarekOfVulcan. One very solid source, and one one much weaker. Seems to meet WP:N/WP:BIO. Hobit (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nativity (2009 film)[edit]

The Nativity (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy. Future film with no notability established, can't find anything on Google search or Google news. May be notable nearer to December, but right now there is just nothing. WP:CRYSTAL Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in rail transport[edit]

2020 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a rail transport list for 11 years down the road. It fails WP:CRYSTAL as no one knows whether the one event on this list will actually happen in 2020. Tavix |  Talk  17:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Phares[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, maintainability issues, seems marginally notable. If anyone cares enough to keep this article, please add reliable sources so that the article passes our verifiability and WP:BLP requirements. *** Crotalus *** 16:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Clear keep - want to comment that this does not validate some of the comments made in favour of retention - but the ones on notability are significant Fritzpoll (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia-Vietnam relations[edit]

Mongolia-Vietnam relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another in a long line of stubs where no separate notability is shown for a minor diplomatic relationship that would justify a content fork from the relevant target articles (if there really is anything to be said beyond noting that a leader from country a once visited country b), i.e. Foreign relations of Mongolia and Foreign relations of Vietnam. The article as it stands does not have reliable sources, the prospects of finding substantial, third party coverage of this specific relationship (that would provide depth and information beyond "vietnam and mongolia are two countries that have cordial relations" etc... are vanishingly slim. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no salvageable content here of any note. It is an attempted content fork from pre-existing articles (with no content, but whatever).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, you are saying these Presidential visits should not be mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. Hilary T (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you don't see. If there is something notable about these visits (remmember WP:NOTNEWS) then they should be mentioned in the relevant foreign relations articles. If they're not notable, then they're not. The place to take up that content question (if it has not already been addressed) is at the articles that already exist, not to create new, unsourced, time-wasting stubs on non-notable relationships.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing nationalism[edit]

Left-wing nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is original research and does not provide any source that "left-wing nationalism" is a known term with any specific definition. I posted my suggestion for deletion on the discussion page and on the article creator's talk page, but have received no reply. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just to start, i added two refs in different geographic areas and historic periods. there's a lot more. The article does need some work, but I think what's there is documentableDGG (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG - you must show that it is a commonly used defined term, not just a neologism that someone used in a book or article. Has anyone written a book about "left-wing nationalism" per se, or can it be found in a political dictionary or encyclopedia? The sources show that it was used in the title of books about Quebec and South American politics, but one of the sources you added, Prophecy and Politics: Socialism, Nationalism, and the Russian Jews, does not use the term at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no WP guideline stating that articles must only be for "commonly used" terms, only that it be notable and supplied with proper cites. Is it notable? Clearly yes. Are there reliable sources used? Clearly yes. Is it "original research"? Clearly not. [28] is not about Quebec, but uses the term. As does [29] referring to Argentina and Cuba. [30] for Spain. [31] for Africa. [32] China. [33] India. And several hundred more. Referred to in the New York Times [34] [35] about Flanders. [36] James Connolley was a Marxist Irish nationalist. So we have hundreds of scholarly references for this article, and lots of newspaper refeences as well. I would suggest that this be found to be a "speedy keep" as a result. Collect (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could reply to the questions I have placed to DGG. Other than leftists who happen to be nationalists or nationalists who happen to be leftists, is there any agreed definition and is there any study of this phenomenon other than using it as a neologism in studies of individual states or groups of states? None of the sources you provide give a definition of "left-wing nationalism". What is the specific definition of "left-wing"? Who is the world's foremost scholar of "left-wing nationalism"? Do any groups call themselves "left-wing nationalists"?
BTW I could not find the term "left-wing nationalism" used in your sources for James Connolly or in the NYT articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for a debate on what left wing nationalism is -- I have shown it is notable, is found in articles and books about many places other than Quebec, and that it is found in the New York Times articles. "He was therefore a heaven-sent (so to speak) gift to left-wing Irishmen in search of (and in need of) national credentials. Connolly could be seen as having welded together, in the last months of his life, the ideals of international Socialism and Irish nationalism." appears to be quite succinct, even though you seem to argue that it says nothing about him being a left wing nationalist. And woith over six hundred books using the term, forgive me for not asserting one person as the "foremost scholar" on the topic. Probalby several hundred could lay claim. As to it being a neologism" that is absurd on its face. The books which use the term go back quite a few years now. So Speedy Keep it is. Collect (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to debate what "left-wing nationalism" is, just asking whether there is an accepted definition at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
although perhaps i might spend my time more usefully doing it than spending my time here, I am not about to rewrite all articles in need of expansion. It's enough that I indicate there are sources for expansion. The extent to which the term is used in such circumstances as a title or chapter heading is indicative: i did not pick my examples from random phrases. DGG (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is part of the MoS -- and refers to "neologisms" -- in this case we do not have a neologism but a phrase used in literally hundreds of major books. "Neologism" requires newness, of all things. Where a term has been used for eighty years, it is highly unlikely to fit that claim. [37] "Left-Wing Nationalism The third force is left-wing nationalism inspired from Cairo" from 1940. [38] from 1930 "for what may be held to be a semi-official statement of the disconnection of Left Wing Nationalism with ..." Where the term is applied to movements of the 1920s and before, it is unlikely to be a neologism. Where a phrase has been used in the New York Times for five decades, and found in articles for six or more decades [39] "the stormily nationalist political left wing", it is unlikely to be a neologism. Collect (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the links provided and none return the term "left-wing nationalism". The Four Deuces (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting as I cut-and-pasted from the New York Times itself. Still insist a 79 year old usage is a neologism? Collect (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs work, however, a search on Google Scholar for the exact phrase "left-wing nationalism" brings up more than a hundred articles and books that have used the term. I believe that makes it notable. The search results can also be mined for notable uses and references. LK (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although I haven't heard of the term "left-wing nationalism" being specifically used in political literature, as far as I know, leftist or socialist nationalism is definitely an ideology that's been advocated by a lot of leftists (e.g. Slobodan Milosevic, Nelson Mandela). Perhaps we should rename the article, or just work harder on finding sources to back the information. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Re-direct - I should not have listed this on Good Friday, because it has received little response. The term is just a combination of "left-wing" and "nationalism". It is not a recognized term and does not appear in political dictionaries or encyclopedias. There is no article for Right-wing nationalism. The article includes parties that are both "left-wing" and "nationalist", e.g., the Israeli Labor Party and Fatah, the terrorist FLQ and mainstream PQ in Quebec, and Sinn Fein and the SDLP in Northern Ireland. The only reference given is The Decolonization of Quebec: An Analysis of Left-Wing Nationalism. The authors of that book stated that they were using the term to describe a phenomenon in Quebec and gave no previous reference to the term having been used. Several editors have mentioned the hits obtained using google or google scholar searches, but most of these return books or articles that contain both the terms "left-wing" and "nationalism" but not usually used together. Try googling "stupid liberals" or "fat conservatives" or vice versa and you will get similar results. None of these articles claim that left-wing nationalism is an agreed term. I note that the article "Left-wing terrorism" was deleted and now redirects to "Terrorism". This is an obvious example of original research and should be deleted consistent with the treatment of similar articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've argued that left-wing nationalism isn't recognized in dictionaries and political encyclopedias; as far as I know, neither is left-wing fascism, yet it still describes a political position opposite to that of traditional left-wing doctrines. I think the same goes with left-wing nationalism. Why isn't it recognized in political dictionaries? Because it's a hybrid; a mixture of nationalism and socialism. Therefore, general political literature isn't too acquainted with the term. It wasn't created by anyone, it doesn't have a specific Manifesto - it's a political orientation put to use by people who attempted to combine the two ideologies. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Left-wing fascism is, unlike left-wing nationalism, a term with a specific definition used consistently by various writers. It is used to describe "neo-fascist groups (who are extreme right-wing) [and] disguise themselves as leftists". I demonstrated this on Talk:Left-wing fascism#Request Deletion when another editor requested deletion and expect the article Left-wing nationalism to be held to the same standard. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A specific definition? I took a better look at the left-wing fascism article, and the people that were listed as having used the term have quite divergent understandings of the term. Juergen Habermas used it as an attempt to separate Marxists from left-wing "terrorists" (which is a blatant, biased Marxist philosophy of calling social democrats and other fellow leftists "fascists" or "social fascists"). That fact alone proves that the term left fascism is erroneous, as Habermas is, apparently, described as the foremost advocate of the term. Horowitz describes it as an American rejection of democracy (which is another very general description which could basically be applied to any radical, non-democratic movement). Wolin describes it as "an anti-enlightenment movement advocated by leftist intellectuals" (granted his description also reflects that of Horowitz's, but is divergent in other respects), and Levy describes it as neo-progressive, red fascist and barbaric. Thus, do four different opinions make up a specific definition? Left-wing nationalism doesn't have a specific definition, either, yet is still used by a number of sociologists, teachers and historians in some publications. Unless left fascism and left nationalism are only differentiated by the notability of the people who used the terms, I fail to see the obvious difference between the two. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both Habermas (who was a member of the Frankfurt School) and Wolin used the term "left fascism" to describe the philosophy of George Bataille, and later Habermas seeing a similarity with some radicals in the 1960s applied the term to them "to distance the neo-Marxist perspectives of the Frankfurt school from the violence and authoritarianism of left-wing terrorists" (as quoted in the WP article). However, Horowitz connected these radicals, which he called "left-wing fascists", with "what might be called the later Frankfurt school, which emphasized in an uneasy mix the early Marx and the late Hegel which was most frequently...identified with the works of Adorno". Winners and Losers(p.210) Other writers have drawn parallels between the ideas of Bataille and the late Frankfurt School. I have not read Levy's book but he appears to be building on Horowitz's ideas, and he shares with Horowitz the concept of "Islamofascism".
There is an agreement that the term applies to radical groups who appear to be leftist but reject modernism. They are "Marxists without Marx". There may be dispute about the intellectual origins, but not their basic ideology or even membership, or at least no more than would be expected. There are of course other concepts, e.g., "social fascism", "liberal fascism" that are unrelated. All these writers are writing about the same thing. In the "left-wing nationalism" article however we are supposed to believe that Golda Meir and Yasser Arafat shared the same philosophy. Interesting thesis, but Wikipedia should not be first to publish it.
The Four Deuces (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I still find left fascism and left nationalism are somewhat identical in that they don't have a very well-determined definition. While left fascism has been penned by contemporary writers (who can cross-reference their works), left nationalism is advocated by politicians who, due to their individual nations' diverse traditions, had more localized agendas. That said, I'm sure the article can be fixed in order to avoid the error of believing that, as you said, Arafat and Meir have similar agendas. Just reword the article and delete any confusing sentences, but certainly don't delete it. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You nommed it for deletion -- I think we all know your position on deletion. With literally hundreds of RS books and articles, I would suggest that your claim of "bad timing" is not the reason why the article will get kept. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded on your talk page (User_talk:Collect#3RR) The Four Deuces (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That response accused me of following you on WP -- I use a watchlist, so the comment is extraordinarily irrelevant here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a systematic political force, nationalism began with the left in the French Revolution. The revolutionaries used nationalist themes to rally the French people to the cause of the Revolution. As with so many other things in the modern world, however, something that started with the left eventually found its way to the right. Today, nationalism is overwhelmingly identified with right-wing movements and ideologies, partly because the left often sees it as corrosive and disruptive. However, I would not go so far as to argue that nationalism is the bailiwick of the right. Leftists still make use of it sporadically.UberCryxic (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James E McWilliams[edit]

James E McWilliams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy, non notable author/professor Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clay animation (list of examples)[edit]

Clay animation (list of examples) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An unreferenced list of multiple non-notable television shows, etc. Most of them are from one studio or another, and would probably be better off in a filmography and/or category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but trim down to notable entries (wikilinked title or studio).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is already a category as well, Category:Clay animation television series and films. IF all the non-wikilinked things were removed, it would still be no good reason not to delete the article entirely in favor of the category.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list can be sorted by year, name, or studio -- the category doesn't have that capability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reason why this article was originally created (by yours truly): Avoiding unnecessary clutter in the Clay animation article itself. Now, editors intent on adding an example will contribute here, not in the main article. This article can be trimmed whenever necessary. If this one is deleted, we'll have the clutter back in the main article. Q.E.D.  ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clay animation is certainly a notable topic. As for the category existing, that in and of itself is not a reason to delete a notable list. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim it to the more notable entries, and even trim the notable entries as well. CarpetCrawlermessage me 19:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. No valid argument for deletion has been advanced in the discussion below. Existence of a category does not preclude existence of a list. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of cel-shaded video games[edit]

List of cel-shaded video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is already a category, Category:Video games with cel-shaded graphics, that does the job better than this list. The list doesn't have anything special and there is no other list of games by graphic style. It's also a list that is impossible to complete and would thus be better as a category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 16:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category is fine, no need for a list. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- No reason a category and a list can't co-exist. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Notable and there is no reason for this to be deleted because of a category and seems up to date. C'mon guys. ISmashed TALK! 19:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list contains little other information than basic game details, making it largely redundant to the category, and, moreover, is all original research. It would be far easier to use categories for this purpose than such an out-of-the-way list, especially considering the citations needed to back up the claims of cel-shading would already be in the respective articles rather than duplicated in the list itself. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant list. Category covers same material more efficiently. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. This is simply an incomplete duplication of what already exists. - 2 ... says you, says me 23:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I have improved the list by making it sortable (see [40]), filling in all the dates and publshers in the entries, removed unverifiable ones, and did some general cleanup ([41] and [42]). MuZemike 19:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, I'm still doubtful about its verifiability as opposed to the use of categories. The article is linked to from very few other articles, and I just see it as inevitable that this is going to slip out of line with the articles it covers and the category over time. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lists and categories work in conjunction. Also, good work MuZemike on the sortable list. Marasmusine (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where's its sourcing, though? Sure, lists and categories can work in conjunction, but only if the information presented by them is backed up by reliable sources. This list completely lacks such sourcing. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want every single item in this list to have a citation, then that can be done. Presumably you would like all games that cannot be sourced in this way to be removed from the list and the category, even if it is obviously cell-shaded. (Sorry if that sounded snide, no offence intended.) Marasmusine (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've had to think about this, but when it boils down to it the whole idea of offering all cel-shaded games as a group is pretty trivial IMO. As a category that's fine, low maintainence and easy to use, but this list is not offering anything more despite containing extra data fields and requiring work to patch up. Where the style originated from in gaming can be covered in the cel-shading article in as much depth as necessary, apart from that one cel-shaded game is the same as the next, cel-shaded, it's not like we're talking 'World War I in video games' or something which would benefit from a list containg more data. Someoneanother 22:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there a working, objective definition of "cel-shading" that does not boil down to "I know it when I see it?" (this includes reviews et al referring to the graphics as such) Nifboy (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, not that I've seen. Someoneanother 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The category is primarily for behind-the-scenes work, the list is for the reader. They're not redundant. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I'm aware that Wikipedia:Categorization says categories are for navigation; but in reality, what kind of casual reader knows what a category is and how to use it? –Juliancolton | Talk 18:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France–Nauru relations[edit]

