Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 7

< 6 April	8 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Brieva[edit]

Went to prod, but one failed recently. However, I see little assertion of notability. Ian¹³ /t 23:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Noteability is asserted, but the sources are not correct for inclusion. I made minor changes, but unless there is a compelling reason to keep, then I vote delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephiroth storm (talk • contribs)
Delete. Notability is not asserted (simply being on a board or being a lecturer doesn't pass muster), but doing so should be a simple matter. A couple of papers from his academic career, or media-covered highlights from his career as entrepreneur. The fact that these are absent is therefor a rather strong hint. 9Nak (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the one who prodded it, the reason Was as follows: I do not think that this meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Though the person may indeed be a founder or board member of various companies, that in itself does not assure notability. Indeed, an article created recently on Polymita Technologies has been speedy deleted. It is difficult to assess the sources, as they are mainly in Spanish, but two seem to be blogs, one is a company listing and the last is a book which I cannot see how it is related to the person. Quantpole (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 9Nak, I said it was asserted, not that it met the standards. :) Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Cross linked with a dozen redlinks doesn't help. Google shows 1800+ hits for this exact name, however excluding social networking sites most all the top 50 are in Spanish. Suggest that this person maybe considered a local interest per local interests and may fail the test of notability for local interests. JCutter (talk) 14:21, 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 keep - nomination withdrawn. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacket matrix[edit]

I can find maybe 2 papers on Google scholar discussing jacket matrices that don't have M.H. Lee (the original article creator) as an author or co-author. Therefore, I'm not convinced this is a notable topic, even in a fairly limited academic circle.

Was PRODded, but removed by anon IP. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, WP:COI. The article is not based on WP:IS. Algébrico (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per mistaken nomination. Article obviously passes core policies WP:V and WP:SOURCES. It also easily passes guidelines WP:N as "Jacket matrix" return 100 hits on Google Scholar. Peer reviewed sources are Wikipedia's gold standard, I refer nominee to WP:N for details. The delete endorser's COI accusations and reference to WP:IS (which merely is an essay!) are misconceived; the reference to WP:OR is ludicrous. Yes, M.H.Lee (who in all likelihood is the article's creator) has published (and co-published!) buckets of articles on this specialist topic, it has NOTHING to do with WP:COI, please re-read COI, and perhaps consult the essay WP:SCOIC. Article currently only has one reference, simply because nominee recently deleted all the others [1], an action not justified or reasoned from criteria of relevance to the article, but from purely technical reasons, as the sources "were not specifically cited in the article. I believe the nomination is in good faith, but nominee shows a limited grasp of Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please close as speedy keep. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some responses from nom:
  - I'm not contesting WP:V and WP:RS.
  - Yes, I'm aware there are 100 hits on Google Scholar. But have you noticed that about 98% of them are all by M.H. Lee, the inventor/creator of the concept of jacket matrices? Notability requires widespread, independent coverage; I strongly believe this is not present, hence the nom. In essence, does anyone else in the world know or care about jacket matrices?
  - Please don't put words in my mouth; I haven't mentioned (or implied) a COI interest, nor have I mentioned WP:OR!
  - I culled the reference list because it seemed purely to be "promotional" (in a limited sense of the word); they conferred no direct support to the article. A list of 20 papers is not automatically a list of references.
  - Disagreeing with the notability etc. doesn't imply I "don't understand the nomination process", nor does it warrant a speedy keep on procedural grounds!
- Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 08:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely right, I shouldn't have mixed your and the endorser's comments, I've revised text accordingly. Adding relevant peer reviewed references is not WP:ADVERT. I would still say, that your reason for deletion based on notability concerns is very, very weak. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I would really like to see (to convince me that this is a worthwhile article) is some indication that someone else (preferably plural!) is actually using this maths, i.e. a truly independent, in-depth discussion of jacket matrices, as opposed to an endless list of articles all by the same guy. On the subject of references again: at the moment, the article essentially consists of a single factual statement (the definition). At most, this requires citing a single judiciously-chosen paper (not ~20, that helps no one!). On top of that, the reference list should include some independent coverage to demonstrate notability. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 12:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand that, but it is a home-made inclusion criteria. See Wikipedia:NOTTRUTH. I am definitely no subject matter expert, and for me notability is certainly implied, if Lee can get loads and loads of articles pubished in peer reviewed journals on the subject. I have also noted that he is co-author on many, so somebody must find this useful for some purpose. I cannot enter a subject matter discussion, due to lack of knowledge, but I don't have to, all that is needed is Wikipedia:Verifiability.
        Anyone can get anything published in a peer-reviewed journal, so long as the content is valid and the paper is coherent; that doesn't imply anything about notability. What matters is whether those papers have been widely used, i.e. cited. Just as an analogy, see the requirements for academic notability at WP:PROF (I realise it's not quite the same, but it's close). It states that an academic's work must be "highly cited", implying that being published is not enough. Incidentally, I'm not a subject expert either! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does not pass notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I believe that it's, in some way, COI, because Leejacket (talk · contribs · count)'s only contributions are about his little science "brick" and basically he's the only source. See also: User:Leejacket. I don't want to use WP:ADHOM, but the user could write about other math topics (and I see that he's very well qualified) instead of writing about his little science "brick" (contribution). Anyway, back to notability, if the topic does not have 'reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, I don't see why we should keep the article. IHMO, it isn't notable per lack of independent sources (WP:IS), and the possible COI (not that the article has COI, but because the creator of "Jacket Matrix" is the probably the creator of the article and his only contributions here are basically this article). If there were other important authors (plural, because independent sources are more than one) which are independent of the author (which means that they have never written an article together with Mr. Lee about the subject), I would not be opposed to keep. Algébrico (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~ merge to Hadamard matrix per WP:N since it is not notable enough for "a stand-alone article" (because there are not enough independent reliable souces) and because "The jacket matrix is a generalization of the Hadamard matrix." Algébrico (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hadamard matrix, the subject exists and is supported by reliable sources like "Jacket transform - eigenvalue decomposition" by Lee and Zhang on Applied Mathematics and Computation, 198-2, vol 1, pg 858-864. The problem about keeping is that almost all sources are primary (papers published by Lee, who inroduced the concept in 1989). Jacket transform could be a redirect as well. Lechatjaune (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree with sentiment "the subject exists and is supported by reliable source", but I don't see that the notability is there to even be worth merging. What's the answer to "so what if the Jacket matrix is a generalization of the Hadamard matrix?"; if that can't be answered, I'm not sure how the Hadamard matrix article would be improved by mentioning jacket matrices. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are right, but we often include examples and related topics on articles about mathematics without any strong notability concern and these jacket matrix are more notable than any example of application we can create by ourselves. I think this kind of "bibliography research" discussion enrichs articles and are useful to readers, but I understand wiki.en should keep or delete content according to its rules. Lechatjaune (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources. Lechatjaune, very important, if Lee can have his stuff published in university peer reviewed journals, the it is not a primary source, because Lee is not publishing the stuff himself. The publisher, and not the least, the anon. peer review process, are highly independent and bode for the relevant level of scrutiny and broader interest in the subject. This AfD is seriously mixing apples and oranges. Please read WP:SOURCES: I quote: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses". I go travelling soon and probably wont be able to come back to this discussion. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect, I believe it is you who is mixing apples and oranges! I think everyone is in agreement that peer-reviewed journals are reliable, verifiable sources. But this is not the same as notability; they don't automatically indicate that anyone else has analysed or discussed (in a publicised way) the material in any significant detail, merely that the quality of the paper was good enough to be included in the journal. From WP:GNG: ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject" (which clearly includes the subject themself).
  - Incidentally, I'm inclined to agree with your assessment of the material as not being a primary source. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incidentally (2), if this material were found to be discussed in a "book published in university presses" (in a non-trivial manner), I think I would instantly withdraw my nomination. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Primary source is not the opposite of reliable source. The articles published by Lee where the introduces for the first time his new theory about a family of matrices are essentially primary souces (the original sources the material came up). If someone else publishes a review article, it will be a secondary source. Wikipedia is not intended to have an article about any published scientific theory. Lechatjaune (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incidentally, Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.", that is to say, the source is reliable, but it is still a primary source. Lechatjaune (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, speedy close as per User:Power corrupts. The subject is independently covered in an independent reference text published by a major scholarly press [2]. When you follow that Google Books link to Amazon, you see "jacket matrix" as the first "Key Phrase" in the Amazon listing; following that up turns up several more books which use the phrase in a scholarly/technical context. [3]. It may be a fairly arcane term at first glance, but it's got enough coverage to be notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're absolutely right! Whilst some of those books are about central heating (and therefore likely red herrings), I accept that it's been documented in at least a couple of books. What surprises me is there is seemingly such little independent coverage in academic journals. Nevertheless, I guess all I need to do now is how to withdraw this AfD... Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Test, 2000–01 Border-Gavaskar Trophy[edit]