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

Non-notable "relationship" and a stub with dim prospects for expansion into anything approaching a useful article rather than a needless content fork. The fact that a leader of Nauru once visited france can be covered, if it's deemed sufficiently notable, in the Foreign relations of Nauru article. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another foreign-relations permastub with no prospect for expansion. Any facts can be folded in the appropriate France and Nauru articles without loss of information. There does not appear to be a compelling reason to keep this article around, especially since the relationship itself does not appear to be notable as defined by WP:N. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you feel that these facts are so valuable they should be reproduced in two separate locations, where they will presumably take on lives of their own. Of course your vote is not compatible with this happening. Hilary T (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? My vote is about deleting the article itself. The information may (or may not) be germaine to other articles. Deletion votes are not about eliminating information from Wikipedia; rather it is about the existance of a specific article. The article should definately go; the few facts that it mentions may or may not be appropriate to be noted in other articles around Wikipedia, but that is not for this debate to decide. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original prodder. The article does not assert notability and cannot be expanded to notable form. Tavix |  Talk  16:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 16:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A relationship that is not notable on its own. The relationships with UK, Germany, Japan and Australia might be worth an article (all of them either invaded the island or influenced it in a notable way) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since I don't see this stub going anywhere. The two references given are in no way independent discussions of the topic. WP:N is not satisfied, and what is there to merge, besides the bare fact that diplomatic relations exist? Drmies (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well they existed, but then they didn't exist. And now they do again. Hilary T (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not assert notability and it does not seem to have a possibility of to expanding either. - Fastily (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability and the article does not appear to have any chance of expanding. As noted above any pertinent information can be incorporated into the Foreign relations of Nauru article. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not assert notability, no chance of expanding, etc., etc., etc. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 22:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one, on the basis of the quarrel with France over nuclear testing, which can be greatly expanded. Nauru is of course in the area where the testing was taking place, Many of these articles are being created a little careless of the need for content. I hope people are not !voting on them without considiring on their own account the possibilities of expansion. Eric, you mention possibilities, but France is just as important to this particular nation. Ogashiwa, Y. S. (1991). Microstates and nuclear issues: Regional cooperation in the Pacific. [Suva, Fiji]: University of the South Pacific, Institute of Pacific Studies, [43]. [44] ,[45] (and about 5 or 6 more NYTimes articles). also [46],[47], etc etc,DGG (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see how those references are of much use to expanding the article. The first is a parliamentary transcript which mentions Nauru in passing, the second is a story about a regional conference, the third appears to be about the South Pacific Forum (which France isn't a member of), the fourth is the text of the treaty which established the South Pacific Commission, and the final one is a tiny obituary of Nauru's longest-running president president which has no material on this topic other than "his criticism of France". That's not really the kind of coverage needed to meet WP:N. Nick-D (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This is a topic which sounds ridiculous and its hard to see how the article can be expanded much, but New Caledonia and French Polynesia are part of France and France and Nauru have some interactions as a result of their participation in various South Pacific organisations. The French nuclear tests were nowhere near Nauru BTW - they took place at Moruroa, which is over 5,000 kilometers away (it's a bit like saying that the bombing of London took place near New York). Nick-D (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable bilateral pairing; the nuclear bit can easily be mentioned at France and weapons of mass destruction and Foreign relations of Nauru. - Biruitorul Talk 15:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable in any way, shape or form. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - "minimal" contacts but the leader of Nauru had a state visit to France; some good cites exist, but not a lot, to document the topic. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough info or notability here to warrant a separate article; would recommend merging the nuclear protest part into Foreign relations of Nauru or some other appropriate article. tempodivalse [☎] 15:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does Sarkozy even know that Nauru exists? LibStar (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charis School[edit]

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

Simply put, no assertion of notability. Originally a blatant advert for the school, I've radically cut it down, but at the end of the day, there's nothing special about this place. Ps: The original version mentioned the (in)famous "Jack and Jill school", who seem to be churning out large amounts of puff-pieces about related subjects (I've already deleted 3 or 4). yandman 15:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The school just started its Secondary Level just last June 2008, No information can be cited for population. Revised link to Approx no. of students (Note: latest data gathered was on the elementary level only, it did not mention Preschool yet).After an advert tag it was revised as per WP:WPSCH/AG suggested guidelines. Phil. Dept of Education laws indicate that all school must go thru Government Permit Phase for several years before it confers the Government Recognition for courses it offers. The "Jack and Jill" link was an attempt to make inline reference to the nursery rhyme Xapis (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - sources provided that show the school now includes a high school. TerriersFan (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - What sources? I can't find anything in the links in the article that that show anything higher than the elementary level. Radiopathy •talk• 16:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer - you are quite right, of course, I'm having a bad hair day. TerriersFan (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Goverment permit isn't that a reliable source. It only started accepting high school students last year. The Dept. of Education is the sole gov't agency that can issue such permit. Xapis (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comment by Xapis - Keep the discussion here; it's not cool to ask someone on their Talk page if they might change their opinion. I stand by my merge opinion until we see a reliable source. Radiopathy •talk• 18:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the government permit is certainly a reliable source. If you can link to it, or otherwise verify its existence, I'll go back to keep. TerriersFan (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per above, my vote for merge remains. I'll change to keep if you can prove that the school accepts students in the high school grades. Cunard (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per WP:ELYES - "a link to a social networking site may be included when it is the official website for a business, organization, or person." Posts from the external link indicates it has a high school. 122.2.118.5 (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you link to the website that confirms that Charis is a high school? I looked through the links and couldn't find anything proving this. Cunard (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That Facebook page doesn't specifically state that Charis enrolls high school students. I looked through the pictures but didn't see any people who could be at a high school age. But even if I did find students who looked like they were in high school, it would be original research. Cunard (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a combined school that includes High School as per precedents set for inclusion. Even if the only place found that says so is their own website, I can accept on good faith that Christian Schools are not prone to fabrication and that more coverage will be added. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary schools are usually considered notable "by virtue of such factors as notable alumni, community importance, notable athletic and scholastic successes". This school being less than a year old, I doubt it has any of these. yandman 08:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they are notable "by virtue of such factors", It needs to be noted that Filipino schools have a little presence on the internet. Consideration should be given for the article to build up as time goes along. Xapis (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
But how can they be notable by virtue of these factors? They only apply to established schools. How can a school which has not yet produced any alumni have notable alumni? (etc for the other examples). This is a clear example of a secondary school that does not warrant inclusion (yet). No prejudice against recreation when the school has matured and there have been notable alumni etc... yandman 12:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I accept that the school now meets the guideline regarding "educating to at least grade 9/age 15."[48] Even though there are no alumni yet, older students are now accepted and the school should have an article. Radiopathy •talk• 16:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOOL isn't a guideline. It's clearly marked as having failed to achieve consensus. The policy here is WP:ORG. "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". How does the fact that older students are accepted make it fulfill this criterion? yandman 16:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent in deletion discussions has been to accept secondary schools as notable, regardless of significant coverage in secondary sources or lack thereof. If the school exists, if it educates up to grade 9/ age 15/Fifth form, whatever, it's notable. Radiopathy •talk• 16:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was presumed that any school has produced at least a few notable alumni, won a few awards etc... In the case of a school that has no alumni, and has indeed not made any other mark on the world due to the fact that it is only a year old, things are different. You're applying an invalid precedent: the previous discussions were about secondary schools that have existed for more than a few months. yandman 16:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not there are notable alumni or any alumni at all, the school exists, it accepts student at the secondary level, and it should have it's own article. Radiopathy •talk• 02:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Which of the general notability criteria does it fill? "Should" isn't an argument. yandman 07:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. More notable than a pokemon character. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the school site shows that it contains a high school. TerriersFan (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The arguments poised for deletion are not valid. The concerns raised in those arguments may be valid, but deletion is not the sole option for abating those concerns, when simple editing can easily resolve them. Deletion is not a tool for making editing easier or more convenient. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Mitchell[edit]

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

Delete per WP:PLOT and WP:NOTE. This has achieved as much coverage as any other soap opera storyline, and therefore does not merit its own article. All of this infomation seems to have been directly copied from the Danielle Jones (EastEnders) article anyway. Dalejenkins | 14:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does this pass WP:NOTE? You need to elaborate before your argument can be considered. Dalejenkins | 19:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one actually has good secondary sources about the plot. Even those with the most restrictive views on NOT PLOT agree that if there actually are sources for discussions of the subject, then there can be an article, just like for other topics. It passes WP:NOTE, of course, on the General notability guideline. I dont like to prefer this as a reason if there's something more specific, but it does have its place. People who dislike this sort of article usually use that guideline to keep articles like this out, but it works both ways. DGG (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it's a substantial copy of the character page. That's just splitting information to split information. --Izno (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a good deal of duplication--including some excessive duplication within this article. But the plot of these long series is probably best handled by being broken down in just this way. It's a way that should be encouraged. The place to remove details from is the article on the characters. But this sort of thing is an editing decision. DGG (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree on this point. The duplicated material is all information pertinent to a single character, so deleting it from that character's article seems far from a sensible editorial decision. Frickative 06:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you remove the content that's directly copied from Danielle Jones (EastEnders), all that's left is 3 paragraphs of in-universe plot details, and 5 lines of unreferenced reception. Unnecessary content duplication. Frickative 06:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It shows the opininons of the storyline from the producers/directors points of view also providing a more detailed plotline for the development of the storyline. Alex250P (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do think this storyline is notable and it has had impact etc, but this does not add to what has already been covered in the Danielle Jones article. If it did, then I would have no problem with it staying, but a repeat of information is just not necessary when you consider that all elements of this storyline can or will be covered in Danielle Jones and Ronnie Mitchell.GunGagdinMoan 14:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep article is well referenced and no one has impeached any of the sources, so as others have said, it meets WP:N. Issues of duplication can be addressed editorially as a merger. Not a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing but plot coverege from an in-universe perspective. This subject fails WP:N because it hasn't had a significant impact in the real world. The amount of viewers it achieved doesn't evidence notability if that is the only fact worthy of mentioning. Verifying the plot is one thing, but the episode's notability in the real world is another. If it hasn't achieved significant coverage, which the sources provided don't evidence, then it should be deleted. ThemFromSpace 06:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Win32 Swizzor[edit]

Win32 Swizzor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a particularly notable trojan. Been around since 2006 and rates medium according to ca.com - second prod (original poster deleted the first without comment). I've PROD'd it twice, and original poster continues to remove the prod. I don't want to bust 3RR so I'm bringing to AFD. OP claims that WP should have all the world's information. I've tried to explain politely that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but I'll leave it to the community to decide. (additional info on my talk page and on the article's talk page) JCutter (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Followup Comment from AFD nominator - Respectfully, to clarify a bit:
  1. I did not bring up the AFD because of IINFO, I brought it up because it's not a notable trojan. I only mention IINFO because the OP claimed on my talk page that WP should have all the world's information.
  2. IINFO's 4 categories that you mention are not ever represented to be the ONLY pages which should not contain IINFO, they are just mentioned as 4 types which should not consist solely of IINFO.
  3. As I am sure you know from your malware project experience, there are too many viruses/trojans to list them all on WP.
  4. Google search counts for virus names are always ridiculously high due to the fact that thousands of pages shadow report the list of viruses found from other pages.
  5. Of the 68 news hits you linked, none are from 2009, 10 are from 2008 (mostly foreign language) and the others are older (as I said in my AFD - a 2006 trojan).
  6. I've read the articles you suggested, and none seem to suggest that editors should make something notable out of something not-notable in order to preserve it.
I've been wrong before, and I am sure I'll be wrong again, and I might be wrong right now - but I wanted to clarify those points. JCutter (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No opinion on whether Win32 Swizzor merits a freestanding article, but there are tens of thousands of malware programs, so WP:IINFO is certainly a consideration. Wikipedia is neither an anti-virus database, nor a "search on everything". / edg ☺ ☭ 15:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. Notability isn't evidenced in the article, and I haven't found any coverage of it other than its existance and information on how to remove it (which would appear for any trojan) in google news, nor in a standard google search. Per WP:N this trojan must be discussed significantly in reliable sources. I haven't found significant, reliable coverage beyond a trivial level and noone else here has offered up any sources. "This is a trojan, here's how to remove it" isn't good enough. If you want to !vote to keep this you should make sure it is up to our notabilty guideline and verifiability policy. There's no excuse to !vote to keep an unreferenced article! ThemFromSpace 06:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panda Toes[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement, questionable notability. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - for reasons above. Plus (and this was enough for me) their second link to here purports that they are one of the top 5 in the blogosphere, yet the article linked has them as the 6th blog listed, and it doesn't claim to be about the top sites - just about some that are changing the scene. JCutter (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reviewing the references in the article; several do not mention this podcast directly, and others only mention it in passing. There does not seem to be any substantive content out there in any reliable sources which would seem to pass WP:N. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, given the lack of discussion in reliable sources about this blog. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of the sources are off topic, but we've got "Behind the Blog" in BPM which is enough to write a wikipedia article with [49]. We've got the New York Magazine using this blog as a regular source [50] and a fair number of passing mentions in RS as well as a large number of blogs that seem to regard this one as pretty important (40K Ghits, wikipedia page is #6 or so on the list, very low for a blog). Hobit (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An hour of playing around with Google shows that as high as 80% off all those Google results are commentary/spam left on other sites, not articles... and, a solid 10% isn't referring this group, but another entity or actual panda bears (espcially deep in the results... mostly Panda stories, not Panda Toes). R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Info The references listed are decieving at best. The first reference has NOTHING to do with Panda Toes, the second reference is a jpg image (not actually a BPM link) and (if you look on BPM) Panda was one of many blogs mentioned in a side article / blog on BPM (not a feature story, or an actual article about Panda), the third reference is self-source (pandatoes.blogspot), and it is topped off with Myspace and another reference that doesn't even mention Panda at all. The only third-party reputable source mentions Panda in passing as one of a number of blogs providing free "low quality mp3s". Also, it would appear that the business model is based around remixing other people's work, not creating original work... if this is notable, I know five million YouTube users who need a wiki page. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all it's traditional for the nom to not vote in the AfD as their opinion is already known. The fact that the BPM link is a scan isn't an issue as far as I know. Do you suspect that it is a fake? Yes it's part of an article, but that part is solely on the topic and is detailed enough to build a short article around. Finally, that the New York Post considers it reliable enough to use as a credited source does say something about its standing. It that enough to keep? I think so, but I tend toward inclusionism. I do think that it's obviously more notable than five million youtube users. I think it's a very notable blog in it's genre. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a fake, just that the link should be right to BPM and not someone's blog. As for the reference to another article with YouTube, the references also now include The Herald, The Times Online, Telegraph, news.com/CNET, Current, DailyMail, People, and Mirror. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I didn't find the original on-line, so linking to a scan is the next best thing unless there are doubts about it being faked. I do think your Youtube analogy is flawed. This blog is apparently regarded as a reliable enough source that a significant paper (not a good one mind you) uses it as a source. I don't think there are 5 million youtubers for whom that is true. Probably not 10. Finally, I'd suggest that you strike your !vote so you don't appear to be "voting" twice. Hobit (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are really stuck on the YouTube thing eh? The subject in question is notable with or without YouTube, perhaps you should take a look at the latest revision. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you've lost me. You mentioned "I know five million YouTube users..." and I was responding to that. I'm unclear what article you are discussing with the Herald etc. I think you turned right when I turned left :-) Hobit (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm.... I though you were referring to Susan Boyle. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 08:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedows OS[edit]

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

In the articles own words, "The project never really saw the light". Mostly unknown project, low on sources, no notable sources found and no claims to notability made. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the sources to the article and done a bit of rewriting but I think it could still do with some work. Anyone with better French or Portuguese than Babel Fish's would be handy too! Olaf Davis (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those aren't even slightly notable... As for the other (Computerworld), it doesn't claim notability for the operating system, it's a one off mention of it because of a secondary topic, so still not a single Verifiable source that the actual system is in the slightest bit notable (and it's not) - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, looking more closely I now think that the Computerworld and silicon.fr articles are talking about a different project also called Freedows (the person who made this page also seems to think so). Unless someone disagrees with my new interpretation, then, they don't belong at all.
That leaves the article from The Chronicle of Higher Education, which you say isn't 'even slightly notable'. Did you mean notable, or reliable? The latter is surely what's relevant. Either way looking through the references on The Chronicle of Higher Education, which include an article in Time magazine, I get the impression that it's perfectly respectable and 'reliable'. What do you think? Olaf Davis (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Olaf and respect his intergity in contacting me about the Computerworld and silicon.fr articles errors. Ikip (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't refering to the site as being non-notable... but the actual reference, which isn't article, but an unreliable opinion piece that doesn't boost the popularity of the actual system. Also note that a single (even good) source is not good enough. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a news article rather than an opinion piece to me - it seems to just list facts about project and certainly gives me no indication of the author's opinion. What leads to you characterise it as an opinion piece?
As for multiple sources, WP:Notability says that multiple sources are preferred, and that "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." [emphasis added]. I interpret this 'may' to mean that articles based on single sources are allowable if not preferred. In any case, if you have a suggestion for such a broader topic to merge this into I'd gladly hear it, but my reading of WP:N does not suggest that having only a single source is grounds for deletion. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would make a slight amount of (technical) sense, if the article in question had any news worthyness, but as I made clear, the main problem is that it is not a news worthy topic, it's a one off opinion piece about a system which has no recognition or notability anywhere. There is no broader "topic", this is a thing, not a topic and as such requires more than a single news site source (intuitevly) to be considered notable. There is no "significant coverage", no "reliable" sources, and having one criteria for inculsion fulfilled (a single source) is not grounds for inclusion when it fails to meet a single other criteria. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Olaf Davis. Ikip (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Slashdot is not a reliable source and unfulfilled predictions are not worth much. WillOakland (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you see the Chronicle article I mentioned above? It was added to the article but subsequently removed, and I think it is a reliable source. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep PLEASE keep this article, we can improve it as an article, notability is not required of sources only verifiability and reliability, I think the sources cited above, especially the ComputerWorld article suffice as sources. This was a legitimate project with noble objectives, paralleled by other opensource projects. —-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above in response to Jimmi, I actually think the ComputerWorld article is talking about a completely different project. The Chronicle is the only source on which I'm willing to base notability. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being "noble" or opensource is not grounds for inclusion. if you wnat a similar article, go see React OS, a system i have contributed code to in the past and which shows actually notability. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mean Machine (rap group)[edit]