Not notable Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability aside, there's no references and as an opinion piece it's original research. I42 (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete !vote struct as the rationale no longer applies to the article as it now stands. I42 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete The information is already given in Australian cricket team in India in 2000-01#Second Test. Anything that has been excluded can be added to that article. 03 md 22:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge While the article needs to be sourced and edited to remove some of the opinion, this subject is definitely notable. (Just because you haven't heard of something . . .) See, for example here or here. I would guess it is at least as famous among English speaking people as, say the 2001 American League Championship Series in major league baseball. The page could be merged with the existing article Australian cricket team in India in 2000-01, which already has a paragraph on this subject, but it is arguably notable enough to have its own article. In any event, the claim of non-notablity is just wrong. --Dlduncan2 (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete The information is presented from a NPOV in the above link. This is more an essay than an article and is unsourced. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 22:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Heavily biased essay about a non-notable sports match. We don't have articles on every game ever played. Reyk _YO! 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a strawman argument. Who is claiming we should have an article about every game ever played? Some Tests are more significant than others, this is one of the more significant. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 11:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it was tidied and sourced I would be quite comfortable keeping this article. See Second Test, 2007–08 Border-Gavaskar Trophy for another example of a single match. This Test is ~~certainly as~~ much more notable as that one. The Sydney is mainly notable for whining about the umpires rather than the match itself. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has historic notability, as can be seen by looking for sources more than a year after the event. The match "set a world record for squandering a first-innings lead to lose a Test" (The Independent, 2003)[4]; it was a "historic Test match" (Sydney Morning Herald, 2003)[5]; "the famous Kolkata Test of 2001" (The Age, 2007)[6]; "the memorable 2001 Kolkata Test match" (news.com.au, 2008)[7]; the "Miracle of Calcutta" (The Times (South Africa), 2008)[8]; "stunning turnaround" (The Jamaica Observer, 2004)[9]; "Dravid and Laxman inspired one of the greatest comebacks" (BBC, 2003)[10]; "a famous victory" (The Age, 2003)[11] and many more found by a Google News search. None of these articles was written in the immediate aftermath of the events, so WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Important Test match in the History of cricket. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable. Yes, the article needs improving, but that should happen now people's attention has been drawn to it. JH (talk page) 08:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs to be referenced but it was a very notable Test match and plenty of information is available to expand it into a significant article. If this is deleted for notability reasons then surely The Miracle at the Meadowlands and The Epic in Miami must also be ditched?. Jevansen (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Clearly a very notable match that stands on its own. It has been cleaned up, and can now easily be expanded in line with other notable Test matches, and well referenced. _wjemather ^bigissue 15:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger's sources and Mattinbgn's improvements. Salih (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable match and now much-improved article Johnlp (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most famous and dramatic test matches in recent history, a match which has any number of third party sources attesting to its significance. Ignorance of cricket as a game and this match's place in its history is no reason to delete this article. Nick mallory (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no question at all. Phil Bridger, above, has proved that it has had very substantial coverage in mainstream press long after the match itself was over. It was the third time in well over a century of Test matches (more than 1,500 games) that a side had won after following-on, and coming against an Australian team that had won a then-unprecedented 16 Test matches in a row makes it more notable still. Jevansen refers to a couple of American football articles; this cricket match could (and perhaps should) easily be written about at that sort of length. If this cricket match is not notable, then neither is The Rumble in the Jungle, the White Horse Final or indeed almost any individual sporting event. Loganberry (Talk) 15:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep, I'm always amused when Americans take it upon themselves to decree cricket-related articles as "non notable". As can be shown above from the volume of material that has been written in independent sources about this game, this was an especially notable and important test match, and I believe it's time to snow close this AfD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep Highly notable cricket match.--GDibyendu (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We shouldn't have articles on every match and game in history (that's what Wisden is for), but we should have articles on matches that the media specifically calls 'historic' and which creates multiple world records in the particular sport. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a cricket fan myself, I am loath to support deletion of a cricket article but, if you consider what this "article" was like when BlindEagle found it, you have to say he was entirely justified in asking for it to be deleted. Unfortunately, he chose the wrong reason because if he had done a quick search he would have found that it is a notable subject. It should have been speedily deleted because it was frankly an abysmal article put there by an abysmal editor. This is the original version, with no references or linkages:

Kolkata Test Match is arguably one of the best test matches ever played since the birth of test cricket. It was played from March 16-20 at Eden Gardens, Kolkata in which India halted Australia's 16 successive test victories, a record by any team. The test match is famous for Laxman and Dravid's scintillating batting performance on Day 4 of the test match. Having been trailed by more than 250 runs in the first innings, Dravid and Laxman saw India build up substantial lead of 384 in the second innings having batted through out Day 4 of the test match scoring 333 runs.

Absolute rubbish. Needless to say, look at it now and you wouldn't recognise it. But the point here is that a lot of genuine editors have once again gone to a lot of trouble because of some clown making a point in a very poor way. --Orrelly Man (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No point in blaming the user who started the article. He may be a newbie and must have acted in good faith. Salih (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try living in the real world for a change. The person who acted in good faith was the nominator who was rightly trying to rid the site of cretinous garbage but unfortunately chose the wrong reason to delete and upset the cricket project by saying a famous match is not notable. Why must we always have the Blairite politically correct syndrome coming along with fatuous nonsense about protecting "the newbie"? Hasn't it occurred to you that "the newbie" is yet another troll or, at best, some semi-literate twerp with a WP:POINT to make who chooses to ignore site conventions? Get real. --Orrelly Man (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can very well be a 'semi-literate' fellow, who found it surprising that an article on this important test match does not exist in wikipedia and decided to write a few lines on it. It was his only edit so far, and I feel grateful to him for his endeavors. How many of us wrote well-referenced stuffs in our very first edit?--GDibyendu (talk) 20:03, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shanell Woodgett[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable person. Has already been speedied once and PRODed (which got contested by author). FunPika 20:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:Notability. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References show nothing which comes close to meeting WP:MUSICBIO. None of the writing credits appear to meet WP:COMPOSER. I42 (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' fails WP:MUSICBIO, lacks reliable sources. Very first version of the file had a CSD tag which makes me wonder how seriously the author takes it's creation.--RadioFan (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Has co-writing credits on some biggish records but no hit songs. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:56, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Shannon[edit]

The subject is a non-notable trading card game player. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability derived from a single not significant event. See WP:SINGLEEVENT. Equendil Talk 20:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 20:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO TheRingess (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 22:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete' Per above. Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:51, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian wedding log[edit]

Another likely hoax. No reliable references. JaGa^talk 19:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dubious subject, article created by a single purpose account, no source, creator contacted but gave no response, and I came back fruitless from a Google search. Walks like a hoax, quacks like a hoax ... I say it's a hoax. See WP:HOAX Equendil Talk 20:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 20:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 20:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but would not object to recreation if reliable sources are provided.TheRingess (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. No relevant Google Web, Books, Scholar, News hits. Recommend that the images be deleted as well, since they're misdescribed at the very least. (I tend to doubt that black loggers were likely to serve as witnesses at traditional Armenian weddings.) Deor (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott ^Weave 20:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very odd hoax.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur that this is a hoax. The article mentions the "arzganapatkutʻyamb u iravunkʻnerov" or "ceremonial giving of the sheep and goats.", yet the phrase "arzganapatkutʻyamb u iravunkʻnerov" only turns up 6 Ghits, and this site shows it as a transliteration of some of the Armenian text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It certainly sounds like it is probably a hoax. I see though it has been listed on the Armenian-related deletion discussion list. It really would be nice to hear from some folks involved with that. LadyofShalott ^Weave 14:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Traditionally, the log is brought out during the honeymoon rather than the wedding. Mandsford (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: are you implying that this is legitimate but needs improvement? Or was that tongue-in-cheek? LadyofShalott ^Weave 19:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was a tasteless attempt at humor. Mandsford (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought maybe you were joking, but thanks for the clarification! LadyofShalott ^Weave 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TIMBEEER Power.corrupts (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have now gone through several pages of google scholar results, and nothing appears relevant to this topic. I agree with previous editors who have concluded this is a hoax. LadyofShalott ^Weave 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By the way, the article's creator also uploaded this uncropped version of one of the images in the article, I guess before realizing that the writing on the photo didn't exactly support his story. Deor (talk) 02:25, 9 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. two days isn't going to make much of a difference here. I understand that this was a test case, about "important" versus "notable". The lesson here isn't that important things are automatically notable, but when something is part of a class that largely notable (NYT bestsellers, in this case) then you'll need a stronger case to argue that it wasn't the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons of Summer Flame[edit]

Fails WP:BK and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Being a "best seller" is not a criteria of notability (as upheld by very recent consensus). nothing to even say about the book but, it was published, made the NY times list, and here is the plot. Not a single reliable review found, nor articles about it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

Keep The guideline is a suggestion, not policy. You use wp:common sense. Its a bestselling novel, in a series of bestselling novels, bring about the end of a long running series, killing off a few more main characters, and destroying much of the world. Dream Focus 19:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~/Merge While article does fall afoul of cited policies and guidelines, this info could be easily integrated into an article on parent franchise. L0b0t (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify...are you saying keep or saying merge (not considered the same thing by some people). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Merge then. That is, I feel the information is worth keeping for all the Dragonlance books but that most of them do not require discrete articles. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge per L0b0t. List of Dragonlance novels would be a good target; why delete when a merge is easy to do? –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify...are you saying keep or saying merge (not considered the same thing by some people). Thanks for finding that list, as it was not linked to from the novel article at all (nor was Dragonlance itself). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That list only list bare information which is already there. So there is nothing to merge, it'd just be a delete. This article is a stub. Someone might get around to writing a proper article for it one day, as they have for many of the previous books. Dream Focus 19:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your basis for that claim is? There is actually plenty to merge. That list does suck, and needs to properly formatted into a real novel list, but that is not a valid reason to oppose a merge or claim that it would be a delete. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking of how when consensus was to merge something in the past, [12] you refused to allow any information over, doing an edit and revert war, and finally just accepting a paragraph, and then after a month erasing even that. Would there be more than one line of information resulting from this merge? Dream Focus 20:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to Collectonian's original comment here): I personally feel that the article should be kept, but I see that that is unlikely because of the article's state so if it isn't kept as its own article, a merge of content is by far the best way of handling it. We already have a page which this information would fit just perfectly into, preserving information without the need for an additional, low-quality article. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is, of course, a major difference between merging to an author's biographical article (which would just be a redirect) and merging to a series/novel list (and, of course, I was NOT the only one who said no to putting a plot summary in a bio). Pretty much everything would be merged except the infobox with some wording fixes. Indeed, I'm about to start a discussion at that list about fixing its format. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this book worthy of its own article? Is it less important than others in the series that came before it, simply because there are so many DragonLance novels, they don't bother to review them anymore? It was a bestseller, many fans buying it. Dream Focus 19:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suspect almost all of the novels are in the same boat: unnotable and not reviewed. And you are making a large presumption to presume "fans" bought them. Its been well established that published, authors, etc can and will "buy" their own books to boost sales, hence sales figures not being a criteria of notability.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else actually believe that this book got to the bestsellers list not because of customers buying it, but by trickery from the publishing company? Dream Focus 20:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree with Collectonian in that most of the Dragonlance novels with short, stubby articles are probably non-notable (although not about the reason for that non-notability). However, I see no reason why content should not be merged into a list designed almost perfectly for that very purpose. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 20:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm through a news search that this book was the #15 (of 15 listed) NYT best seller for the week of November 26, 1995, and otherwise didn't appear on the list. That's the only coverage on a Lexis-Nexis search for this book. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYTimes best sellers are notable. Popularity is not notability, but it is one of the forms of it, especially where there;s an indisputably valid way of measuring it. DGG (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. Consensus confirmed this very recently. It is not a sign of notability, and when that is all there is, it is not enough to say "its still notable" when it obviously fails all points of the guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG's rationale. Failing that, it would be better to merge than delete. BOZ (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. NYT bestsellers are inhenerntly notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Collectonian states that there is consensus that this is not so, but fails to provide a link to such a discussion. I may reconsider if I can review the arguments made in that discussion. Pburka (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Sales figures are not listed as a case for notability is the latest. There are also many other discussions with the same conclusion in the archives. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion doesn't look to me like it has reached any consensus one way or the other. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I didn't count, but I think there were more people suggesting best-seller lists should confer notability than people who weren't. BOZ (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I read it as leaning towards accepting best seller lists as prima facie evidence of notability. The precedent set by WP:MUSIC is noted by several contributors. Pburka (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was, however, no consensus to add it to the guideline. Also "evidence of notability" does not mean "is notable". Being a best seller might be "evidence" but obviously in this case it can not be backed up by anything else: no other reliable sources discussing this book, no reviews, nothing. For all the "sales" no one of significance apparently cared enough to review it or talk about it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did count. ;) I see two people saying no they don't count, and four people saying yes they should, and everyone else not really going one way or the other. BOZ (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian, you have a very bizarre idea of "consensus" if it means to you "one other person agreed with me." DHowell (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of whether or not best-sellers are notable, there's sufficient coverage of this book in Google news and Google books that a decent article can be made for this book. It was recommended by the 2002 Science Fiction and Fantasy Readers' Advisory: The Librarian's Guide to Cyborgs, Aliens, and Sorcerers[13], referenced in the 2003 book The 1990s[14] and the author was profiled in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [15]. Plus it's been translated several times. Pburka (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion below in BK - translations are also not a criteria or sign of notability. Author profile doesn't really matter either (that's author notability). The others are not significant coverage and can easily be included in a list format. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds; I've added the one ref. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Personally, I like this book, and the whole series for that matter, but based on the content of the article, I would suggest merging it to the list. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unless better sources can be found (right now all that's sourced is publication history, for a standalone article I'd like to see some sources on how the book was received other than raw sales totals). Being a bestseller is a sign of notability, but if there's not enough verifiable content to support an article longer than a stub, merger is called for even if the topic is notable. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All content is verifiable in the book itself, that how plot summaries work. And many articles start off as a stub and grow over time. Dream Focus 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot of the book is verified by the book... but reactions to it aren't. Articles can be expanded if sources exist... but I've done a few searches and don't really see where the sources are. All that could be added to this article without better sources is an overlong plot summary or original research. So I don't see any harm in merging... if it ever does get to have a decent amount of sourced info, it can always be split off. --Chiliad22 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found one magazine review of it, and added that, with a bit more of the plot. I'm glad most people have already decided it was deemed notable from its high sales figures, since more than 200,000 people buying it, is far more important than a single person's opinion who just happens to be a reviewer in a magazine, that probably doesn't sell as many copies as the book being reviewed does. They wouldn't have a second printing, if they hadn't sold out the first. Dream Focus 16:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that Dragon was the official D&D magazine - i.e. same publishers as the books and therefore not a third-party...right? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post this, when you posted ahead of me.