The Mean Machine (rap group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think that this article meets the notability requirements, per WP:BAND.  Chzz  ►  11:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 13:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They have a unique place in the history of hip-hop. The New York Times described "Disco Dream" as an "early rap standout".[51] Also mentioned here and here.--Michig (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel John Winner[edit]

Emmanuel John Winner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unreferenced, non notable, books are vanity press, music seems to fail WP:MUSIC, most likely vanity, previously deprodded ccwaters (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I can't find any info about the publisher of his books, but several have been scanned by Google books and appear to be held in the collections of university libraries[52].
http://www.instantpublisher.com/ ccwaters (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 08:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah List[edit]

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

promotional; lack of reliable third-party sources on which to base an article. Tom Harrison Talk 12:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weak delete - Borderline advertising and no reliable sources for over two years. Few results in Google and none in Google News. I'm struggling to prove notability, but open to the potential. Seems I missed something there, Google News does indeed have various results though none of them are from particularly reputable sources. Greggers (t • c) 15:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google news only checks the last month by default--I make a habit of telling it to check "all dates". Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 16:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google books has one page listing the subject here. That's all I can find, and it ain't enough to qualify as multiple, non-trivial mentions. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A simple Google News search shows plenty of RS hits. Please review WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Books has plenty of relevant hits, too. Clearly looks like a case where the article doesn't make use of the sourcing that exists, so I've flagged it for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep'. It was mentioned in a magazine, which if the claim is valid, says it has 131,000 subscribers, which makes it quite notable indeed. That's a lot more people reading their message than many newspapers and magazines. Dream Focus 11:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I agree, but is that claim valid? It's quoted on various websites but I didn't find any evidence of it. If that were not to be true, would it still be worth keeping? Greg Tyler (t • c) 13:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like the quote was munged a bit and inflated from 127k to 131k (sneaky vandalism somewhere along the way?) but was substantially accurate, and I've found the original on the Charisma (magazine) web page, which really is independent, significant RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since nothing can be found in independant, reliable sources to ascertain notability. All the coverage that I've found is trivial. ThemFromSpace 19:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a a directory not an advertising service and no independent notability established via non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. In particular, no independent sources exist for this spamvertising's most extravagant claims, which means no verifiabilityBali ultimate (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete Nothing substantial enough to justify keeping this. WP:IINFO also. Springnuts (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC) ivo sources now included. Springnuts (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for revisiting this. Jclemens (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep While the article itself may be a stub, and is in need of a decent WP:CLEANUP, there does seem to be enough reliable coverage in NEWS and BOOKS to alow proper expansion and sourcing. Being poorly written does not automatically equate with deletion, if the improvement will benefit the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those articles constitute significant coverage in independant, reliable sources? I can't see any there that make this meet WP:N. ThemFromSpace 05:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Per discussion above, Charisma certainly does) Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bali Ultimate. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but did you take the time to notice that Bali Ultimate's statement does not accurately depict the article as it stands now? Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Sources As of now the article has two RS independent sources: 1) the McLaren book is published by Rowman & Littlefield which is clearly not a vanity press, and 2) the Charisma article, which is even more extensive, as well as being a major independent magazine within Charismatic Christianity. All !votes before this post which speak of poor/nonexistent sourcing (nom, John Carter, Themfromspace, Bali ultimate, Doctorfluffy) should be disregarded unless they are appropriately modified. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, I've just added a plethora of minor mentions (that speak to V rather than N) in reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't tell the admin whose votes to count, that's not your job. After looking over the sources, I stand by my initial observation. The coverage isn't significant enough. ThemFromSpace 06:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim O'Hare[edit]

Jim O'Hare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was originally prodded, and I endorsed it, however the creator then removed the prod template, so per Wikipedia:PROD#Conflicts I've listed it here, the concern is that due to a lack of sources the subject fails our notability guidelines SpitfireTally-ho! 11:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion, but the article seems to be a resume with no actual claim of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I thought stand-alone articles that fail WP:GNG are eligible for deletion? I'm not tryings to be defensive or pompous by asking this, I really am interested, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 15:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Failing WP:N is indeed grounds for deletion, but lack of sources simpliciter doesn't constitute a failure of WP:N. Articles need to be sourced (per WP:V), true, but the solution for unsourced articles is to find sources, not to delete the articles. Of course, if the sources can't be found, that may be grounds for deducing that the subject isn't notable - but that's a separate issue. Tevildo (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO; his IMDb entry [53] contains no further evidence of notability. Tevildo (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 16:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Pburka (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Not notable, no coverage in 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just to clarify, Tevildo, you do know that an editor doesn't need authorization to remove a speedy tag? Your edit summary seems to imply that you do need authorization. Zipcode456 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies - I was under the impression that the correct response to a CSD tag was to add a {{hangon}} tag and wait for admin adjudication, but apparently this only applies to the article creator; a potential anomaly/loophole in the rules? In any case, _this_ article should (IMO) be A7'd, tagging notwithstanding. Tevildo (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was

non-admin keep/merge, I will merge the article myself to Republic_of_Texas#Presidents_and_vice_presidents or List of Presidents of the Republic of Texas, editors are welcome to revert my merge, and you can all have a merge discussion on the talk page, if necessary. Thank you for the nominators good will in agreeing to this merge. Ikip (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Republic of Texas[edit]

President of the Republic of Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I just cleaned this up a bit... and then realised that it doesn't really contain anything not in List of Presidents of the Republic of Texas. While the article should exist given proper research and editing, in its current format it is redundant. Seegoon (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this article and merge/redirect List of Presidents of the Republic of Texas to it unless and until it's expanded enough to make two articles necessary. Most countries I've looked at have two seperate articles, but I found some with only 'President of' (e.g. President of Chile and President of Ireland) but none with only 'list of Presidents of'. I certainly don't think we should delete either as they're both likely search terms. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually completely agree; I don't know if I'm abusing the AfD process by bringing this article here, but this is certainly the outcome that I would've expected, rather than a straight up delete. Seegoon (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 12:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the list (with the redirect that follows), since the four people each have a link that idenitifies them as President of the Republic of Texas, although that list itself is duplicative of Republic of Texas. Potentially, someone could write a longer article about this office that lasted about a decade (1836-1846); the Republic of Texas had a Constitution, and there are ample sources about the president's powers. [54]. This article, however, is duplicative. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Olaf Davis. Edward321 (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per olaf, or merge. I dont see why this article was put up for deletion, when nominator could have merged instead. (refactored out).Ikip (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware that it shouldn't be deleted. However, as I noted, I wasn't sure what due procedure was. It is better that the article receives the attention it needs than to sit as redundant. I listed it here in order to generate discussion; in the future I won't do the same thing again. I wasn't feeling bold enough to do a merge myself, seeing as I wasn't entirely sure whether that would be appropriate. Now it evidently is, why not perform a non-admin closure and do what needs doing instead of chastising a Wikipedian acting in good faith? Seegoon (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry if I offended you, I refactored out my comments. Since there is no one asking for delete, I will close as merge, and merge the article myself. Again, my apologies. Ikip (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep While this article isn't perfect, it can be useful to anybody trying to look up information on the subject, and it would be annoying to anybody trying to look it up if you deleted it. Lets not forget, more people look up President then republic of texas, then say, Republic of texas, government of the republic of texas, then finally list of presidents of the republic of texas. People looking it up would have a much easier time going straight to a page. Just my opinion, and also because I made the page,but consider other people looking up pages without accounts. Old Al (My Talk page) 16:52 April 10 (UTC)
Comment Nothing has been made easier. A redirect will take a person straight to the proper page just as quickly as if someone typed in the current title, whether its a redirect from "List of" to "President of", or the other way around. Since you made the page (which includes the list), you may wish to add anything else from the list page to your page, then make that a redirect. Either way, there is no need for two pages that say the same thing. Mandsford (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People will not go to a list to find out about the position and it's role, they'll go to a page about the ROLE of the position and it's responsobility, so this page can be useful to many people. It DOES require cleanup though, that I will not argue. Old Al (My Talk page) 17:37 April 10 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Suggest that consensus indicates moving the material to a new title Fritzpoll (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean websites banned in South Korea[edit]

AfDs for this article:
North Korean websites banned in South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to merely be a summary of a report by the OpenNet Initiative, adding little additional material or sourced information. ZimZalaBim talk 11:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 12:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Zim, would you consider closing the AfD, and me changing the article name to Censorship in South Korea, in line with the other censhorship pages, and then expanding this page to add new subsections (media, etc)? Then adding expand tags? I can do all this. As the nominator, with no other people voting to delete, you can close the AfD now. Ikip (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Ikip has the right idea here. Bring the article in line with other "Censorship in --" articles. A general censorship in South Korea would make an interesting article, and I've been collecting sources-- mainly in the area of erotic cinema-- for a while, but most of them are turning into dead links... Interestingly, like Japan in the '50s, the South Korean government pushed a "3-S" policy (Sports, Sex and Screen), which was designed to focus public attention on these areas to keep their minds off criticizing the government-- which was censored... Also, censorship of the erotic content of film went through some pretty major swings-- from some relatively lenient times in the '50s and early '60s, to strict censorship in the mid- late-'60s, to almost pushing it in the '70s... and then they had a fascinating character like Kim Ki-young who was able to-- usually-- avoid government interference by being financially independent of the studios/government... Anyway, potentially an interesting, "notable" and sourceable article. Dekkappai (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More... further areas for the article occur to me-- besides the obvious (North Korea / communism in general, and the sometimes extreme censorship of coverage those subjects) the very odd/uncomfortable relationship with Japan, and the Japanese language and culture: When I was there-- late '80s - mid '90s-- members of the older generation would often pull me aside to share a bottle of soju while practising their Japanese. (They always assumed a foreigner could speak Japanese, but not Korean :) And my wife tells me that as children, they would be punished for speaking a Japanese word in school (this would be the '60s & '70s), no doubt as a way of cleaning the language & culture of occupation-era Japanese influence. Also the long official ban of Japanese films and TV shows, but their amazing "illegal" proliferation... resulting in some very strange situations within Korea and in relationship to Japan. I would be repeatedly told Japanese TV shows were "illegal" yet I'd see them on network TV, and video tapes everywhere... Anyway, this is all personal experience, but sourcing should be out there. And these would no doubt be prickly areas that might lead to POV edit-warring, but very interesting things anyway... Dekkappai (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources I did a quick search sources on censorship in Korea, and found a lot of dissertations, a lot of coverage of the Japan-occupation era censorship, some on MacArthur-era U.S. censorship. Here are a few to put in a Bibliography for the article (although Japan-era would be for Korea, period, not just South Korea):
    • Songgyun'gwan Taehakkyo. Japanese censorship system and Korean responses in colonial Korea : papers presented at the 2005 AAS Annual Meeting, April 2, 2005, organized by Academy of East Asian Studies, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea.. Seoul: Academy of East Asian Studies, Sungkyunkwan University, 2005. OCLC 278308380.
    • Im, Sang-hyeok. 영화와표현의자유 (Yeonghwa wa p'yohyeon eui jayu - Film and freedom of expression. Seoul: Ch'eongnim Ch'ulp'an, 2005. ISBN 8935206105.
    • Park, S.H. "Film Censorship and Political Legitimation in South Korea, 1987-1992" in Cinema Journal 42, Part 1 (2002): pp. 120-138. OCLC: 201980127.

Dekkappai (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but look for a better title, per Ikip and Dekkappai. The sources are quite sufficient. DGG (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Censorship in South Korea" per Ikip. PasswordUsername (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Anuar Manan. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anuar Manam[edit]

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

The pagename contains error. The article is referring to Anuar Manan, a Malaysian cyclist, not Anuar Manam. This page should have never existed. It should be deleted right away, should not be merged either as the info in the Anuar Manam article is already in Anuar Manan. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 10:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Merging may be appropriate, but in this instance, I'd be uncomfortable calling this AfD as being in favour of a merge. What is clear from all comments, however, is that the content should be retained. Feel free to discuss other issues outside AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches[edit]

Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches (listed by cast member) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches (listed chronologically) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(delete) – (View AfD)

All 3 of the articles here are almost extreme examples of WP:OR. None of these 3 articles have any references whatsoever. And these articles all date back to 2005 and 2006, so there has been plenty of time to present examples. The chronological list article might be the worst of the 3 as the dates have no references. Very bad example of list and fancruft. There isn't an even a definition of what is considered "recurring". User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 12:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all The article writers may have been too lazy to list sources, but SNL is probably one of the most documented television shows in history. Entire sites are devoted to it, such as SNL transcripts and The SNL archives]. Even by television show standards, the SNL summaries of skits are excessively detailed. Anyone who is trying to put this together by original research (i.e., watching a skit and taking notes) is wasting their time. Mandsford (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Saturday Night Live TV show sketches. Dalejenkins | 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and keep the content. The list vs. narrative form difference should be an editorial decision, not an AfD decision. Mandsford's comment on notability is spot-on, and the nominator is admonished to understand the difference between WP:OR (which this is not) and articles that lack sources (which this is). Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all Three alternative and useful listings for a major topic field. The chronological one could be combined with the main one in a sortable list, but the one by character which could not. if someone really insists on adding an explicit evidence that a show appeared on a given date, it can be added easily enough. DGG (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Saturday Night Live TV show sketches. JamesBurns (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 09:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of March 9, 2016[edit]

Solar eclipse of March 9, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Might fall under WP:NOTCRYSTAL Habanero-tan (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep see this AfD - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 12:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Barring an extinction level event, I think we can be confident of this one. Cheers. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 12:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination is made in good faith, but the solar eclipse articles follow a standard of reporting the projected astronomical data (duration, global path and GMT-identified chronology, width of shadow, magnitude, etc.). As noted in other discussions, the crystal-ball objection does not apply to astronomical events. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - this type of AfD must be the funniest application of WP:NOTCRYSTAL I have seen to date. Owen× ☎ 14:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Event will happen. Not "might". Will! JCutter (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'm here. Whaddaya need? WILL (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The event will come to pass. I know that it was I who nominated it for CSD (G2), but when I did, the page was just crap. It has improved now and must be kept. Anyhow I nominated it for a totally different reason. Pmlinediter (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, nothing to indicate why this is notable (so what if it is a solar eclipse, that doesn't make it automatically notable). ~~`~ TJ Spyke 21:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep for all the reasons given above. And if we have another Joshua event, we'll simply adjust the time scale. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might not happen. The moon might be blown out of its orbit to wander amongst the stars. It happened once before, in September 1999. Uncle G (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's fictional! I'm referring to the Bible! Drmies (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ~~`~ Nerfari (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if if the human species is extinct by then, for any one of several reasons, the event might take place, though with nobody to see it, thus raising interesting questions of verifiability--but those editing at the time will have to deal with that. DGG (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nom says that it might fail Wp:CRYSTAL - the first line of which reads Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation.. Unless the moon gets blown up, nicked by aliens or the sun blows up, then it's gonna happen. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Einstein was right; these things can be predicted with high accuracy, so it is not random speculation; almost all solar eclipses are notable. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • which ones are not? DGG (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The ones where humans weren't around to note them, perhaps. Considering the ratio of the one to the other, this is probably a quite unusual meaning of "almost all". It's more like "nearly no".