Whoops! My mistake. That magazine is owned by the same company, and of course would give good reviews to all of their products, that the very reason it was created. So it has no independent third party media coverage, but as I have said, it is a bestseller, and that is all that matters. I tagged it with the Rescue squadron thing, hoping someone can help add to the plot summary. Dream Focus 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even now acknowledging it has no third-party coverage, do you still completely reject having it merge to the list, even after it was noted that the plot would also be merged? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not need it. As those above have stated, it is notable for being a bestseller, the opinions of reviewers not required for that. Also, the notability guidelines can be ignored, they not policy, only guidelines. Dream Focus 16:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of being bold and have integrated everything from the book article into the list article, except the plot (there really is no place in the list for plot summaries of all the many novels.) The book article may now be safely deleted. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except others may come and add to it in time, so no reason to erase an article, just because it isn't fully developed yet. If it meets the requirements to have an article, then it should be done, regardless of the current content or lack their of. People will add to it over time, if they so desire, and anything is better than nothing at all. Dream Focus 16:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Um, things don't work like that. If its going to be deleted, it will be deleted. If its merged, then that's a separate thing. But you can't merge and say delete per GFDL. Also, as it is a list of novels, plot summaries should be included even if the current list is badly formatted.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nonsensical nomination - it's a best selling book which was reported in the NYT. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nothing nonsensical about it. It was a best seller for one week yet no one has actually said anything about it? No reviews, no coverage, hell not even press releases saying "we released it!". Being a "best seller" is NOT a notability requirement per WP:BK and the article does not meet any of the real criteria given there, nor does it meet WP:N. It has no coverage anywhere beyond being on the list (which wasn't "reported" it was simply printed.)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the bestsellers list at any time. There are always books listed that get no reviews, no matter how weeks on the list they are on it. Lack of reviews means nothing. Some types get reviewed far more than others. Most of us here don't care what a small number of people decided when editing the guidelines. Common sense indicates the book sold quite well, has a lot of fans, and that makes it notable. I have a copy of it myself. Dream Focus 14:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than nonsense - it seems to be yet another attempt to abuse AFD. I had no difficulty finding a couple of reviews for this book in just a minute and this is no surprise for a book which had an advance printing of 200,000 copies. In any case, reviews are not needed to demonstrate notability. Appearance in the NYT best-seller list is prima facie evidence of notability and bringing such a book to AFD clearly fails WP:BEFORE in that there will be obvious alternatives to deletion in such a case. Simply working upon the article is the best alternative per the policy, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. AFD is only for hopeless cases, not best-sellers. Not a single editor has suggested that this article should be deleted and so this matter does not belong here. I am amending my summary accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book is one of the "main sequence" of Dragonlance novels, and had major impacts on both the fiction continuity and the gaming setting. Schoop (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere if no sources can be found, failing that delete for failing WP:N. Regarding sales, see WP:BIG. Nerfari (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there were undoubtedly a large number of paper reviews of this best seller at the time. Amazon shows (partial?) reviews by two RSs. [16]. I also believe that best-sellers (say top 10 NYT) are notable. Hobit (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone who's been finding reviews please link them into the article? It's a whole lot harder to delete (or even merge) an article that has honest-to-god reviews on it. :) (That's one thing I learned from GA school!) ;) BOZ (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appearing on the NYT best-seller list is "significant coverage in a reliable source". Reviews in other reliable sources only add to the evidence of notability. DHowell (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. The list gives title, author, year, place. That isn't significant coverage. That's like saying being in IMDB is significant coverage.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB's goal is to list every film ever made. The NYT lists only those books that have achieved a certain level of notability, as evidenced by sales. A single-sentence claim of notability in a source as reliable as the The New York Times is worth pages of coverage in less notable sources. DHowell (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT lists every book that has reached a certain number of sales. It has nothing to do with "level of notability" but sales, period. They don't vest the sales to make sure they are legit, clear, etc. It is purely sales numbers. There are contests and prices that literally "make" someone a best seller by buying enough copies of the book to get on the lists. "Bestseller" is totally meaningless if no one else even talks about the book. It is very well documented how easily it is to "tip" that list.[17] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, 18 years ago, someone published a book on how they had a problem with how the list was calculated, and how to cheat it. And since then, you don't think they've managed to change it? The internet is more developed now, so they can have far more than just a small sample of stores feeding them information. So your link and constant dismissal of the bestsellers list, is pointless. Find something recent and accurate to back up your claim, if you want anyone to take it seriously. Dream Focus 10:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, but I bet you'd use the same source to claim notability to call keep in AfD, but whatever. From the Trackle.com CEO Pavan Nigam; "The Best-Seller List as Marketing Tool and Historical Fiction" Book History, Volume 3, 2000, pp. 286-304, from Laura Miller; news report on the Times revamping in 2007 to get more ad revenue; another 07 report noting that the list is flawed because Harry Potter - obviously a best seller - was removed because of the way the list is formed; there are plenty of sources discussing it out there. As you love to tell people in AfDs - go find sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence makes no sense at all. Being a bestseller on the children's list, would still prove it was notable anyway. And I don't recall ever telling people to go find sources. You are thinking of some deletionist perhaps. Anyway, one link says: The newspaper created the children's list in a response to complaints from publishers other than Scholastic -- Rowling's publishers -- that Harry Potter was monopolising the top of the bestseller list, depriving people access to other popular fiction. That doesn't have anything to do with them not getting accurate readings for the books that are listed though. The books that are listed still sell quite well. Dream Focus 20:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument only proves my point. The fact that someone was gaming the system to get on the NYT best-seller list was documented in reliable sources, showing that appearing on the NYT best-seller list is a notable accomplishment. If appearing on the NYT best-seller list wasn't an indicator of notability, no one would bother to write about it being gamed. DHowell (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link says the "list compiles information from over 3,000 bookstores and more than 28,000 other retail outlets and wholesalers." So I don't think its possible for a publisher to fake results anymore. THe older article listed a far smaller group they had back when they had problems. To go to 31,000 and buy a reasonable number of copies of a book to make it noticed on the list, would cost a fortune. So this tactic is not used anymore, and thus you have no logical reason to be against the Bestseller's list being used to prove notability. Dream Focus 20:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to say Keep, but unless someone can establish something more than being a New York Times bestseller (I'm looking at Dragons of Autumn Twilight and doing a google news, book, and scholar search, but can find nothing to justify anything close to that), I'm afraid a ~~Merge~~ may be better - unfortunately I can't tell where - the List of Dragonlance books is too long or inappropriate for it. --MASEM (t) 04:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And to note: the Dragon review is iffy as it's not truly independent. However, if there was another good 3rd party review, that would at least be a start. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dragon review is a good add for the reception section (it's still a review), but I agree it doesn't help for notability. BOZ (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The few additional sources that have been found, plus at least this [18] push this far enough to Keep for me, though I encourage editor to turn and work from print sources to expand more. And just to comment - just because the authors are notable, and the book made the NYTimes list does not infer notability (Notability is not inherited). Not every song by a notable artist is notable, nor is every painting by a notable painter, etc. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NYT Bestseller list meets notability. If you say "consensus says otherwise" ... well, look at all the people saying it does, right here. Consensus is like that. :-). Also, it's an important book in the series, as it kills off many important characters. Here is the author, Weis, saying as much in a SciFi.com interview. [19] It got turned into an audiobook, that's something to add to the article.[20] --GRuban (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you add those straight into the article, rather than just listing them here? Even if its just in an external links section, it would make them more visible and less easy to forget about. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Saving throw against suggestion ... fails! Your wish is my command, great one. --GRuban (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Heh... thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The series that this is a major development in is notable. The authors are notable. The book itself was a NYTimes best seller. The combination of those factors to me mitigates the somewhat spartan coverage of the book. The internet might be short of coverage for the book for the simple reason that it would primarily have been reviewed in SF and fantasy publications that were not yet moving much content online as of 1995. The 'publication history' section of the Dragonlance article might contain sources that could expand on the novels particular place in the history of TSR and the authors. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How does anyone decide a NYT bestseller is not notable? What a waste of time. --KP Botany (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per almost everyone, it is clear that we should have an article on this book. Notability is a rule, a tool, instead of a goal in itself like the core principles are. We all know that we're a lot better at making articles than rules, and since the encyclopedia covers most fields in existence, there will be eventualities where they won't fit. If the rules are against retaining this article, then the rules are in the wrong. --Kiz o r 14:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can this be closed as WP:SNOW at this point? From the looks of it, it's not going to get deleted. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is an honest dispute here and two real sides. In general, snow closes should be avoided unless the problems that initiated the AfD have been clearly fixed or no one agrees with them. That's not the case here. See The Jamaican Bobsled Clause Hobit (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; just wondering because of how many people have said keep. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:08, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Muslims[edit]

I do not see the encyclopedic value of classifying people according to religion DimaG (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do. On what particular grounds are you proposing deletion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I42 (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the main purposes of lists, as outlined at WP:LIST, is to provide valuable sources of information. This article does so, as it documents important incidents in the lives of notable people, according to a specific and discriminate set of criteria. Also, a note: this article was previously nominated for deletion twice, as can be seen here and here.--Unscented (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A sterling example of WP:LIST coupled with WP:RS. The nominator has not provided a valid reason to encourage deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing one's religion is highly relevant to a person's views on the world and as a result also relevant to their achievements especially for people doing journalistic writing or political work. (Why did the nominator single out the list of former muslims? We have lists like this for all major religions according to the see also section)- Mgm|^(talk) 11:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one is approaching a snowball. I've never known an encyclopedia that avoided mention of religion. Mandsford (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no good reason to delete given, and no reason for specifying only this one of many such articles for deletion. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-sourced, discriminate, informative. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:27, 9 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ali bubba[edit]

Likely hoax. I can't find any references of this person. JaGa^talk 19:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. All searches on "Ali Bubba" and his alleged birth name yielded currently living persons on MySpace, LinkedIn, blogs, etc., none of which even remotely match the bio in this article. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. I do not see AfD as necessary. Recommend tagging for csd. Enigma^msg 19:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, Even his "famous" quote only shows up here. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious hoax. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and pretty lame, as hoaxes go. Forget about Ali Bubba, what about Goober Hussein? Mandsford (talk) 19:40, 8 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Place (Trish)[edit]

Is not notable per the guidelines established at Wikipedia:SINGLE#Notability. Enigma^msg 18:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Enigma^msg 18:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a non-notable release, no widespread coverage in independent sources. JamesBurns (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable single. Being the first single of an artist, regardless of whether the artist is notable or not, does not qualify as notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 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 keep; seeing as the title has just been officially confirmed, it's all moot now.. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 18:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) (moved to The Waters of Mars)[edit]

Pretty much all just rumours and refuted facts; the lead section is mostly wrong, the title is wrong, et cetera. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, speedy keep - it's going to start growing fast, soon (these things always do). Plus, as far as I can see, everything is sourced/referenced properly. There's currently a discussion about the title ongoing here. If there's any specific information that you object to, you can always deal with it by correcting, citing or whatever! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 18:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just hold out four days until Planet of the Dead airs Tphi (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Undoubtedly a candidate for requires serious editing, but given that the BBC have already stated that this programme will be shown, it's not even all that crystalbally.Red Fiona (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to The Waters of Mars, based on Total TV Guide. Reliable sources have reported on this, it's been filmed, etc. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as I noted on WT:WHO, we don't have proof that the second special is the Christmas Special. Indeed, RTD specifically stated in DWM that it would be before the christmas period. It is therefore wrong to have this in a page titled "Christmas special". Eleventh Doctor (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That could just as easily be an argument for moving to a better title, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it could be called someting like Next Doctor Who special, in the vein of Next United Kingdom general election - we know there'll be one, we know some things about it, we just don't know when. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 19:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - but we know almost nothing about it - I certainly don't think there's anything in there that justifies having a whole article about it. That information could be placed somewhere else. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy delete. This is an encyclopaedia, not an outlet for breaking news. There is nothing of value in this article - it is rumour and speculation. Yes, we all like Doctor Who and are Really Looking Forward to the new episodes, but what Wikipedia needs is reliable and reasoned commentary and I suspect it will be a long time before the BBC reveals anything like enough to justify more than a mention of the Christmas episodes in the main Doctor Who article. I42 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I knew someone would bring up WP:CRYSTAL. That says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." This is notable (see sources in article), almost certain to take place (filming has been completed), and preparation is underway/partially completed (the special is in post-production). WP:CRYSTAL supports keeping this article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we don't yet know what "the event" is in anything like enough detail to justify an article yet. A few tidbits of information have been released and from that the article deduces with no justification it's the Christmas special. This is not verifiably certain to be the Christmas special so it fails WP:CRYSTAL, amongst others. I42 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it currently stands makes no such deduction. We know from reliable sources that the special has been filmed and will air. We just don't know precisely when. (That's one of the reasons it should be moved from the "Christmas special" title.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the title itself. Renamed, as proposed elsewhere, I would consider the article merely premature (there isn't even any guarantee there'll be a trailer for the episode after this weekend's edition) but far less problematic. But this AfD concerns the 2009 Christmas Special, about which we know absolutely nothing. I42 (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be pedantic. You know that we mean it to be the upcoming special; if you want it renamed, rename. This AfD is not about the Xmas special, it is about the article in question, which is about the second special. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not pedantry, it is policy. We do not know the title. See WP:HAMMER for why we cannot name the article "2nd Doctor Who Special" (or whatever), and we cannot reliably attribute an episode name yet. It would be great to get an article going because we're all fans of the show, I'm sure - but WP:ILIKEIT is no reason. Why not usefy the article and continue working on it until it's ready to go? I42 (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What policy says that we shouldn't name it "2nd Doctor Who special"? ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 09:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're being pedantic now :-) Yes, I know WP:HAMMER is an essay. I42 (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, I do not support renaming, but it's clear mine is a minority opinion. Whatever the outcome, however, I strongly feel that the existing title must be deleted; renaming alone will leave it as a redirect. I42 (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 2009 Doctor Who Special #2 or something similar until a title is available. If the problem is calling it the Christmas Special, then let's just not call it the Christmas Special. -- SonicAD (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It couldn't be precisely that, as we can't have #hashes in article titles. But take a peep at the article talkpage, and see what you think of the proposed move there. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 19:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to 2009 Doctor Who Special #2 or something similar, until more information (and most importantly, a reliable source for the title) comes available. The existence of the event is not in question, as per previously mentioned comments about it being announced, in post-production, etc. However, the article title should wait at least until we see the credit sequence for Saturday's "Planet of the Dead", because the source (the lead paragraph of a Totally TV article) has several other factual errors regarding the show. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to "The Waters of Mars". There is no reason to regard Total TV Guide as non-reliable source. The TV Guide article may be called "The Rumour Mill", the title is not listed as a rumour, but appears in the lead of that article, making it a fact. The title is legit, and all information contained in the Wikipedia article is sourced. — Edokter • Talk • 20:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- enough information, sourced, that its notable. Seems to meet the 1st exception under WP:CRYSTAL- "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The sourcing is there to show both. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to the title. The existence of this episode is certain, shooting has been completed, it is in post production. And trailer airs in three days or so. Hektor (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not crystalballing because we have plenty of sources that it exists and is notable with reliable sources. Title can be changed afterwards (like it was done with 2008 Christmas special (Doctor Who)) but that's not what AFD is for. The fact that there might be mistakes is not a reason for deletion, rather for correction. There are plenty of sources and in 4 days, there will likely be more. Regards So Why 01:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Do any other shows have articles on upcomming specials? Will this artilce remain noteable after it airs? Looking at Category:South Park, Category:South Park episodes, Category:Star Wars shows movies, books, and what not, but no specific forecast episodes, season premier's don't have articles, while the season itself may. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephiroth storm (talk • contribs)
- Remember to use ":" when linking categories, i.e. [[:Category:South Park]] instead of [[Category:South Park]]. As for the question, each show is different. Doctor Who is one of the few shows where every episode has a valid article with multiple reliable sources existing. So I do not think comparing whether other stuff exits or does not exist will help us here, but only whether the article in question is about something notable and if that is sourced. Regards So Why 06:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, why is there an independant article for each episode? I don't see that as very benificial, I find it hard to believe that each article passed WP:NF Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are other articles about episodes relevant to this article? We are here to reach consensus whether this article meets requirements for inclusion, not any other. So Why 10:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article for each episode. Some episodes are significant enough to have won a Hugo award, so I think it makes sense. Hektor (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some episodes, ok. Not all. I have a hard time believing they are all worthy of their own article. In any case, In reguards to this article, I still don't see how it is noteable. I understand it may become noteable in the future, but making an article simply because they are planning a special seems ridiculous and non encyclopedic. Nothing personal. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each Doctor Who episode typically has a new setting and new supporting cast (only two actors will be normally be in all the episodes), looking through the individual episode articles that strikes me as the best way to present the information (there are 204 other episode articles, by the way). This is simply extending the format for current Doctor Who episodes to one that has been filmed (so no longer 'planned' as you say) and about which reliable information is being made available. Also don't be confused by the term 'Special' this is continuing the series as previous episodes have, it's just being called a special because there isn't a full series this year. Maccy69 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Articles about future films and television production are only crystal when there's not sufficient reliable information to build an article with. Since there are reliable sources and plenty of things can be said about the cast a production, CRYSTAL does not apply here. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move If this Afd is allowed to run to it's conclusion I would suggest that it's moved to it's title (if announced at the end of the special broadcast on Saturday) or 2009 Second special (Doctor Who). Moving articles during Afd can cause problems so I would suggest that the article is move-protected. Alternatively I would suggest that the nominator withdraw this Afd and move this article now to 2009 Second special (Doctor Who). Edgepedia (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it make more sense to wait till April 11 and rename with the actual title of the episode. Hektor (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to 2009 Second special (Doctor Who). The article itself is a well sourced account of a TV programme that has been filmed and is yet to be scheduled. The only issue is with the article title since we know, from numerous reliable sources, that it will not be scheduled at Christmas. "The Waters of Mars" title is from a single source with no official BBC connection (unlike, say, The Radio Times or Doctor Who Magazine) and can't be considered any more reliable than any other media article (such as an article in The Sun), regardless of any distinction the publication itself claims between "rumour" and "fact" (they could still easily be wrong). Once the title is revealed the article can be moved again. Maccy69 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-cited, and if it _doesn't_ happen, it will be notable for that reason, like Shada. Rename later if necessary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Rename Per above arguments to keep and rename. Jon (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename- The name of this special will be announced after the easter special on saturday probably and it is notable enough. On BBC Breakfast Russell T. Davies said it will air in novemberish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.171.110 (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article can offer very very little right now, as almost no information has been announced, and some of this informations seems unreliable. Perhaps it ought to be written in 6 months, just before the broadcast, when proper confirmed information will abound. — 86.153.63.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note that this !vote was cast only after the user "lost" an argument on the article's talkpage. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 12:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this has an impact on the debate or my addition to it. I am merely trying to offer a voice in the AfD debate. Had I been aware of this debate before that discussion, I would have offered the same opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.63.30 (talk • contribs)