        Or maybe xe was thinking of the eclipses that occur for observers on other planets. Interestingly, there were four in succession on Saturn just recently. The Hubble space telescope took some pictures of what they look like from above, as did other telescopes. Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • "almost all solar eclispes are notable"... just how far into the future does notability extend? Nerfari (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There are something like just a dozen solar eclipes per century. I can hardly believe someone would nominate this for deletion. If our nominator plans to make any future nominations I urge them, in order not to waste the time of the rest of us, to do a bit of due diligence first, so that they know something about the topic first. Geo Swan (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moje Menhardt[edit]

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

One Google news hit, and nothing much else to say he's notable. A CV of an articles, with moderate web presence.There's a publication, but I can find no reviews, or secondary commentary suggesting impact. Scott Mac (Doc) 08:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Bionicle media#Games. MBisanz talk 08:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mata Nui Online Game[edit]

Mata Nui Online Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Mata Nui Online Game II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)

This nomination is for both the Mata Nui Online Game and the Mata Nui Online Game II articles. These articles are about browser games that do not cite any sources to express the notability of the subjects. There is already much better articles at the BIONICLEsector01 Wiki, a wiki devoted to Bionicle, information about these games is already there and should stay there. I originally marked these articles for speedy deletion under CSD A7, as the articles seemed to just right fall under what that criteria specified, but recently an admin notified me that they aren't all the way there yet, suggested I list them here, so here they are! Most browser games aren't notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Remember that this nomination is for both articles. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative Keep I was the admin who declined the speedy because I think there were some assertions of notability and they had significiant history. I've also found what appears to be a good number of reliable sources that would allow for the creation of a sourced article. I don't know of any general thought that browser games aren't notable, nor does the fact that if it it's covered somewhere else, it shouldn't be here. That said, I don't know enough about the game to really evaluate the sources, I want to pt them out there for someone who may be more familiar and can judge them. StarM 12:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to weak delete/Merge in the face of those below who clearly understand the field more. However, there were still assertions of notability, which means it's not an A7. No issue with discussion, this is not a blp that needs handling right away. Is there perhaps a good merge target? Seems as if it's not independently notable per the comments below but could be discussed elsewhere? StarM 00:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a merge were in order, the correct place would be List of Bionicle media#Games, where they're already mentioned. Without any secondary sources whatsoever, however, and with the two press releases I found being essentially content-free (they verify only the developer, the release date of the first game, and the planned release date of the second), it really isn't justifiable. The articles as they stand are unverifiable and almost completely comprised of original research. I'd only consider redirects as an alternative to salting in the face of persistent recreation. —Korath (Talk) 02:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • COmment if they're already mentioned there (I take your word, I can't get that page to load,, been having timeout issues on here tonight) then why not re-direct? I wouldn't mind deleting, creating re-direct and then protecting the re-direct. I won't, however, do that as I've already !voted but it seems to be a plausible solution as they're mentioned in that section and it could be a valid search term. StarM 03:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Remember that these are browser games, not computer game software. They have no reliable sources to back up the statements made about the games, instead it's just all original research. Therefore the games are not notable enough to merit a suitable mention on Wikipedia. As I said before, there are already large and very good articles about these games at the BIONICLEsector01 Wiki (BS01), a large wiki with complete information about everything Bionicle, including these games. Readers looking for information on these games can go to BS01 to learn everything they would ever want to know about them. As BS01 does not have all the specific policies and guidelines that Wikipedia has, and as it is devoted to Bionicle information anyways, we can let them get their article back. If a game does not have any reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of it, it shouldn't get a Wikipedia article. Besides, these games' articles more constitute game guides than encyclopedia articles. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm leary of redirecting for three reasons:
          1. I intend to either remove or drastically trim the current mention there. I can't find anything in either the full articles or in the text currently at List of Bionicle media that I can verify without duplicating the original authors' original research by going to the site and playing the game myself, nor enough source material to verify more than the games' existence.
          2. They seem unlikely search targets. (Repeated recreation would prove me wrong.)
          3. I want to be sure the unsalvageable original research currently in these articles is deleted, not hidden behind a redirect for easy reversion or incorporation into other articles. I have no real objection to redirecting after deletion. —Korath (Talk) 07:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • All seem to be valid courses of action, but I don't think they preclude re-direction. I also tend to think that having the protected redirects point there keep from having to watch for re-creation in multiple venues. Those familiar with the topic can keep an eye on one place. I think what you intend to do should happen, but I don't think they can't happen if the re-direct occurs StarM 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 12:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 12:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know about this particular browser game but I do deal with a lot of the more obscure video game types. From what the articles are saying these games are being used as an advertising medium (browser/flash games are a hell of a lot more interesting than banner ads) which doesn't necessarily help in getting them reviewed as standalone games. Like any other game they need reviews for establishing notability and to provide materials to build a neutral and meaningful article, an initial search showed no such sources. What doesn't help is that Mata Nui appears in at least one commercially released Bionicle game, muddying searches. If no secondary sources are found it may be worth mentioning them somewhere and redirecting. Someoneanother 14:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The vast majority of the hits in StarM's news search do not mention the online game; "Mata Nui" is apparently a prominent character and island in Bionicle, so there's a lot of false positives. I've looked through them and done a few searches of my own, and have only found two exceedingly trivial mentions and two press releases. All that can be verified from third-party sources is that there are games playable on Bionicle's website; this doesn't even merit a mention in List of Bionicle media#Games. —Korath (Talk) 14:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Largely non-notable, in-universe, game guide information. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bionicle or Delete. Does it pass the general notability guideline? Not as far as I can tell from online sources[57]. Is it an officially licenced game? If so, then redirect to the parent article as a viable search term. Marasmusine (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing to build a proper article with or demonstrate notability. Like any other type of game, there needs to be either reviews or similar secondary sources. Someoneanother 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Paquet[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Joseph Paquet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wicca_music[edit]

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

    Article has not improved in notability since previous deletion debate and still focuses on one band.

    I'm also troubled by the fact that my first (albeit bugged, as I didn't finish) attempt to record this as AfD was deleted by a major author of this article, who, in fact, is also focused primarily on writing this article and the article about the band that this article primarily focuses on.

    Neither seem notable. No real examples outside of this one band have been given as to the notability of Wiccan music as a rock genre.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taniwha (talk • contribs)

    • keep That's a little bizarre. I was in the middle of making changes to the article including responding to requests for citations and you began overwriting my edits and then claim that no work has been done to improve the article. I am NOT a major author of the article and I will stop working on that article as you have requested. Katie alsop (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears that about the last 10 edits that weren't me putting up the AfD header that you deleted, were you. That counts to me as you being a major editor. As I noted, your edits have primarily been this article and Themis, which was deleted for about the same reason I'm suggesting this be. Notability. Most of the links on this article point to this one band, not a large movement to be captured. Perhaps once it's more emerged rather than emerging it'll be notable enough to capture on Wikipedia? Taniwha (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that I made the edits is not sufficient reason to delete an article. You haven't made a case for deletion, only a case for disallowing me the right to make edits on Wikipedia. So I have stopped. Katie alsop (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I did not claim that the fact that YOU made the edits is sufficient reason to delete the article. Kindly do not cloud the issue by taking this personally. I noted that you deleted my first AfD header, which, I admit, was made incorrectly. So I remade it. I assumed, incorrectly perhaps, that you deleted my header in defense of your article. My apologies. It is, however, valid to note that you have done work on both this article and the one on Themis, both of which are potential AfDs for notability. Also, I see that you slapped a "Notability" warning on my personal user page. That's hardly funny. Taniwha (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Whilst I support an article on Wicca music, this isn't it (I AfD'ed it the first time). This is still just a narrow vanity piece on one band. The opening sentence of, "Wicca music or Wicca rock is music [...] written by Wiccan musicians living in Canada." is ridiculous. It tries to justify the limitations of the article by turning them into some false defining characteristic of the genre. I'd like to see this article grow and prosper, but despite repeated claims that it will do so if left alone, it has failed to improve. As it stands, we'd be better off without it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Reply "Wicca music or Wicca rock is music [...] written by Wiccan musicians living in Canada." is ridiculous an unwanted edit. Someone randomly came along and added that as well as putting the article into the Category of "Canadian Wiccans" or some such chav thing Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral/delete Like the above editor I support the idea of a Wiica music article, and in fact have suggested Google Books sources for decent sourcing. I personally know sufficiently little about the subject area to helpfully contribute. However, it is critical to point out that at present the article is not about the importance of music to the practice of the Wiccan faith but largely an advertisement for the band Themis (and to a lesser extent the equally non-notable act Chalice and Blade). If it can be re-written from scratch and appropriately sourced I will absolutely support its existence, as I truly believe that the topic in general is notable. But Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I WROTE INITIATED THIS ARTICLE and it isn't "self promotion" as I am not a member of any band. I am Wiccan only because of Themis members, friends and followers which lead a brand of Wicca sans witchcrap. It is a phenomenon of itself--a whole new movement of Wicca that quietly exploded in membership in the past few years. It is strongest on the West coast of America where Katie is from. There is a course taught at the So. California State Uni. It's about a religion many people are now passionate about. But what's going on here? You want work done on the article but to do anything is to get it deleted. Read the history on the article. The minute someone comes along and starts to do work on the article, some self-proclaimed deletionist (Taniwha ) notices it on the change list and nominates the article for deletion, just when it has someone to work on it. Read the history. Blackmetalbaz deletes a dead reference and Katie alsop (about 7 lines down) inserts a valid replacement. Etceteras. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment First, I think you're getting too far into a discussion of your views on Wicca. Maybe this is all a discussion better suited for the Wicca article than a music genre article? Also, kindly don't personally attack me for the AfD. Don't take it personally. I didn't notice this on the change list - I noticed it in the template box for Alternative Rock categories and said "really? What's the background on that genre?" only to see that the article is basically one band from Canada. Heck, even the link about "an emerging genre" is just about that one band. I read through the history and saw that the article had once been nominated for AfD, and was kept so that it could improve. It hasn't. It's still about one band. That one band's article was deleted before and recreated under another name, and is up for AfD again. If the band is of questionable notability and the genre is primarily one band, how is the article any more valid? Katie alsop has been a prime mover on both articles, and neither is notable IMO. Taniwha (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Katie alsop was right to remove [58] the first AfD notice, since it pointed to the first, already closed, nomination in January. Equendil Talk 14:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yep. I put the wrong header, afd1 instead of afdx. Before I could fix it, it was gone. Taniwha (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I like that Katie alsop took it on to fix up the article and the Themis one as well. Why don't we give her a chance instead of making the cleaning up of a Wikipedia article akin to poking ones eyes out with hot needles. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Katie Alsop can fix as much as she can, but she cannot overcome the complete and utter lack of independent and reliable sources on this topic--see this search. Almost the entire article is an ad for Themis. And if this topic is indeed notable, how come there is not a single notable band playing this style? Themis? Chalice and Blade? Not exactly notable bands. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ERROR The category of this article is Wicca and it talks about music influenced by Wicca. It is not required to meet the criterion of WP:MUSIC and... google.com produced Results 1 - 10 of about 3,420 for "wicca music". Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The article is actually linked from the template on Alternative Music, so it needs to meet viability for Music articles. Sorry. A good number of the links on that google search are copies of the Wikipedia page. Others are links to music about or related to Wicca. I took a quick read of several of the articles related to Wicca and Music, and noted that the articles didn't mention Themis, or even match up with the definition of "Wicca music" that this article puts forth.Taniwha (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please point us to the section of WP:MUSIC that deals with notability of alternative genres, rather than individual bands? I haven't found that. As far as notability goes, I'm happy that this topic is notable, just not that the article is good enough.Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - it is possible that there is such a thing; but this article is irrelevant to such an assertion. It's a clearcut vanity piece with a COI a mile wide. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott Weave 03:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott Weave 03:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I concur with Orange Mike; the subject CAN be written on, but this article is COI, POV garbage in its current form. If it's kept, I'll probably help clean it up, but it could really benefit from an expert who's both familiar with the topic and willing to write from an NPOV perspective. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but "stubify" - there is a seed of a decent article here, but most of it is POV promotion. Delete the advertisement stuff and leave a stub upon which a good article can be built. LadyofShalott Weave 04:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: the article has a number of major problems - lack of neutrality, representative bands who could easily be deletion candidates, a lack of reliable independent 3rd party sources, a conflict of interest. JamesBurns (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Neutrality. What utter nonsense. You talk about getting people who know something about the topic to rewrite the article as if you need someone who has your point of view to do it. I swear the people writing comments here haven't read the article. What is significant about popular Wicca music is that it represents the new and more popular incarnation of the religion which sways away from a focus on ancient (silly) traditions (the craft) and adopts a more modern, somewhat eclectic approach to spirituality. If you are looking for witches and spells, look elsewhere. The modern movement's intellectuals has no interest. If you are looking for an end to a patriarchal society (include Wiki) and saving the rain forest, join the modern (Themis-brand) Wicca movement. Remember that 'Themis' was about balance and justice, putting the mother at the head of the famly and seeking a gender equality in life with justice, nurturing and mourishing for the "oneness" of all sentient beings. Clearly people working on this article are on a different wavelength from the people who shred it who still think its about ego and a musical band. Pffft. I could use whatever help I can get. Scoffing at me continually is just crap. Read the article. Make it better. I like how it reads right now. Katie alsop (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I preferred it when wicca was still an underground religion and knowledge was kept only between initiants. It's become too much like christianity with its younger adherents engaging in sermonising and preaching using the internet. And what's with the gothic posturing such as dressing in black and calling themselves countess and ruffian angel? That's the opposite of what earth religions and "cunning folk" practiced. JamesBurns (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That comment has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the article in question should be deleted. We need to keep the irrelevant comments out of this discussion. LadyofShalott Weave 02:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And calling followers of the traditional craft as "silly" is? JamesBurns (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just a couple of brief points really, as I think most of the valuable points to this discussion have been made, but a) a Google Books search suggests that an article on Wiccan music in general might fly (I got plenty of hits), and that a paragraph mentioning Themis etc. (making sure we didn't contravene WP:UNDUE) may be appropriate, if sourced properly. b) If your claim is that the article should be exclusively about this supposedly emergent genre, then it will get deleted in the absence of any sources at all to demonstrate its notability; nothing in the article does that. c) Actually I know a number of people that follow the "silly" Craft as you put it; in general it is a good idea to not mock people's religious beliefs of any kind on Wikipedia... the guideline is WP:CIVIL. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: I know a number of people that follow the "silly" Craft as you put it; I am very sorry. I did not intend to mock anyone. By "silly traditions" I was referring to traditions I consider silly within the Wicca 'craft'. I wasn't referring to any person in specific, especially not your associates or w/e. I am not alone and there is widespread concern about many very old-fashioned beliefs dating back dozens of centuries. For example, the Wiccan law of return. The Law of Return is the belief that any action will return like action in this life. This is not karma, not retribution in a future life. The return is in this life, here and now. Some believe the return is three-fold, hence the "Three-Fold Law." Trust me, it's silly. It's a lot like the belief in the earth being flat. It really isn't flat. That's a silly thing to believe because in the years long after Christ walked the earth, a dozen centuries after, we found out the earth was not flat. Wicca goes back may centuries before that and has some equally bad misunderstandings relating to earth, nature, and the universe. In Wicca today, we know there are outdated things people believed in long before JC walked the earth. We simply know better now. Take for example the men who flew those airplanes into the tall buildings in New York. Of course the Law of Return did not apply. Trust me, that is one thing you should not count on. Be good for goodness sake, not because of the Law of Return. Tell others the same. The Law of Return was wrong and most Wiccans I know believe the old thinking was silly. We have learned differently over the ages. I hope you understand that many old beliefs in many modern faiths are regarded as old thinking, even silly. Not everyone, but most people try to stay up to date. The earth is not flat, that's silly, it's round. And that is what I mean by "silly" Katie alsop (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Neutrality. I'm a little baffled at the objections to the mention of the band 'Themis' in this article. If writing an article on 'Marxism' do you fail to mention Karl Marx? No. If a school of thought is created branching off of an entity's idea or interpretation of an idea, then they are notable within that topic. No modern outspoken entity has taken the stage to speak of Wicca since days post wheel and fire discovery (Gardnerian thesis), save for Themis, which in the era post stell cell discovery espouses an eclectic, more modern spirituality. We're not talking Gardner's covens and witching circles here. And while, yes, I am a newb here, I think my opinion counts as much as anyone else's. I think the article meets the notability standards and isn't "shameful self-promotion" on anyone's part. I am an eclectic Wiccan. I can try and help write parts of the article but the subtleties of Wiki structuring I am not yet familiar with... a little help? BloodiedRoses (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    — BloodiedRoses (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Let me put it this way: if Marxism were brand new, had a few dozen followers, and basically no global recognition yet, we'd be making this same argument about deleting an article on Marxism. On a different note, if you feel that Wicca Music is totally defined by this Themis group, to the complete exclusion of all other forms of music that might be associated with Wicca, I can see how you'd argue that the article on Wicca Music would have to be Themis-heavy. But a musical trend defined by one band is not a trend, not a genre. It's the sound of one band. This article purported to be a definition of a genre of music that apparently doesn't really exist as a genre. Also, the article on Themis has been deleted based on their non-notability. Twice. Taniwha (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. There's no evidence in the article that the genre exists in the first place. The quoted sources _might_ be enough to support Themis (band) as an article under WP:BAND, and I would suggest that the editors who want to keep this article concentrate on that instead. Tevildo (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • Related Question... I first discovered this page (and created the 2nd AfD) because I discovered the 'genre' article on the Alternative Rock template. If this page is deleted, will it automatically be removed from the template, or will it need manually removed? Taniwha (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. If we end up deleting this article, I will be sure to do that. Taniwha (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to challenge - Actually, there's no rule that says Countess shouldn't express her opinion in discussions such as this. Her POV will doubtlessly be taken into account by whatever admin closes this discussion. LadyofShalott Weave 18:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OK, fair enough, there's no rule that says she can't vote, but the Articles for Deletion guidelines state "# Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article.". Taniwha (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discussion I`m curious about this. Showing that there is not enough net notability for Themis or this narrow definition of wicca rock as a genre defined by one non notable Canadian roc band with an ideological message is not a valid reason to delete? I think you should focus on proving why the article should be kept. Except, as I said, you are the su ject of the article and I feel you should abstain from a direct vote. But if you want to discss the issue, do, please. Use my talk page even. Taniwha (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Commment The article fails WP:N and WP:NPOV. No significant coverage anywhere for the specific branch of Wiccan music it's writing about. The music of Themis (band) is not notable as has been demonstrated in that AfD. It fails WP:NPOV precisely because (as is evinced in comments above) the editors are not interested in writing about Wiccan music in general. If such an article were written, I would support it whole-heartedly and give Themis the due weight it deserves, which is, at best, a sentence. If we strip out all of the Themis stuff at the moment, all that we are left with is a statement that Wicca music is music made by Wiccans, which is simply a dicdef. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My final comment, for the benefit of the closing admin. Bearing in mind that the article is exclusively about one band, it's well worth reading the previous deletion logs associated with this page here, here, here and here. They show the repeated deletion and recreation of the same material by a small group of editors, and I suggest make a case for salting. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment Seconded. Taniwha (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per nom. Notability appears to hinge on one deleted band, with thin references. Is there mention an article in a credible major publication, even one pertaining to popular music? Otherwise, this looks like a very well-constructed example of WP:OR. JNW (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Greg Gossel[edit]

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

    Does not appear to meet WP:Creative; there seem to be COI issues in the page history as well. I can find only one example of coverage by a major newspaper (already sourced), although he does seem to have a significant presence in the blogosphere. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I googled Libby Nicholaou, who apparently is a marketing intern at a San Francisco gallery.[59] Although it sounds suspicious, that gallery does not appear to show work by this artist.[60] The Shooting Gallery edits were my main concern regarding COI. Never mind, they are both suspect: Libby Nicholaou claims elsewhere[61] to be the director of the Shooting Gallery. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. MBisanz talk 09:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Aijaz ahmad mangi[edit]

    Aijaz ahmad mangi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Aijaz Ahmad Mangi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Does not seem to meet WP:BIO. Self-published sources which do not seem to meet WP:RS. Also, please see the article history page for some additional information regarding the CSD A7 tags which were repeatedly removed. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC) --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Aijaz Ahmad Mangi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    More recent article with upper case letters is nominated as well. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - I see no indication from the included refs that this person "is one of the most outstanding names in urdu and sindhi journalism", or is in any other way not just an ordinary journalist. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same as this Aijaz Ahmed[62] Mangi? In that case, keep. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weakish keep, not that the article didn't qualify for speedy deletion, it did; but I share the suspicion of some here that the subject might be notable. The link above notes that the subject, in addition to being a journalist, became the secretary of the "SAB". Assuming that the SAB refers to the Sindhi Adabi Board, it seems that there may well be information out there to show notability. I agree, the article doesn't do it now, but I am always reluctant to consign non-English subjects to non-notability without giving them every reasonable chance. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw nomination: Although most of the sources are press releases, I'm willing to let this one go. I'll try to do some digging on the sources, and add the reference which (Apoc2400) was able to find,(here) as this is a reliable local news source. Any passing admin can feel free to close, keep and merge any differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverTwisted (talk • contribs) 13:00, April 10, 2009
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bulgaria–Chile relations[edit]

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

    Random bilateral pairing; not inherently notable (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia–Serbia relations). No additional material to indicate notability. That Chile cut off relations with Bulgaria during WWII and that Bulgaria cut off relations with Chile after Pinochet's coup is interesting, but as Bulgaria was hardly unique in either of these instances, the matter can easily be mentioned at Foreign relations of Chile. That Bulgaria's foreign minister visited Chile four years ago is nice, but hardly more than a news story. Biruitorul Talk 04:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Doesn't meet WP:N Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 12:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 12:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete given the cogent argument of the nominator. I do not see how these relations are notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no reliable sources exist to establish notability for this topic. The relevant "Foreign relations of" articles are a target if anything happens encyclopedic in future.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless someone finds something, which i rather doubt they will. Not snow, though, in order to give a chance for it in the 7 days that AfDs now run. DGG (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Currently delete. Lacks content to be notable. feydey (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non-notable, doesn't look like it will be. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Establishment of embassies/consulates is a good indication of existing relations; finding specific information is just a matter of work. The article needs to be expanded, not deleted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:26, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
      • The embassies' existence is documented at Diplomatic missions of Bulgaria and Diplomatic missions of Chile; ambassadors do not automatically confer notability on a relationship (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poland–Uruguay relations); sources would still be needed to establish that. - Biruitorul Talk 18:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would you care to specify which particular sentence of WP:N makes an ambassadorial exchange (which, I agree, should be sourced in this article; but that's an expansion/copyedit request, not a grounds for automatic deletion) unnotable?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:50, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
          • The topic has failed to receive (per WP:N) "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; it is already covered elsewhere; at least one previous discussion has found a lack of notability in a relationship consisting merely of an ambassadorial exchange; and even WP:DIPLOMAT does not recognise inherent notability for ambassadors, much less for the relations they embody. The burden of proof is on others to supply reliable secondary sources showing notability (in addition to that already recorded in the lists). - Biruitorul Talk 19:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the clarification, it makes sense and I see your logic. However, since I personally disagree with this interpretation/approach, I am going to stick to my "keep" vote. I do not believe it is right to put an article up for deletion without giving it a reasonable chance for expansion first—did anyone bother to notify WP:BG and/or WP:CHILE before nominating this article for deletion?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:18, April 15, 2009 (UTC)
              • I appreciate your perspective and I suppose the best I can say is that if this ends up being deleted, there's not much content there and recreation won't be too much of a hassle, should additional sources turn up (which I hope they do - more articles is usually a laudable thing). - Biruitorul Talk 00:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 09:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bulgaria–Colombia relations[edit]

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

    Random bilateral pairing; not inherently notable (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia–Serbia relations). No additional material to indicate notability. Biruitorul Talk 04:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Doesn't meet WP:N Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, they do not even have embassies in each others' countries. Punkmorten (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 12:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As noted, the two nations do not even have embassies. In looking over the talk page of the user who created the article, he/she was identified as a sockpuppet of the more famous of the creators of these articles. If a ban is ever applied to an editor (and I must emphasize that this has not happened yet), then WP:SPEEDY at G5 would apply to any suspect articles created after a ban took effect. Mandsford (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:N. No embassies. The ELs are just points of contact. I couldn't find news articles, discussions in books, or corresponding articles in the Spanish or Bulgarian wikipedias. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, the fact that they have relations does not assert notability. There isn't even any embassies to represent each other... Tavix |  Talk  17:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for lack of notability. This sure seems like indiscriminate information. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no reliable sources exist to establish notability for this topic. The relevant "Foreigion relations of" articles are a target if anything happens encyclopedic in future.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - there is hardly any relationship between these countries. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete C'mon, Bulgaria and Colombia? What do these two countries have in common? Not even an attempt at notability or history or historical context compared to other random pairs of countries (though few others seem as random as these two!). Simply not notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless someone finds something, which i rather doubt they will. Not snow, though, in order to give a chance for it in the 7 days. DGG (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 08:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bulgaria–Peru relations[edit]

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

    Random bilateral pairing; not inherently notable (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia–Serbia relations). No additional material to indicate notability. Biruitorul Talk 04:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not every nation has the money to maintain as many embassies, and also, with communications as good as they are these days, you don't really need an ambassador there. Cheaper to talk online or on the phone, or fly someone over for meetings at times, than to maintain a full embassy in a nation. Dream Focus 01:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with that. Opening an embassy in another country says something about that country's relationship. There are things that an ambassador living in a country can do that is a lot harder by phone, such as open trade and diplomatic relationships. Embassies also assist expats and travellers from their home countries, this is also an indication of ties between nations. If what you are saying is true, then there is no point in this day and age of phone and internet of having any embassy. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, opening embassies is a useful symbol. However, it is not an essential criterion for notability of the relationship.
    It's not just the phone and the Internet that has been developed in the recent decades. There's another, often overlooked but no less important system: roads. Once upon a time, it would have taken days to travel from, say, Amsterdam to Brussels. Nowadays, it's a few hours by a good, well-maintained highway. Once upon a time, it made sense for every king, every president, every sovereign to maintain separate ambassadors with every other sovereign for fast consultation. The world was a larger place then than now, and these days, fast consultation is cheaper and doesn't take quite as many ambassadors. Many countries maintain a single embassy for all three Benelux countries, for example. Some maintain a single embassy for two or three Nordic countries at once. Maintaining a single embassy for Brazil and Peru, well-connected neighbours, is no different. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - sorry, but I do not see a lot in the stub to show this relationship meets my usual standards for notability. Can someone please put the sources found by WilyD into the stub --and into context? Are there any other citations available? Bearian (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep If you search in the native languages of those two nations, you could surely find news articles about the relationship between them. Is it realistic to assume there has been absolutely no news coverage about trade or diplomatic meetings for decades? If we knew the names of all the big newspapers in those two countries, and did a proper search, surely we'd find something. Dream Focus 01:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: This is all I could find from El Comercio (Peru), which is supposed to be one of Peru's major newspapers; Bulgaria recognizes Peru's claim to "Pisco", Illicit transfer of weaponry from Bulgaria to Peru causes political scandal, Commerce with the European Union expanded by 28.7%, Bulgaria one of the mentioned nations (2008). I vote keep as the subject is somewhat notable.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can a viable article actually be constructed out of that? "They have relations! And Bulgaria supports Peru over Tisco! And they had a tiff over weapons transfers! And Bulgaria is one of 9 EU countries to have more trade with Peru in 2008! The end." - Biruitorul Talk 14:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's enough information for a start-class article. Or should we begin to delete all articles that are start-class?--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That sounds like a straw man: start-class articles can generally undergo further expansion; this one is bound to remain a small string of disparate bits of news. Especially troubling is that the relationship itself is covered nowhere, only transient interactions between the two parties that an editor has decided constitute notable facets of the relationship. But of course, you'll never find a paragraph in a book or even a newspaper article actually discussing "relations between Bulgaria and Peru" as a discrete topic: no one has deemed it worthy of scholarly or even press attention, and neither should we. - Biruitorul Talk 04:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. According to presented sources, this is quite an interesting relationship with a number of notable conflicts and a number of notable making-ups. These should be discussed in the article, and it'll make a nice addition to Wikipedia's treatment of international relations. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per improvements made per WP:AFTER and notability shown. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ascentive[edit]

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

    Unreferenced, not-notable, and appears to be almost attempting to give notoriety to an otherwise unknown group. WP has articles for major viruses, trojans, and rogues, but doesn't need articles for every rogue software group who would be happy to solidify their rep with other wannabe virus writers through a WP article of their own. JCutter (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - Not-notable; seems to be advertising and posturisation for otherwise unimportant. From the internet, it appears that this group offer performance-enhancing software that actually acts as malware. Not the sort of thing Wikipedia supports. Greggers (t • c) 11:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete but for different reasons than noted. This page looks like the corporate equivalent of a BLP violation or an attack page. I did a google news search and the company actually looks like it (at least at one time) legit; their main product appeared to be a software package that allowed employers or parents to monitor and control their employees and children's internet usage while at work. MSNBC did a bit on them: [63] as did the Raleigh News and Observer: [64]. This article, however, makes no use of these sources and I'm not sure there's much here worth saving; if a proper article on this company were created at a later date, I would not object, but what's there now clearly has to go. (for full disclosure, I denied a speedy deletion request on this company, and recommended that an AFD discussion be started instead). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pakistani Trinidadian[edit]