Keep I think it's notable, and it will just get still more coverage above and beyond it's existing notability. rootology (C)(T) 18:41, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Vale Cotton[edit]

contested prod, fails WP:ENTERTAINER, none of these roles are significant RadioFan (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Let young Mason do something that gets some coverage and then welcome him back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he does not meet the notability guidelines currently. If he does eventually receive some coverage allow recreation then. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable/minor career - The Spleenectomy? Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 23:30, 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 Malice Mizer. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Au Revoir[edit]

Is not notable per the guidelines established at Wikipedia:SINGLE#Notability. Any useful material from this article should be included in the album article and this page should either be deleted or describe the French phrase. Enigma^msg 18:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fail the notability guideline linked above:

Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Per the guideline, all the articles I bundled with this AfD should be deleted or merged to the appropriate album articles. Enigma^msg 18:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why don't you be bold and merge them then, as per the guideline you quoted, instead of bringing it to AfD? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because people revert when when singles are redirected to albums. I don't have a choice here. Enigma^msg 01:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I have the same problem too. I get an admin to put a protection on the page. It seems to help. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The policy is that entries that are not notable on their own should be covered in context. Protect to avoid revertion without proper expansion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per guidelines, common consent, and common sense. If you've got reversion problems, then get protection. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they should be deleted, but if people are going to keep hammering me about this, I will redirect and if anyone reverts, I suppose you think I should edit war back and forth? Enigma^msg 16:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm not the only one who favors deletion here, as deletion and recreation as a redirect would be the common sense approach. Enigma^msg 16:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect in order to preserve visible edit history for GFDL. If someone reverts the merges and redirects, I'll be happy to protect them after redirecting them again. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If an admin is willing, this AfD can be closed. I don't think I can withdraw because someone else said to delete. I am willing to merge all the articles and watch them. I will come to you if I am reverted. Enigma^msg 20:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: insufficient reliable 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect in order to preserve visible edit history. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or expand if you can find more relevant infomation to add to these article(s) then that would be the best option. Otherwise, merge them with the main article(s)Mako Addicted (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I non-admin closed this discussion earlier, and Enigmaman reopened it because there were comments that favored deletion. Jamie^☆S93 02:09, 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 Keep- I'm being bold and closing the afd per WP:SNOW. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centrum (multivitamin)[edit]

Delete drug that is not approved by FDA not intended to prevent, treat or cure any disease, and hasn't generated significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. "centrum vitamins" generates 580k ghits, but mostly are how and where to buy it, a few are critics including "centrumistoxic.com" but nothing that seems to be a reliable source providing significant coverage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found a metric buttload of news hits, but most seem to be trivial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very well known brand of vitamins. Not approved , because it's in a class of products not needing approval, vitamins not being currently considered a "drug." DGG (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and flag for major expansion. Very well-known brand in the USA; I'm surprised this is all there is on this subject on Wikipedia. To echo DGG, the "not intended to prevent..." statement is something that vitamin manufacturers have to put on product labels in the USA because vitamins are not subject to the same FDA regulatory requirements as, say, Tylenol. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a major brand of vitamins in the United States. According to the Wyeth web page [21], it is the top product in its category in the world (though that obviously isn't an independant source). Calathan (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Should we invoke WP:IAR or WP:UCS in this case? KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 19:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I was not the creator, but I rewrote the article. It was a nonsense page I found on new pages that I rewrote. I was surprised too to find it did not have an article already. The "drug" stub is not completely accurate--it's a vitamin/dietary supplement, so there is no FDA drug approval involved. It's a well known brand name of vitamins in the U.S. and it's produced by a major pharma company. I'm not at all surprised there are WP:RS. It's most definitely notable. Shadowjams (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a search of Lexis-Nexis reveals 182 sources for "Centrum wyeth" and 440 for "Centrum vitamin". A lot of these are stories about lawsuits, studies and ad campaigns related to Centrum... relatively limited coverage on their own, but combined they'd be a pretty decent encyclopedia article, I think. There are claims like "Centrum Silver totally dominates vitamin sales among consumers 50-plus-representing about 20% of the overall $649.9 million vitamin category, according to analysts." which make me think there's notability and sources here... if someone wanted to dig them up (I don't, but I added one source just for the heck of it). --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand-- notability is not an issue for this major brand, recommend a speedy keep.--J.Mundo (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep remove the POV and expand. -Senseless!... says you, says me 02:27, 8 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) 15:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japan-Venezuela relations[edit]

Listing after a contested PROD. This article makes no assertion of why the subject is notable, either within the scope of world diplomacy and history or even to the two nations involved. Although the article links to both Foreign relations of Venezuela and Foreign relations of Japan, the scant information in the article was never apparently considered for inclusion there first to give it a chance to grow through later edits until such time as it may warrant its own article. The two "references" aren't even cited from the text; they are simply very recent news items that do nothing to improve the article and in fact damage it through WP:NOTNEWS. BlueSquadronRaven 17:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is asserted in the conventional fashion. Definitely a stub in need of expansion. NOT#NEWS is not applicable, though it does take ~10 seconds of effort to discover this. Wily D 17:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a 60-year-old news story (still not cited from the text of the article) is hardly grounds for its continued existence, especially when no effort has been made to improve the existing Foreign relations articles. You have still yet to assert notability in any way other than that it should be notable based on its title alone. To further illustrate, a better example of a notable bilateral relations article would be Japan – United States relations, which was infinitely more researched, cited, sourced and fleshed out immediately upon its creation than this could hope to be. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. If it was notable in 1942, it was notable. Lugnuts (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it was notable in 1942 - It's Venezuela. Regardless, it doesn't warrant keeping the article without first fleshing out Foreign relations of Venezuela and Foreign relations of Japan until the topic can stand on its own merits. Right now, it most certainly does not. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with one or both of the two links you've provided seems like the best option IMO. Lugnuts (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Been making news for more than sixty years does indicate that it's not a single flurry of news reports like a car crash or something. You're stuck with appeals to WP:IDONTLIKEIT You'll have to dance with the one what brung you. Wily D 18:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to WP:ILIKEIT? In any case, all I get out of these "references" is that Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso is notable, Hugo Chavez is notable, and the government of Venezuela ca. 1942 is notable. I do not get why relations between these two countries are notable on the world stage in and of themselves relative to any other random pair of countries, nor the impact of such relations on world history or socioeconomics. There is no significant coverage of the topic of Japan-Venezuela relations in and of itself, only of sporadic incidents. Write that (and I mean write it... not just add out-of-date news articles) and I'll give it another look. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As oppose to it being the usual practice to keep notable, encyclopaedic articles, because this is a project to build an encyclopaedia. Since you're arguing for a highly irregular result, you need to provide a substantial reason. "Would be the thing to do per longstanding practice and the general consensus of editors" is a strong starting point, and with no opposition beyond IDONTLIKEIT, it should be an open and shut case. Wily D 19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that, as it's been my experience that many new articles stem from earlier established articles when a sub-topic has received enough citations of notability within it, as has been a longstanding practice with the general consensus of editors. Why are you advocating an irregular result, and simply arguing that you don't like it? Japan – United States relations led to a major war, what did Japan-Venezuela relations lead to? --BlueSquadronRaven 19:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "resulted in a war with 50+ million casualities" is your threshold for "minimum notability for a seperate article", you're farther out of touch with the community than I'd have guessed. While new articles are sometimes spun out of old ones, starting new articles from scratch has certainly been the norm in my experience (I've started ~200 articles, of which 1% where spun out of larger articles). Your experience might vary, but both methods will produce worthwhile articles - embracing one doesn't require shunning the other. Wily D 21:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Not a war. How about anything at all? I mean anything that can justify it having its own article. What did these relations lead to and why is it important historically? Is there even a book out there on this topic that can show that? One book, exhaustively enough researched and cross-referenced, that can make one go "Wow, Japan-Venezuela relations were more important in today's world than I thought!" I'm not asking for 50 million casualties, just one bloody example! Can you provide, or does it fail WP:N after all? --BlueSquadronRaven 21:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per common sense, these two countries are important enough, particularly economically, that there is bound to be enough out there to support an article. A problem is picking out appropriate sources, because obvious searches yield too many results. There are some in this gnews search. I added this EL on the precise topic to the article. There's this book - apparently trading in metals is a major economic relationship. As this search shows, there is a Japan-Venezuela Economic Committee of the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren) , which was chaired by the president of Toyota. This book has a little about Japanese perceptions of the investment climate in Venezuela as found by that committee.John Z (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Z. There are definitely enough sources out there for a full-scale article and merging would do no good. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the relations that are actually notable. The links John Z found prove it fair enough. Tavix | Talk 23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do these two countries have relations? Yes. Are there reliable sources demonstrating that fact? Yes. The fact that there are multiple sources discussing relations between these two nations makes it a priori notable, regardless of whether or not the sources are currently used in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a welcome case of Country A and Country B having diplomatic and economic relations that meet WP:N and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - several good cites now show how foriegn relations have been conducted on the highest level between these two largish countries. Not all "Yolksylvania-Poultria relation"-type articles are notable, but this one has been shown thusly. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to JohnZ's work. However, I'd like to know if they currently have exchanged ambassadors. -- llywrch (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly encyclopedic article, no reason to delete it. Dream Focus 12:26, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zimbabweans by net worth[edit]

The two references are two forums in which the editor asked whether the information he put in the article was right, as if he had made them up. Most people disagreed with the information. God Emperor (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better references can be found to comply with the verifiability policy. God Emperor makes an excellent point - the current sources, as well as being very dodgy forum/wiki sources to start with, actively undermine the reliability of the information themselves. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Questionable notability and not even close to reliable sourcing. Wperdue (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Delete - for failing verifiability. I've no objection tot he topic if verifiable informatin can be found, but I rather doubt it. My own search turns up this article which is likely the closest thing to reliable sourcing as we are likely to get. It is a news article which explicitly states "There is no official index for ranking the country's richest as very few individuals are keen to publicly declare their assets or overall wealth." And furthermore, their methodology is "premised on available information gleaned from known investments on the stock market and elsewhere in the economy and public opinion." -- Whpq (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Mazca & the rest. Yes, Robert Mugabe would likely make the list, but the other 4 names are based on the Answers.com Q & A forum which anyone can respond to without providing any proof. -- llywrch (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, specifically lack of verifiability; Matt Deres (talk) 22:33, 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ~ mazca ^t|c 19:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are U 4 Real?[edit]

~~Not finding but a single review of this book. Fails WP:BK~~ RadioFan (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The book is notable and I'm still expanding/adding sources to the article. You couldn't find any reviews because it hasn't been released in the US yet. There are several Swedish reviews, however, and it has won one of Sweden's most prestigious book awards. —TheLeft orium 17:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has now been substantially expanded and sourced from the version that was AfD'ed, looks fine to me. I think it's worth waiting longer than 20 minutes from creation before AfDing a borderline article. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known book, and it would be worth an article because of its adaptation into Sandor slash Ida (film). I see it just as a matter of convenience that it has been created under its designated English-language title rather than under its original title Sandor slash Ida. Also agree on the rest of the comment by Mazca, it is possible to PROD an article rather than to directly AFD it! Tomas e (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn article has been significantly improved and some good sources have been ferreted out.--RadioFan (talk) 17:28, 8 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. The article fails to establish notability backed by reliable sources. Fictionreviewer.com is neither a notable website nor a reliable source. Also, the book has not had reviews by major critics. If it can be shown that the necessary criteria in WP:BK are met, the article can be recreated. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fledgling Jason Steed[edit]

I was giving it the benefit of the doubt before I checked the very specific references given for the reviews, and all of them failed, except the one to FictionReviewer, which does not appear to be notable. Much of the sourcing is to messageboards and self-published sites. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would have to disagree, the sources include published newspaper articles, Fictionreviewer.com awarded it YA book of the year, it beat Twlight!, Plus Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk has had more than the required reviews by independant readers who have to submit a credit card for identification, as it has so many by so many reviewers and not just one or two, this should suffice. We cant call these self-published, when Amazon takes great precuations.