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

    This article is without sources, reliable or otherwise. As such, it appears to be either original research and/or synthesis. The author has been banned, and his most recent article: India and state terrorism was deleted for the same reasons. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Whilst no doubt it exists, I see no sources to write this article. So, that's a delete from me.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This article was recently updated to include a source regarding the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, which did not support the original and/or unsourced content rearding the lineage of Trinidadians.[65] This article seems to be another deliberate attempt to introduce political information in a way which is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the amount of info that has been freely expressed, it is a possibility that the creator could be a "Pakistani Trinidadian" himself. It is quite true that alot of the stuff written here has not been verified as of yet. This logic howver becomes further irrationalised, especially when I clicked up on the Indo-Trinidadian page, which also does not cite any sources and seems purely original research. I think both these articles should be brought into question. Ronaldochamp (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't discount that possibility, however, the Indo-Trinidadian page contains references, as shown here: [66], as well as a list of notable people. It has also been tagged for improved references. If you have serious concerns, please consider nominating the article yourself. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominating the Indo-Trinidadian page would be an utter waste of the Afd process. If you do basic research you would know that the Indo-Trinidadian's make up 40% of the population in Trinidad, have had a vast cultural, economic and political impact on the island. The article needs work, but that doesn't put it up for nomination for deletion. --  R45  talk! 17:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's completely unsourced, and written in a vague style that indicates that the author really doesn't know anything about people of "Pakistani descent" who live in Trinidad. We're told that some "trace their ancestry" to people "who immigrated to the Carribean during the 1800s" (before Pakistan was created out of the Moslem sections of British India); and that "the majority of those...were predominantly Muslim by religion" (good guess, and I'm glad that it's clarified that Muslim means their religion rather than their hair-color)..."although a sizeable portion were Hindu as well" (the ones who weren't Muslim); they celebrate Indian Arrival Day and Eid and Divali. Muslims in Trinidad (some of whom might be of Pakistani descent, of course) are in an Muslim organization. My favorite vague statement is that "Although the primary culture of those who descend from the early settlers has long been lost" Pakistani Trinidadians have "managed to stick on to...(Pakistani) food, art and music". And to wrap it up, language-wise "most predominantly now speak Trinidadian languages" (makes life easier in Trinidad) while a "fair" minority "may be able to converse fluently in Urdu." Or not. Mandsford (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mandsford, I think it is kind of unwise to attack the info that has been inserted in the article- who knows, it could be true. It would of course, be rational to focus more on the lack of sources in the article and I am now going to try to get some more stuff for this from the net if I can. If I still fail to find direct relevant pieces of info, I think that chances seem to be bleak. Teckgeek (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate what you're saying, but that's the problem-- making up for a lack of knowledge with statements that seem likely to be true, starting with the population of "Pakistani Trinidadians" (small community). People in Pakistan are predominantly Muslim, and therefore Pakistanis abroad are likely to acknowledge some recognizable Muslim holidays; Urdu is spoken in Pakistan, so its likely that a fair minority of Pakistanis in X-land can "converse fluently" in Urdu; etc. It reminds me of that scene in School of Rock where Jack Black is talking to the parents about what he's been teaching, and he starts naming things that seem likely "they're learning English...and Spanish...and French...and uh, algebra..." Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no evidence for anything in this article, and the usual barrages of Google/GBooks/GScholar searches utterly fail to turn up any evidence. Wikipedia does not work on the principle of "who knows, it could be true". cab (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Teckgeek - regarding "who knows, it could be true"...Simple answer: I know; it's not true. Guettarda (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Some Pakistani Trinidadians can trace their ancestry to indentured labourers who immigrated to the Carribean during the 1800s. That's historical revisionism at best. "Indian", "East Indian", "Indo-Trinidadian", "dougla"...all of these terms have currency for the descendants of indentured immigrants from the subcontinent. Not "Pakistani". Most immigrants came from Uttar Pradesh or Bihar, with a significant minority of south Indians (presumably mostly Tamils). There were very few Panjabis or Sindhis of any stripe, and they few that they were intermarried with people from other parts of the subcontinent. If there were more than a handful of Indo-Trinis who could actually trace their roots to Sindh or Pakistani Panjab, I'd know about it. The remainder of the article is about Trinidadian Muslims. That's totally distinct. Sure, there are a handful of Trinidadians with roots in post-Partition Pakistan (I had a neighbour who was from Pakistan), but there aren't a distinct ethnic group, and they aren't notable as a group. I'd call it more wishful thinking than hoax, but there's no substance to this article. Guettarda (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - When the British brought indentured laborers from India, there was no Pakistan at the time. Although I do not doubt that some of the East Indians brought may have come from modern day Pakistan, there was no "Pakistan" at the time. This article is completely un-sourced and with good reason. I've never heard of the term Pakistani Trinidadian (I was educated in Trinidad). This is a fabricated article out of nothing. There is no substance in the article whatsoever (mentions of Islam and the broad East Indian indentureship which are covered in Indo-Trinidadian. --  R45  talk! 17:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to List of philosophies. MBisanz talk 08:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of philosophical theories[edit]

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

    This is an inappropriate cut/paste merge of List of philosophies (which has been around since 2004) and List of belief systems. Rather than rename one and then merge the other into it, the editor merged (cut and pasted) them both into a new (this) article, stranding the edit histories of both merged articles on their respective redirect pages. Separately from this debate, I have challenged (reverted) the merges by restoring the original pages from their redirects. Any rename or merge debate of those two articles can take place on their respective talk pages. This deletion debate pertains to this new page and its damaged edit history. The Transhumanist 03:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete? - this seems like a speedy, but I couldn't find it in any of the reasons listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. The Transhumanist 04:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment G6 could apply if your position that the merge should be done properly is 'non-controversial', which I suspect it may. If Gregbard or someone else objects and it becomes controversial then my vote is Delete for that reason, without prejudice as to the desirability of a merge. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to List of philosophies, as this is a common search term. Cheers. I'mperator 12:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- This had been deleted before as list of isms a long time ago. Perhaps its time has come but I will miss it. I have preserved it in my userspace for my own uses. Basically, I have come around to the idea that organizing around the suffix "ism" is not the best way to organize things. However, I found that particular list very valuable, and I preserved it as List of belief systems for a while, and then moved it to List_of_philosophical_theories which is now under consideration for deletion.
    I have always been very interested in this area. I have made many edits in the area of isms, theories, belief systems, movements, schools of thought, etcetera. I have been trying to develop the philosophy department in general. My idea is to make sure that every article which should be; is A) covered under the appropriate category in the Philosophy category tree, and B) has the philosophy banner on its talk page with the appropriate parameters. I have been organizing mainly on the talk side, with the banner parameters, with the idea that it will be very easy to use awb to work on categories in the main space after we make sure that things are best categorized on the talk side. Ideally, every philosophy article should have at least one a) field, b) tradition and c) era.
    In the area of these "isms" I have found that they are all invariably describable as "theories." This is to say they all can be expressed in the form described in the article theory (mathematical logic) such that each one is a group of sentences {t1, t2,t3,t4,t5,...}, each one of which is believed to be true, and which explains something, etcetera. I find this is excellent in that it is the least that we can say for absolute sure (i.e. whether or not it is a "movement" involves a social judgment, whether or not it is a "belief system" depends on there being believers, etcetera). To identify something as a theory is to make an intellectual identification, not a social one. This permits for all kinds of things very generally, and this is good for the philosophy department.
    I have further developed a few subcategories which I hope will allow us to tighten things up over time naturally and conveniently such as "metaphysical theories", "epistemological theories", "ethical theories", etcetera. Many articles are in more than one, but usually not more than three. The result has been a great tightening up and organizing of these articles. I would like to continue to tighten things up.
    There is also a major division between "scientific" and "philosophical" theories. I thought this kind of distinction is important to make so as to make things clear as to what is considered a scientific theory and what is not. Invariably, theories which are not scientific, in that some of the "elementary theorems" are statements which cannot be empirically tested, can be thought of as "philosophical" in that those particular theorems, while not empirical statements are still statements, and therefore also ideas. In retrospect, perhaps "non-empirical theories" would be better. I would support a move from "philosophical theories" to "non-empirical theories."
    I invite your correspondence on these issues. There are a few things I would like to do, for instance, to delete "Schools of thought" as a way to also help tighten things up in this area. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, let me emphasize that we are not trying to get rid of the list! The content is safe (you can also copy it to your user space). The same list exists in a slightly different form right now (the 2 pages that you "merged" have been reverted from redirects).
    All of the issues you presented above should be debated in talk pages, not here. The only thing that we are concerned about is the way this page was created. You see, you combined merging and renaming into one step, making it impossible to revert without an AfD, and disrupting an edit history in the process. Instead, you should have renamed List of philosophies, and then merged List of belief systems into it. Then reverts and discussion could have been conducted on those pages' talk pages. That's where the discussions of the merge belongs.
    You stated that "this had been deleted before as list of isms a long time ago" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of isms). Did you go through Deletion review to revive the material? If not, it is subject to speedy deletion (G4).
    The reason the List of isms article was deleted was because its scope was too vast (see the various definitions at -ism). But this is an easy problem to solve. The entire set of isms that exist can be narrowed down into more focused areas. (For example, one such subset of isms is philosophical isms.) Then the focused areas (lists) can be listed on another list.  :)
    I am interested in helping you find a solution to the missing "all-encompassing components of philosophy term" that encompasses traditions, movements, schools, philosophies, theories, positions, arguments, approaches, etc. I've been looking for the general name for these things for years, and I understand your frustration (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of philosophy component types).
    I suggest we get rid of this list for now, wrap up the discussion that is at talk:Philosophical theory, and then start a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy and see if anybody knows the (most common) word for this.
    The Transhumanist 00:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The merge was an attempt to deal with the proliferation of these lists. Three is too many just like each other. I think we are re-inventing the wheel here as edit histories are preserved if anyone really cares to look into it.
    I really wish you would reconsider "isms". I think one of the points that is lost is that I used to believe as you do that isms was a good title for classifying things, and I have now come around to realize that it is not. I have described theories as having an advantage because it is an intellectual construct rather than a social one. I have already made great progress in tightening up the "theories" category tree. What we need to do now is bring all the movements, isms, belief systems, etcetera into the fold. This is not to say that "philosophical movements" for instance needs to be deleted, no; "schools of thought" perhaps. What I am thinking is that we organize primarily around theories and move things out from there to other categories like movements, etcetera. Whether or not something is considered a movement is likely to be a topic of debate, whereas I think it is far less controversial to merely say we have a theory. (At least I thought so, until you claimed that it was "erroneous" and may be "misleading" to call these theories, I hope you do not still think so, with this formal definition available. You will have to give a counter example.) Everyone in the glossary is, in fact, a theory and "theory" is an actual term used in logic to classify a type of thing whereas "ism" is not. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the place for this debate. We've already ascertained that the material is subject to being speedy deleted. The ism issue should be discussed at Talk:Glossary of philosophical isms. I've copied the above paragraph, and have replied to it there. The Transhumanist 23:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not speedy I've compared the deleted article, and read the afd. I don't think this qualifies for speed G5. The content is not identical, and the justification is different. The deleted article has the explanation "Below are words ending with the suffix –ism. Words like prism, schism, and jism are not included, because in them -ism is not a suffix, and therefore they have no etymological connection with -ism words." which was objected to and was transwikified, reasonably enough. The present article has a different justification. DGG (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you mean G4, not G5? I still think G6 applies since no-one has actually disputed the point that this copy-paste merge needs to be cleaned up irrespective of whether a proper merge is desirable. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Family Leader Foundation[edit]

    Family Leader Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • Delete. Notability not established by independent reputable sources. Fails WP:GROUP. WWGB (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - article was only started a little while ago. It would be more appropriate to tag that reliable third-party sources are needed and give some time for that to be supplied. If none are forthcoming AfD would be appropriate. LadyofShalott Weave 03:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep- of course, I'm biased since I started the article. However, it seems that this organization is quite active behind the scenes in a lot of fairly important cases nationwide. I've put in a new cite to the American Bar Association's Preview of Supreme Court cases, which lists them in another case; is that sufficiently independent? Agathman (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose another solution would be to merge it with the existing page for the organization's founders, the Proctors- together they may be more notable.Agathman (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff Hammond (porn star)[edit]

    Jeff Hammond (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable porn star. Fails WP:PORNBIO as he as never appeared in the centerfold of Playgirl, never won a notable award, or hasn't made a significant impact on the pornographic community. Tavix |  Talk  02:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete his "assets," as they have not been immortalized quite enough, according to WP:PORNBIO. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I'm withdrawing my delete vote, after finding (and adding) some additional information and references. This guy seems to appear by name on just about every gay porn index, and is usually referred to as iconic. As porn bios go, this one seems to meet the spirit of the guidelines. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete though it breaks my heart to see these beautiful (though unreferenced) buttocks removed from our environment. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Change to keep given Oliver's, well, newfound knowledge and improvement of the article. Can we get a buttocks-picture added? I'm rather sad that that wonderfully frivolous sentence was struck from the article, even if it was unverified. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Well known name, considered a legend or icon by many. Hits galore all over the internet. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but tag for Cleanup, Refimprove and add an image or two. Seems to meet WP:N, but needs a lot of work. Firestorm Talk 05:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Universalism and relativism of color terminology[edit]

    Universalism and relativism of color terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A collaborative essay by some students from University of California, Berkeley. Original research and far too detailed for an encyclopedia article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep but rename. This has been an important controversy in linguistics, basically pitting the followers of Whorf against the doubters. I'm not enough of a specialist to say that everything here is encyclopedic, but there are plenty of sources. I agree that the article needs editing, and I'm definitely not keen on the title, although it is better than the original one. Looie496 (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've placed a pointer to this debate at WT:WikiProject Linguistics#AfD for Universalism and relativism of color terminology. Looie496 (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but rename I am in agreement with Looie496 -- I thought the article was going to be about theological Universalism. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I am a specialist and I agree that it should be kept. The article describes an important issue in modern linguistics and anthropolgy and it does so in a quite thorough and objective fashion. I don't see any OR either. ·Maunus·ƛ· 05:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep Those kids from Berkeley sure know their stuff. I was expecting to see a scrappy high school enrichment project, not an encyclopedic article. It's well cited and notability is established. The article isn't perfect; the name could be changed and some things could be rearranged (mostly the headlines on individual scholars), but I don't see why the entire article should be deleted. There's much more encyclopedic material than problematic. ThemFromSpace 03:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 09:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of football players from The Hague[edit]

    List of football players from The Hague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is a prime example of overlisting. The article is unreferenced and looks simply to be an amalgamation of Category:Dutch footballers and Category:People from The Hague. No indication of notability. A PROD tag was previously removed. GiantSnowman 02:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ikiz Mabut Religion[edit]

    Ikiz Mabut Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I suspect this is a hoax -- I could not find any independent verification that this religion exists, and it seems the article's only reference (A Study of the Religious Minorities of Siberia) is also nonexistent. I am bringing the article and my suspicions here for second opinion confirmation. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. A Google search turned up nothing relevant except for a mention in a work of fiction. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nominator. Zero hits for Google Scholar [67] or Google Books [68]. Edward321 (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hodor Fakih[edit]

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

    Non-notable surgeon. mhking (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. No sources, fails WP:PROF in any case. The "Bulgarian-Lebanese Association" of which he's apparently the chairman doesn't seem to exist; possible hoax? Tevildo (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep not a hoax, the guy is a nationally notable surgeon, a leader of the Lebanese minority in Bulgaria (what makes you think the organization doesn't exist?!), according to the Sega article cited as a source and one of the leaders of Bulgaria's Arab community, per Standart. He has appeared on TV in that role, he's one of the main subjects of the article in Sega and another in Kapital, and he has been featured in the Bulgarian edition of Total Makeover. Not to mention he was/is the host of a show on a cable TV network. He's not an academic, but a surgeon, in order to be notable per WP:PROF. Todor→Bozhinov 14:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. A basic machine translation of the article [69] confirms that Fakih (or "Pekahiah", in Google's transliteration) is the chairman of the "Council of the Arab Community". I think that the notability of this organization needs to be established first (ideally, with an article about it) before we can say that its chairman is notable - I don't believe that appearing on a reality TV show, Fakih's other claim to notability, is going to get off the ground. I'm leaving my opinion at "Delete" for now, subject to proof of the Council's notability. Tevildo (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Dr. Hodor Fakih also leads the television show "1001 Candles" on the Bulgarian TV "7 days". This tv program is for the Arab roots of what makes community in the wider society in which they fit well but not fully identified. [70]. I hope that this is enough in addition to be the chairman of the assossiation of Lebanese in Bulgaria to give him the notability for the wikipedia article. Stoichkov8 (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. More evidence about the existence of the associations of Lebanese in Bulgaria. [71] Stoichkov8 (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. dr. Hoder Fakih – chairman of the Coordination council of the Arab communities in Bulgaria. [72] Stoichkov8 (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. I'm afraid I don't know enough about Bulgarian politics or the reliablility of the Bulgarian sources quoted to be any more positive. I still feel that the _organization_ should have an article before its _chairman_ does, but that's not the issue here. Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I have my doubts about the importance of the community leadership, which is the only part with any sources. The notability as a surgeon may be very real, but I dont have the ability to check it. DGG (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. MBisanz talk 09:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Horace Kenton Wright[edit]

    Horace Kenton Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • Weak Keep. This article is genuine. Due to The Bahamas being a small country there are limited print resources prior to the 1990s. The references listed are the only ones found.Undone6840 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC) — Undone6840 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Weak Keep. WP:CREATIVE includes "regarded as an important figure" as a criterion for admission, and we _do_ have two cited references in the article making that claim. Tevildo (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep.I query the reason why the reference to Horace Kenton Wright is being considered for deletion. Mr. Wright made an invaluable contribution to Art in The Bahamas and is undeniably considered to be one of the forefathers of Art in The Bahamas.

    He is given great recognition in the National Art Gallery of The Bahamas and is highly referenced in the Archives of The Bahamas. One example of his contribution to Bahamian Culture may be referenced here -> http://www.bahamas.gov.bs/BahamasWeb/VisitingTheBahamas.nsf/Subjects/Junkanoo+Leaders/

    "Percy Viola Francis VOLA: King Of Junkanoo

    In the early 1960's a young man from Mason Addition just over the Hill in the East Street Area of Nassau, surfaced to the top of the Junkanoo Scene, designing to push the level of Junkanoo to new heights.

    With a background in art, which began at an early age, his creative talents were developed at Art Classes in the St. Agnes school room under the tutorship of Mr. Don Russell. His talents were further developed at the Southern Junior and Senior Schools under the leadership of a renowned Bahamian Artist Mr. Horace Wright. These men have both now passed, but their knowledge of Art and its effectiveness is seen everytime the Saxons Superstars Junkanoo Group goes to Bay Street."http://www.bahamas.gov.bs/BahamasWeb/VisitingTheBahamas.nsf/Subjects/Junkanoo+Leaders/ Boncynbon (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC) — Boncynbon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    This is exactly the sort of thing we need - get the sources into the article, though, not just the AfD. :) Tevildo (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Several printed references, definite assertion of notability. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Keep. In an ideal world WP would consist only of articles about people like Mr Wright, public servants who have contributed to society. But the Bahamas is a small country with a population less than the London Borough of Croydon and rising to the level of "Supervisor of Art for all schools in The Bahamas in 1961... Inspector of Schools from 1964 to 1967" is not notable enough for an encyclopedia, nor is "Senior Education Officer (Audio/Visual Aids)." Sources published in the Bahamas are listed, but I don't know if the subject gets more than a passing reference. Reluctant delete.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - The volume of coverage isn't as important as its content. The criterion requires him to be "regarded as an important figure". Do the sources describe him as important? Yes. I suppose one could argue that the sources aren't reliable, but an official government website probably is... Tevildo (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is perfectly reliable, but Mr Wright isn't the subject. Percy Viola Francis, the 'King' of Junkanoo is. The "renowned Bahamian Artist Mr. Horace Wright" was his teacher, but it's a passing reference.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, I see your point. He probably wouldn't get through the "significant third-party coverage" needle's eye of WP:GNG, true, but he only has to pass the wider gate of WP:CREATIVE. Tevildo (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment May pass WP:CREATIVE, I see enough evidence to convince me that he was influential in Bahamian art, but I don't see grounds for passing WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Vote changed to keep: An Encyclopedia of Latin American & Caribbean art calls him one of the two "fathers of modern Bahamian art" [73]. Another Google Book source: [74].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep seems to narrowly fit the standard...Modernist (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Ethico etc. Locally important. Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep from the references and above. Artypants, Babble 11:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ijun[edit]

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

    Per non-notable. According to this page, the cult has only 1000 followers. Oda Mari (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Oda Mari (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:Notability. Timmeh! 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails to meet notability requirements. --Mantokun (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Should we judge a religion based on the fact that there are only 1000 members? I think not. There are many notable, cults, sects, etc. that have small membership. What we are supposed to use is the general notability guideline: is there significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? Indeed, we see at least two scholars have devoted entire journal articles solely to Ijun (listed in the article, a couple more on Google Scholar). On Google Books, I found some brief mentions, which despite their brevity makes crucial points[75]: "Ijun is the only religion developed by Okinawans primarily for Okinawans" (first hit, Japanese Journal of Religious Studies) and "There is an important sect in Okinawa called Ijun which draws on Okinawan folk religious practices."(4th hit, Shinto, a short history). Obviously religious scholars find Ijun worthy of writing about. The mention in "Shinto, a short history" is interesting in that you might not expect an obscure cult to be mentioned in a brief history. With academic topics like this we can't expect there to be a mass of coverage, but that's certainly not a reason to delete. Indeed, I wonder if there would be more mentions if I were to search a library containing a good collection of material on Okinawan religion. This isn't the type of topic that is prevalent on the Internet. This is exactly the kind of coverage we should be expanding on Wikipedia, not deleting because it's not popular like the latest manga or videogame. --C S (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you provide the links you mention above as Google orders results differently for almost everyone. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This religion may be small but it seems to have received some scholarly attention. See this article, for example. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Appears to be notable; per Metropolitan. — Jake Wartenberg 02:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think that any religion is notable, even if it has few members.Homebum (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Reliable third party coverage illustrated by Metropolitan. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lejel Home Shopping[edit]

    Lejel Home Shopping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Appears to be a hoax. The domain does not exist; the SGX link points to a different company; Starhub Channel 99 is Universal, not "Lejel"; none of the MRT stations supposedly containing its outlets actually have them, etc. Hastyo (talk · contribs) has a history of hoax articles and this non-company was spammed into dozens of articles last year as well [76]. Triwikanto (talk · contribs) is a probable sock. Jpatokal (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: This does appear to be a real company, but only in Indonesia, and of doubtful notability even there. The content as currently written is (AFAIK) 100% fake though. Jpatokal (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Apparent hoax. What else is there to say? — Jake Wartenberg 02:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Originally prodded for a shopping list of singapore localities and no real content - user has a poor history of any valid edits - and should be cautioned for such contributions imho - SatuSuro 02:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete - Per above, not notable, possible hoax, etc.WackoJackO 02:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking through the article creators edit history, it looks like he has a history of adding either false information, product advertisements, and other behavior that is not constructive.WackoJackO 02:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Project Foundry[edit]

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

    Software/web content with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak delete. Only reliable source I could find was this one, which only mentions the software in the sidebar (at the bottom of the page, just above the comments). It's a start, but we need more like this to be able to include this software. JulesH (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete there is really no indication of notability in the article, and as noted, no further sources have been forthcoming. To me this borders on a speedy deletion per criteria A7. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The is a Project Foundry and it is still going strong. The current Army Regulation that covers it is AR 350-32 http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r350_32.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.79.7.15 (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. MBisanz talk 05:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Employee experience management[edit]

    Employee experience management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Sounds very much like an advert, but am not sure if a speedy deletion is needed. Queenie 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Seems to be genuine management/human resources terminology for which there is a lot of material available. Needs a copyedit though, seems to be written by a non-english speaker. SpinningSpark 16:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    This term is in line with 'customer experience management'and it is modern approach toward 'internal marketing' based on the employees experiential needs. It is also agree with fresh movement in marketing (experience economy, experiential marketing, ...), which are emphasized by awesome scholars and practitioners like Berry, Schmitt, Holbrook, Meyer, Schwager, Caru, Cova, Pine, Gilmore and so on. Besides, there is not any adv. or copyright problem. --Kaveh.abhari (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The concept of experience applies to the both external and internal customers (e.g. O'loughin & Szmigin, 2005; Schmitt, 2003). Therefore, EEM is 'Customer Experience Management' but for 'Internal Customers'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.57.243 (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no need for delete since it's logical and reasonable according the many studies by scholars such as Enzminger, 2005; Grace & O’Cass, 2004; Harris, 2007; Lloyd, 2006; Meyer & Schwager, 2007; Millard, 2006; Mosley, 2007; Rahman, 2005; Schmitt, 2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.57.243 (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cathode-Ray Tube Amusement Device[edit]

    Cathode-Ray Tube Amusement Device (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Is the prototype of a video game that was never produced, and on which no records exist (except a patent application) notable enough to have it's own article? Surely this information can be included on the Video game article? OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems that there's quite a bit of specific information about this to justify merging it with another page. 2:47, 5 April 2009

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect/Merge Speedy Delete - first, this page is a blatant copyright violation from [77] which is the only info I could find beyond the original patent, and not sure how verifiable it is. I would say redirect to First video game, as Musemike suggested. scooteytalk 01:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • changed to Speedy Delete, as I think it would be a pointless redirect. Maybe consider adding some of the material from the About.com page into First video game if sources to back it up can be found. scooteytalk 07:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete per CSD G12. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete g12.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete copyvio. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 12:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage[edit]

    Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article is overlapping with Bio-energy with carbon storage as a main part of the latter and the reason for this article seems to be just promotional. Therefore this page was merged and redirected into Bio-energy with carbon storage, which was cleaned-up afterward. However, this redirect was contested by the creator of this article, who find that this is a deletion, and therefore it should be taken for WP:AfD. Although AfD procedure is not for merger discussion, the result of the discussion should be redirect, and therefore it could be rigth place to discuss this issue. Beagel (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy close not an issue for AfD. -Atmoz (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, this article should be redirected to either Bio-energy with carbon storage or Carbon capture and storage. -Atmoz (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep people might search for both techniques (BECS and BECCS), and they are actually (a bit) different. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete pointless waste of time duplicate article that is pretty crappy as well William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep because there may be a multiple issues problem at the proposed merge site (BECS). Nepomuk 3 (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (comment) If there's a redirect, it should be to BECS because that incorporates BECCS. The very fact there's confusion over where to redirect to further justifies the maintenance of both articles. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it does not. It only shows that there are problems with both articles. Actually it seems like POV fork for me as the bioenergy is same notwithstanding if it is suplimented with CCS or not, and from the technical point of view, the CCS used for bioenergy itself is same as the CCS used for fossil fuels. So, there is no reason to create a number of articles on this subject which may be considered as WP:POVFORK. Beagel (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a POVfork, its just having an entry of various things people are likely to be looking for. It's not a POV issue, more on of inclusionism. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Takayasu Ryūsen[edit]

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

    Per non-notable. The cult founder/leader of Ijun. See the discussion here. Oda Mari (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep But more infomation is needed. For example, he has written a book, shown here. Mako Addicted (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Nomination rescinded as moot (NAC) Tavix |  Talk  02:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pat Fleming (politician)[edit]

    Pat Fleming (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Satisfies neither the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians nor the more general criteria at Wikipedia:Notability; sources cited are intrinsic to the subject politician, or are general government information sources, and do not constitute multiple instances of non-trivial, independant, reliable-source coverage. If article is deleted, the DAB page at Pat Fleming should be undone. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    nomination rescinded, as moot: Her successful election makes this AfD nomination no longer applicable, as WP:POLITICIAN has now been clearly satisfied. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex Bird[edit]

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

    CV for young dancer, no indication of notability ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blair Perkins (Singer - Songwriter)[edit]

    Blair Perkins (Singer - Songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unverifiable through reliable sources. Google News only turns up unrelated hits and Google itself only shows promotional networking websites (one of which provided a significant part of the article.) With the adspeak copyvio removed there's nothing left to sustain an article per WP:MUSIC. Mgm|(talk) 23:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per lack of reliable sources; he seems to be another myspace artist. Tavix |  Talk  01:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vincent bobo[edit]

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

    Artist from Charleston, SC, recently died. Notability is asserted, but Google returns very little to back it up. The nature of the awards this artist received remains a mystery. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - some minor notice locally taken of his work as evidenced by this, and this, but very little in the way of coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. No sources, and the assertions of notability look rather doubtful - is there such a thing as a "world wide Air Force [art] competition"? I'd expect at least one review of his work _somewhere_ if he's at all notable. Tevildo (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I agree with Tevildo. A self-taught artist, working for just 17 years, claims of awards but no sources. Hmmmm...notability not established, methinks. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Equine-guided education[edit]

    Equine-guided education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article is about a non-notable subject. It has several problems that have existed for sometime including that the article is poorly referenced and reads like an advertisement. Untick (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The subject has recieved sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to warrant an article:
    This is not enough to write a verifiable article.--Pattont/c 21:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a promotional article with insufficient notability to merit fixing. NB: I've nowikied out the links in this article, which change shouldn't be reverted unless the outcome of this discussion is "Keep".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Stolen Chair Theatre Company[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    The Stolen Chair Theatre Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Notability, previously deleted R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't see any evidence that this was previously deleted in the logs? Was it under a different name? Also the previous AFD listed above is malformed and appears to have only been created a few hours before this one. Nancy talk 11:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This wiki entry was modeled after a similar theater company, Pig Iron Theatre Company, using similar language styles, section layout, and notation. Pig Iron Theatre Company's wiki entry is allowed. Please explain what this wiki entry for The Stolen Chair Theatre Company contains or is lacking to make it not suitable for wikipedia before placing deletion notices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Springsari (talk • contribs) 01:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC) — Springsari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      Main contributer appears to have a COI with this. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as failing WP:ORG. Have been through all the references and found them largely to be listings and blogs - no evidence of any widespread non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources either in the article or through a google search. The only hint at notability is being one of fifteen companies to recieve an award from a local website for contributing to the cultural landscape landscape of NYC which doesn't really meet the bar. The other award mentioned is for an actor not for the company. Sorry. Nancy talk 11:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Roy Freeman[edit]

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

    While some claims of notability seem to exist in the article, I do not think the subject meets WP:BIO. Also, the article is unreferenced and I can not find anything supporting notability. The author's username might also imply a WP:COI violation. Nick—Contact/Contribs 18:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I can't turn up any non-first-person notice of this FreemanDream business. Fails WP:CORP as a business and WP:BIO as a person. Deor (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Conneally[edit]

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

    Non-notability. Though this article was created in 2005 it still shows no indication of subject's notability per WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE Yumegusa (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    comment I've just added 5 references to him in WP:RS, there are probably more. Sticky Parkin 23:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • delete as he seems to not have written anything published and 4 of the 5 references are behind a lock and the only one that is accessible seems very local resulting in no claim to fame that I can discern. --MarSch (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lee Dong-Won (figure skater)[edit]

    Lee Dong-Won (figure skater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article is about a 12-year-old figure skater who competes on the junior level nationally and the novice level internationally. He will not be old enough for international junior competition until the fall of 2010. WP:ATHLETE states that an athlete must compete at the highest levels of sport. WP:FIGURE/N is how WikiProject Figure Skating has interpreted that rule in the context of figure skating competitions. High level figure skaters compete on the Senior (which is the Olympic level) and Junior levels. There are Championship-level and high-level competitions for international juniors, but none for international novices. Novice-level skaters, therefore, are not notable because they cannot compete on the highest level of sport.

    According to the person who remove the prod: winning both the national championship and a prestigious international trophy makes him notable. He won the nationals on the junior level and a minor international on the novice level. This does not make him notable. Kolindigo (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, youth sports are intrinsically not notable, and this meets no exception that I know of. Punkmorten (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Whiteboard[edit]

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

    No real notability. The assertations are vague and mostly trivial, and I'm not sure about the reliability of the blog citation. I couldn't find any other real coverage in sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete there is no demonstration of notability, just going by the title the PBI (apparently not a notable publication) article isn't all about the webcomic (and the name even suggests it might mention the merchandising rather than the webcomic, but what is discussed is far from clear from the article - you can add a quite field to reference templates which often helps to explain the context). I also think it is pushing it to include a comment on a blog as critical reaction. It might be that some more work will fix these problems so I'm open to re-evaluating my opinion. (Emperor (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • Strong keep per "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators..." It has been printed in at least 2 magazines independent of the creator. For anyone who hasn't, please read the old discussion. RP9 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Feedzilla[edit]

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

    I cannot find a single source about this website, and Google News doesn't return anything either. Typing "Feedzilla" on Google returns plenty of results but mostly because it is a newsfeed aggregator which is used by several websites, however none of which appear to be notable either. Laurent (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In the End: Live & Rare[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    In the End: Live & Rare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Japan-only EP that compiles b-sides from the UK CD singles of "In the End". The EP did not chart, Allmusic didn't review it (only a track listing) and a Google search returns only online stores and mirrors of the Allmusic or Wikipedia listings. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BioCognetics[edit]

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

    An article purporting to concern a "protologism", but really has to do with the work of Terrence Webster-Doyle. The word (trademarked) is found nowhere but on Wikipedia and in the writings of its creator and his websites. Fails WP:RS, WP:N and runs counter to WP:NEO. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per the nom this is is a non-notable neologism which appears only to be used only by Dr. Webster-Doyle. Nancy talk 11:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Gnews and Gbook searches show zero hits. Non notable per nom. Tassedethe (talk)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. MBisanz talk 09:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bonnie Bishop[edit]

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

    Potentially non-notable country singer. Appears to have one article in a reliable source, but that's about it, therefore slipping below notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Do a Google search. She has 56,000 hits, and three current news stories. She has a lot of fans. I figured if I started the article one of them would work on it. 2ndAmendment (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 16:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no evidence of notability that I can see.Weak keep - not very notable, really andy (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And what about the fact that she has been in the papers since 2002, and has 3 or 4 albums? She is a lot more well known than many other musicians who have articles. Her new album is just being released now and she will be getting a lot of attention from it. Pre-release copies were available last Saturday. Check this out: "Around Texas, Bonnie always stood out at regional festivals and clubs because she was one of very few female artists who was able to make a mark in the male-dominated scene. It didn’t take long before she was sharing bills with artists such as Jack Ingram and Radney Foster and frequenting top venues in the state including Billy Bob’s Texas, Antones, and the Mucky Duck." Why would they have articles and not Bonnie Bishop? 2ndAmendment (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've cleaned up some of the citations and added a reference. Apparently one of her singles charted on a Texas music chart for six months. But anyway, with non-trivial coverage in The Post and Courier, The Sun News, the Houston Chronicle, and The Galveston County Daily News, that's sufficient to meet criterion #1 of WP:MUSICBIO, so it's a keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I wasn't trying to get fancy, just wanted to create the article so that it could be worked on. I'm sure a more directed search would turn up a lot more news clippings, and I did see a lot more, but avoided the ones you have to pay to read, or even the ones where you have to register to read. I just knew that she had been out there for a long time and saw her in the news and figured it was time to create the article. Hopefully the new album will do at least a small portion of what Nick of Time did for Bonnie Raitt. 2ndAmendment (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok who told everyone about the article? Bonnie Bishop is currently getting more page views than Bonnie Raitt normally gets - almost a thousand a day for BB vs. normally about 500 a day for BR. 2ndAmendment (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Adequate coverage to demonstrate notability.--Michig (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Novi Medij[edit]

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

    Now definitely non-notable wiki website project that never materialized. http://www.novimedij.com is still dead, more than a year later. Also note likely WP:COI by its author. GregorB (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per reasons stated above. There don't seem to be any reliable sources covering the project. Timmeh! 18:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete Nancy talk 05:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Evil camera[edit]

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

    Non-notable product. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep, as there's an article about it on Wired. I think the main problem with this article is that it's very confusing and it doesn't even say clearly what an EVIL camera is. Laurent (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete The link is indeed from a blog and not the main site, and I can't find anything else (and I still don't really get what it is). Laurent (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article on the blog, not on the edited site. Delete as a crystal ball and non-notable future product. WillOakland (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable product without any reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Barbara Wise[edit]

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

    Appears to fail WP:BIO. While there is one reliable source, it appears that the person's only claim to some semblance of notability is that they keeled over at work rather than in some other place. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to me people uninformed with the notoriety of Clinton Administration Era Controversies are ignorant of Barbara Wise and the significance of her death just prior to her testimony to a grand jury implicating William Jefferson Clinton's involvement, with Ron Brown, at Commerce, details of receiving through intermediary John Huang, funds from illegal sources. I do all the spade-work and ignorant and uniformed people just delete my work because they are uneducated and hostile about my page and the significance of targetChronique55 (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete and merge She is only notable for WP:ONEEVENT and wouldn't be known if she hadn't be killed in these circumstances. I suggest a merge in the Commercegate article where this information would be more useful. Laurent (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete and merge As Laurent - (but we don't say she was killed, we say the coroner's report was that she died of natural causes). As for the merge, if it takes place it will have to be without of course Judicialwatch or the fake memorial library urls. Neither are RS for this. We would also need reliable sources tying her to Commercegate, right now her inclusion seems OR. Someone seems to have a bad case of WP:OWN and a real need to read WP:Civil, WP:RS, WP:NPOV at the very least. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment A web search on Commercegate and "Barbara Wise" turns up nothing, so I shall delete her from the Commercegate article as without a reliable source her inclusion is clearly OR. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment There's the Washington Post article [79]. However it seems that her death is part of a rumor / urban legend: see this link in particular. I didn't read through it completely but found this comment in particular: "There was no pool of blood, and Barbara Wise's death was never ruled a suicide by anyone. She was discovered in her Commerce Department office on 29 November 1996 after last being seen alive on 27 November 1996, the day before Thanksgiving. A thorough investigation uncovered no evidence of foul play or suicide. Wise had a history of frequent and severe health problems, including liver ailments. Her death was attributed to natural causes." For that reason, we should probably look into the Commercegate article too (if it hasn't been done already) and possibly mention that it is a fringe theory Laurent (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeem[edit]

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

    Potentially non-notable programming language. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. T-95 (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete: I did the homework on this already, it is not notable. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 09:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Curse of John Elway[edit]

    The Curse of John Elway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Original Research. The references don't have any information about "the curse". Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The nominator correctly points out that the article's references do not support the notion of a "curse" that originated with John Elway. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The only reference to a curse in those references is a guy on a blog who "declares" it a curse. The article is OR, and the topic not notable. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Not only a guy on a blog, but a blog commenter! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete One person's opinion does not equal notability. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 22:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete That's a scary list of QBs! Anyhow, this is really just fun stuff that belongs on fan blogs and forums. Hazir (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mick Colliss[edit]

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

    Unreferenced BLP for 2+ years, a Google News search only shows a couple passing mentions and no reliable sources focusing on him. Wizardman 16:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those that may have wanted it kept have had a week+ to establish notability, I ask for deletion as opposed to a second relist. Wizardman 18:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Leostream[edit]

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

    Looks like spam created for the sole purpose of advertising a commercial product. Poorly written. No reliable sources LirazSiri (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Agree with nomination. Absolutely no indication (reliable or not) of what makes this product notable. I42 (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:N and as an advert. ThemFromSpace 20:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as spam for a non-notable company (see this Google News search--there is no independent in-depth coverage to be found in that list of hits). Drmies (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to Big Beautiful Woman. MBisanz talk 09:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Big Handsome Men[edit]

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

    Neologism, no reliable third party sources Thisglad (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Malakov[edit]

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

    wp:TABLOID piece -- Jeandré, 2009-04-05t14:07z 14:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - notability has not been established in my opinion. Author has formulated his own criteria for making it notable. Lacks references.Jlrobertson (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Some reasons why Daniel Malakov should not be deleted:Today the number of Google hits for "Daniel Malakov" (in quotes) is more than 32,000. The significance of his murder is borne out by the many, many secondary sources. Many newspaper articles could be added to the list of references. It is not the murder, per se, but the circumstances surrounding it that are notable. Whereas his murder is the unique event establishing the Notability of Daniel Malakov, the same is true for other murder victims, such as Kitty Genovese (for whom, name-in-quotes, there are 54,000 Google hits today). The circumstances are Notable. The man himself is made Notable by being central to the circumstances (i.e., being the victim). -- Distaffperp (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article has 2 sources; a blog entry and a tabloid article; so encyclopedic notability has not been shown for a biographical article, or for the event and trail - please read wp:TABLOID. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-14t12:30z
        • Those are two among scores of Newspaper articles. The page needs additional work to incorporate all the references. Deleting it means that work will not get done.206.53.153.99 (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete--while there are plenty of hits, on Google and in the NY newspapers, this is one single event with no verifiable meaning beyond the event itself. Distaffperp may claim that circumstances or context confer notability, but I don't see that in the article or in the sources. Nominator is correct in invoking WP:Tabloid. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wish Upon a Blackstar[edit]

    Wish Upon a Blackstar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable unreleased album with little or no media coverage of significance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Logicomix[edit]

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

    Future comic; fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL  Chzz  ►  11:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Close' Article already deleted. Junk Police (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Neutrally comment I still can't find how the Google search for it.Junk Police (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Australian Youth Affairs Coalition[edit]

    Australian Youth Affairs Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Apparently non-notable youth organization. The references provided are not specifically about the orgainzation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tentative Weak Keep it's a national body and there appear to be sources form which notability could be established. That said, I haven't had time to look into these in depth yet and am not certain the extent to which they will provide notability. StarM 04:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Paris Wells[edit]

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

    I'm not sure if supporting notable acts and performing at enormous festivals is enough to assert notability; I'm tempted to think this is OK, but I'm erring on the side of caution and submitting it for thorough perusal by community members better versed in WP:MUSIC than I. Seegoon (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Damn this is tough - her press release here[80] says she's had reviews in a whole bundle of places, Rolling Stone, Sunday Telegraph to give two, but I can't find them any where. Maybe the UKs just too far away and someone in Aus will know where to find some good stuff. She definitely seems notable but it's proving it! How's this [81] stand up us a source? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A good quality source here[82] --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And a review of her album[83]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the refs given seem to be nontrivial and independent, so that's enough for notability. Rigadoun (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Frank V. Cusimano[edit]

    Frank V. Cusimano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable past candidate for political office. Qqqqqq (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Simply being a candidate for a relatively minor office does not equivalate notability. Tavix |  Talk  17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. If this is ll he did then no reason to have an article. Wizardman 22:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Dog (film)[edit]

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

    Non-notable short film which fails criteria at WP:MOVIE. fuzzy510 (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and suggest speedy close per points made by Girolamo Savonarola. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaming Response Research Foundation[edit]

    Gaming Response Research Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete. Subject lacks notability and adds no value to the encyclopaedia. Article has been placed by a self-interest group trying to promote a minor local function. Could even be a hoax. --Orrelly Man (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Perry Feigenbaum[edit]

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

    Denied speedy because "claims" indicate notability. However, they are just claims, and there are no references, it appears to be autobiographical and the top listings for google search appear to be LinkedIn type pages. I can't help but wonder if this is just another attempt for Mr. Feigenbaum to get his name out in the world. Postcard Cathy (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator DGG (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AnyLogic[edit]

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

    Possible non-notable software package; the article is largely an advertisement and makes no assertion of notability, and outside of blog-type posts and reseller puff-pieces I can't find any indication of notability in the Wikipedia sense (ie "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Prodded in November; prod removed followed by a talk-page claim that "this tool is used in thousands of universities world wide", but no sources. Notability tag removed in January by an SPA with two edits, one of which provided some sources on the talk-page that don't seem hugely convincing to me. I came across the article via a series of spam reverts promoting the software ([84]), so I'm more than suspicious that there are motives for this article's existence that are... non encyclopedic, shall we say. I'm not 100% convinced though, hence the AfD rather than speedy G11. EyeSerenetalk 22:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nomination withdrawn following improvements to the article and the addition of some credible references. Further third-party sources should be sought, but I believe there is now enough to establish notability. EyeSerenetalk 16:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am an author of this article, I will modify the article to make it more encyclopedic and will try to maintain it in future.

    Regarding the notability of AnyLogic, there are several facts that from my point of view address the notability issue:

    • Type AnyLogic in Google - it gives 252,000 pages about for AnyLogic written in different languages
    • There are a lot of papers about AnyLogic on its vendor site. Look at the authors they are from different countries, it proves the notability from my point of view
    • Look at the list of AnyLogic users, there are hundreds of universities worldwide.
    • AnyLogic is the basic tool for simulation in IST European MODELPLEX project organized by Euporean Comission. :Please find the article about it, this article prove that in MODELPLEX, people working on the transformation from UML/SPT to AnyLogic, because AnyLogic is offered as a standard tool.
    • Please find the review of ORMS today, where AnyLogic is mentioned. There are a lot of other papers, just search for PDFs in google and get 19 000 results.

    I will be happy to provide any other references, just tell me what I am supposed to publish to prove the notability. And again I also find current version of article marketing and will rewrite it in a timely manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey Suslov (talk • contribs) 10:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the problem is that the article doesn't establish the software's notability. If you look at a good software article (such as Norton Internet Security), you'll see that the article is about not only the software itself but also it's development history, reception, performance, impact etc (positive and negative), and the content is cited to reliable secondary sources. The History section you've added is a good start, but what we ideally need are something like substantial independent software reviews in reputable publications - has AnyLogic been reviewed in depth (ie not just a passing mention) by any technical journals or magazines? EyeSerenetalk 17:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 03:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to find and add the reliable information sources to this article as well as to extend its content to make it more useful for people working in operational reseach / simulation area. Sergey Suslov (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Article thoroughly explains what AnyLogic is, but doesn't explain at all how it's notable, and rationales like how many Google hits turn up online are utterly invalid in discussions like these. The lack of third-party sources is another big issue here. W/o those, there is no notability to assert. All the content is probably original research and the notability assertions on the talk page are the unmistakable variety you get from single-(and-suspect)-purpose COI editors.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There is a book "Karpov, Yu (2006) Simulation of systems. Introduction in modeling with AnyLogic 5 – SPb.: BHV Petersburg ISBN 5-94157-148-8. The book is in Russian language and it is used in studying AnyLogic. Does it help to prove the notability? Can it be used as a reference? Sergey Suslov (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • References: I have added some references on the scientific papers which proves most of the things written in the text. I hope they made the AnyLogic wiki-page more encyclopedic, prove that text is not just my personal research/opinion and the notability of the tool. I have got a lot of the information from the book I've mentioned above, but I am not sure whether I should refer on it since it is in Russian... Sergey Suslov (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Grandmartin11; I've left Sergey Suslov a note re this on his talk-page too. Non-English sources are OK where there are no English ones of a comparable quality, but a translation of the relevant portion should also be provided for verifiability (perhaps in a footnote). EyeSerenetalk 16:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Henderson[edit]

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

    Possibly non-notable person; references listed aren't about the subject, they just essentially mention that he exists. I've tried to find something else, but I'm struggling because of how common the name is. fuzzy510 (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Too Romantic[edit]

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

    Non-notable short film. fuzzy510 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Or redirect to Todd Field. The film in itself doesn't appear to be notable, and I couldn't find any sources to back up that it is.  Mbinebri  talk ← 01:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as directorial debut work of a clearly notable director. It may always be a stub, but wiki accepts them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as directorial debut work of a clearly notable director. It may always be a stub, but wiki accepts them. Trugits, Trugits. 09:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's Get Excited[edit]

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

    Song that has not yet been released as a single. If it were an album, there'd be enough info here to justify keeping it without question, but I'm not certain if it should be kept right now since it hasn't been released, and there are more stringent requirements for keeping songs than there are albums. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, notable song, music video is already shoot and there is also a cd single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaa16 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those aren't criteria themselves to make the song automatically notable. --fuzzy510 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to The Alesha Show until the song charts or garners enough media attention for its own article. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: notability yet to be established. JamesBurns (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep new release.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.46.250.204 (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    • Keep, it has a music video, single cover, and has been performed live several times on live television.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    UND Spring Thaw[edit]

    UND Spring Thaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notabble basketball tournament. Also, no sources. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per what the nominator said. --Pstanton (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep plenty of search hits on google and google news. In addition, UND (the host and a participant in the tourney) received quite a bit of media attention for making the NCAA tournament this year, so I believe this page warrants being kept, but expanded a bit... Mandermagic (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, notability not established in the article. Wizardman 18:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to List of DCI drum corps. MBisanz talk 05:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Legends Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

    Legends Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Appears to be a middle school or a high school marching corps group. Claims to be well, but only by the parent organization. The article was created by someone who claims to be a member, and the article is littered with use of personal pronouns such as "We" giving the article the appearance of a blog. There are no citations or references, and no 3rd party external links. A Google search of their name only turns up their own website, a youtube video and a facebook group. Despite claims about international appearences, I can't find anything saying they've ever been out of the country and most of their appearances seem to be at local schools. I believe due to this they fail the notability guidelines for organizations Pstanton (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep and stubify or redirect to List of DCI drum corps. According to Drum Corps International's website, they are indeed a DCI open class (i.e., smaller and generally less competitive) corps, which is at least some indicator of notability. I can't really make up my mind on whether or not that's sufficient on its own though, and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about this specific group like a DCI championships win to help there. At worst, redirect it to the list article for ease of navigation. BryanG (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo#Trans-France Race cars. MBisanz talk 01:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Trans-France Race Cars[edit]

    Trans-France Race Cars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is an unreferenced list of cars that appeared in the film Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo. The list itself is impossible to reference with reliable sources that are independant of the movie. As it stands, the list is original research. Also, there is nothing in the article stating why this list of cars is notable. Since the name of the article would be an implausible search term for the movie, a redirect wouldn't be a bright idea and deletion is the only viable option. Per our deletion policy this article should be deleted since it is impossible to attribute to reliable sources, since the subject doesn't meet the notability guideline, and because it is an example of what Wikipedia is not (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY). ThemFromSpace 23:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Such a list would still not be notable per WP:SALAT unless sources were found in reliable, third party sources that describe the list in detail. ThemFromSpace 23:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 00:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per DHowell, although I wouldn't mind deletion either for irrelevance (i.e. is this kind of in-universe information necessary to understand the film - no). – sgeureka t•c 11:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_10&oldid=1142646169"