The hits the page has substained the last 7 days have made it very worthy and shows the interest in the information page. I agree we need to keep Wikipedia as factual as possible, but we must also be prepared not to alienate the originators who have spent many hours submitting information. The memorial for Raymond V Steed the youngest recorded service death is being funded by volunteers. The author has submitted 80% of that fund from his book sales. This has been verifeid on some of the sites the originator posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy tucker NC (talk • contribs) 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear this up, customer reviews are unreliable per definitionem, as Amazon staff obviously doesn't have time to read each book and decide if they agree or disagree with a review. Even I can submit my credit card number to Amazon and write reviews, but that doesn't make me an acclaimed book critic. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this book doesn't appear to suffice WP:BK standards. Also, note that self-published books are usually subject to greater scrutiny on Wikipedia. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the reviews appear to be in reliable sources. No reliable sources appear to have commented on this book's popularity. All we have that is reliable is a short article in a local paper, suggesting that a film deal has been discussed, but lacking an official announcement from Pinewood, the studio mentioned in the article, it is hard to consider this credible. It is extraordinarily rare for a self-published book to be made into a film by a major studio (I honestly can't think of any examples at the moment. A Time to Kill is sometimes cited as self-published, but was actually a small press book). I think what we see here is a paper picking up rumours and running them without fact checking. FictionReviewer doesn't seem to be a credible source; they accept e-mail submission of reviews from unknown submitters and I would be wary of trusting a site of book reviews that states "the speed of the interent" ... "insures" they review books first. JulesH (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I would consider the Yorkshire Evening Post, Navy News and Soldier magazine as "reliable sources." Indeed, the British Government looks to Navy News and Solider for information. Wikipedia is all about 'notability.' This book is 'notable' in that it doesn't just have dozens of Google hits, it has many written word references too. The book has been reviewed in numerous 'notable' publications, including the August 2008 edition of the Navy News, the October 2008 edition of Soldier magazine and the September 11, 2008, edition of the Yorkshire Evening Post - a VERY prominent newspaper. Book reviews in these publications ARE NOT always published on line - but that doesn't make them any the less notable. The reviews are available to anyone requesting a copy of that publication. Just because something doesn't pop up on Google, it doesn't mean that it is an automatic candidate for AFD. Also: this article was adopted by both the NovelsWikiProject and the Children'sLiteratureWikiProject of Wikipedia before an independent editor decided to AFD this.--Beehold (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You mean they deleted the review from page 26 of http://publishing.yudu.com/Ajoet/NavyNewsAug08/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http://www.navynews.co.uk/archived-editions.aspx and filled it in with something else?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the magazine is online. That is normal for newspapers and magazines. If you want to see the review in full, just ring the magazine and ask for a copy to be faxed. It is there, no question. I honestly can't see why you are arguing this. The book has also been written about in newspapers such as the Newport News and the Cornish and Devon Post, and mentioned - briefly - on the local BBC news programme (when the author made a donation to a war memorial).-Beehold (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete over sourcing concerns for this self-published book, notably the forums, blogs, and the apparent non-existence of the Navy News source. I've reviewed the online version of the publication and it appears to be quite complete. Also, the presence of WikiProject tags does not indicate "adoption" or endorsement of an article, just that it's in their area of interest. - Dravecky (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rework - the copy evidences an obvious self or fan promotino activity however it does appear to have limited notability, see above comments about the "better" sources cited. The article should be trimmed and edited down to a more balance copy. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 05:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - the book does not seem to meet any of the criteria for notability in WP:BK. However, the article probably looks worse than it is due to the unnecessary number of inline citations. Wayniac (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check my last version, where I trimmed out the redundant and messageboard refs. Doesn't look much better, IMHO.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Beehold has put lots of effort into cleaning up the article. It looks better but there's still too much clutter. For example, the Fictionreviewer.com award does not strengthen the notability claims of the book (this site doesn't even have a Page Rank). Wayniac (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won an award from a notable website and received significant discussion in no less than 3 reliable sources (WP:GNG). The article needs some work in cutting self-published sources that make claims about anyone else than the author, but being self-published does not neccesarily mean a book is not notable -- the chance is just a bit higher. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MGM, how did you establish that FictionReviewer.com was notable? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fictionreviewer.com%22&start=40 gives 26 GHits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you run the search without the quotation marks around the name, you get 7.100.[22]--Beehold (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...which is fairly irrelevant, as it then picks up every web page with "fiction reviewer".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above about fictionreviewer.com: they accept e-mail submissions and have horrible errors in their use of English on their contact page. The two combined, I feel, leaves them with zero credibility as a reliable source for book reviews. And despite User:Beehold's suggestions to the contrary, SarekOfVulcan's link does appear to be to a complete copy of the magazine that is claimed to contain a review of the novel. Not an online edition, a scan of the print edition. And the Yorkshire Evening Post seem to have omitted the article from their web archive, despite the fact that it contains a whole load of other content that would seem to be more relevant to miss out than a review of a notable book that has been overlooked by the mainstream media. That seems much more important than their pub review, or a letter complaining about opening times of Leeds market. I'm struggling to find any sources regarding the content of Soldier magazine; they don't have an archive, so only the current issue is available online. So, unless you've actually seen any of these sources, I'd be dubious about whether they really exist. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but from where I'm sitting it looks as though these sources have simply been invented. JulesH (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have today emailed Soldier, Navy News and the Yorkshire Evening Post, asking if it would be possible for them to email me scans/confirm if/when the reviews were printed in their publications. I have nothing concrete to post here yet, except that someone at the YEP did say that book reviews are not usually posted on their website, unless part of a bigger news story. (As in Harry Potter). If I receive anything at all, I will upload it here, for all to see. Meanwhile, I have trimmed - yet again - the article refs.--Beehold (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and make smaller. Such as Pillar of Fire that was just a novel without the huge following, but it was posted by --SarekOfVulcan it never had the sales and fan base Jason Steed has gained from word of mouth. I am 14 and new to this, and yes a fan of the title, But I don't think it should be completely deleted. Cant you guys compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy tucker NC (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate vote stricken. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? I'd like to check that. Where did you get your sales figures for Pillar of Fire? That would be useful to have in the article...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pillar of Fire Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 1,929,824 in Books
Fledgling Jason Steed Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank:6,151.
It worse on Amazon.com. Plus Fledgling has had over 27 5 star reviews Piller of fire has had just 7. There are the sales figures you asked for sir. Go to Barnes and Nobles it the same. But I dont want to get into a quibble with you sir, I know your intentions are very good.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy tucker NC (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the assumption of good faith: it's greatly appreciated. I would just like to point out that PoF came out the year Amazon went online, so most of its sales were (presumably) in physical bookstores. I'd have to assume that most of Fledgling's sales were online, so the online sales numbers are going to look a bit different between the two.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self published, which normally requires exceptionally good evidence for notability. when Reliable sources notice it, if they ever do, then there can be an article. The material accumulated so far is merely that from a publicity campaign. Not that its impossible for it to be notable, but not so far. It was presumably sent to the British Library, but its been 6 months from publication & they haven't bothered to catalog it yet. Nor does any of GoogleNews's sources mention it. Now, it is by no means impossible for a book of this nature to actually become notable, so when there are sources, there can be an appropriate article. But I'm a little puzzled, for there is something a little odd in a book at this level of popularity not getting some mainstream notice. I wonder if it just might be possible to write an article about the real Raymond Victor Steed, and mention the book, with a redirect. DGG (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Facts: The book is mentioned in at least one on-line verified independent publication[23], with possibly more to come. It has 46,800 Google hits (with a speech mark limited search)[24] - showing, at least, a wide internet awareness of the book. It has won an award[25]. The author has been signed to a notable literary agent and film producer (Vampire's Kiss) Barbara J. Zitwer.[26]. Statistics show there is an obvious "demand" for this page on Wikipedia.[27] The book seems to be doing well in the (Wikipedia and Time magazine approved) Goodreads.com website Young Adult Book of 2009 listopedia vote[28]. And so, Keep.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 20:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that would be 96 Google hits, not 46K. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Fledgling+Jason+Steed%22&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK274&start=90&sa=N --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And 8 people voting for it is "doing well"??????--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry SarekOfVulcan, but I repeatedly get 46,800 Google hits for this book with speechmarks around the "Fledgling Jason Steed": [29], not the 96 you state. And eight votes at Goodreads.com is doing well when those eight votes appear to put the book in the lead of the rest of the competition. (In front of Alex Rider etc)[30]. In my opinion. this book should stay on Wikipedia. Whichever way you argue it, this book is clearly WP 'Notable.'-- Myosotis Scorpioides 21:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click on page 10 at the bottom of your 46K search page, and you'll see the actual number.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is interesting. When you put in different variations of the book, and its author's name, you get an amazing range of figures. For example, on page ten of "Jason Steed", you get 83,000-plus,[31], while on page 10 of "Mark A Cooper" you get 14,000-plus.[32] Whatever way you play it though, the book just keeps appearing, appearing, appearing. And, to me, that makes it notable.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 22:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7th link on first link you post above:

Concurring Opinions

But I can't see why a senior status system would be disallowed by the Constitution. Posted by: Jason Steed at September 11, 2007 01:40 PM ...

When was Fledgling published again?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan, you are taking it personal. look: http://www.google.com/search?q=fledgling+jason+steed&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1 its over 50,000. you have got " in between it when you search the title. The book is clearly outselling 'Pillar of Fire' and you wrote an article on that, its selling around the world, it has a huge following, and 50,000 plus on google. What is the differnece between this and the book 'Pillar of Fire' that you wrote about. Apart from the fact 'Pillar of Fire' is ranked down at 1.9 million compared to a 1278 that Fledgling Jason Steed is ranked. Like you say maybe they are selling 'Pillar of Fire'n book store and not Amazon. But tehy dont stock it at Barnes and nobles books stores, it has to be a speacial order. So what is wrong with the posting? Life is too short bud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy tucker NC (talk • contribs) 18:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your search resulted in exactly 255 hits. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 10:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a very well known (and award-winning) young adult book, with numerous references, reviews etc on the internet. It has been repeatedly compared to Jimmy Coates, Young Bond, Alex Rider and the CHERUB series and, as such, merits a Wikipedia page.--79.64.153.87 (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Whilst I have no real opinion on whether or not this article should remain, I wish to point out that, as an ex-key player in the CHERUB world, a lot of books are compared to those listed before. Partly because there's been a surge in teenage spy novels and partly because people often use it as a form of publishing. The phrase "If you loved Alex Rider then you'll love this!" is a common ploy to attract readers to a book which is a dreary read and merely tries to fly on the tailwinds of a truly successful novel. Though I make no assumption that this is the case. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone else seen http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080916123559AAgv34G which claims that M.A. Cooper is really Anthony Horowitz? I know that Yahoo! Answers is notoriously unreliable, but perhaps someone with a bit more time could check this out. I feel a positive on this would change my initial inclination for deletion - and possibly others'. Peridon (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I wouldn't believe that at all. I've heard talk bandied around but you're referring to Yahoo Answers which in turn refers to Amazon. It's just spurious rumours. In fact, looking through Amazon, people seem to be in agreement that the book wasn't written by Horowitz because it's not of the same class. One commentator personally knows the author. I wouldn't be surprised if these rumours were started by the publishers or author to try and draw attention to an otherwise un-notable book... Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book is self published just like Christopher Paolini self published to start. The fact is the book is a phenomenon and merits a page on WP. I don't think the author who ever he is needs to draw attention to the book by starting a rumor. The poor guy seems to be trying to put the record straight among his fans; http://bookclubs.barnesandnoble.com/bn/board/message?board.id=TeenReads&thread.id=25205&jump=true

If anyone with an ounce of sense googles the title you can see the authors own website and pages. What merits a keep is the awards, book, sales, history of Raymond V Steed, the sites such as goodreads.com where the book out shines every other book in its class and even has its own group. Despite notablity of review after review on Amazon, goodreads, Barnes and Noble, they cant have all be written by the author? there are 29 on Amazon, 74 on goodreads they all rave about the book. Someone on WP has taken this wrong and what WP is for. ~~Keep~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwesley1995 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC) — Johnwesley1995 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

The history of Raymond Steed is completely irrelevant to the notability of this book. If it's a phenomenon, where are the WP:reliable sources to prove it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quote from WP:BK about Barnes&Noble forums, Amazon reader reviews etc.: "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 10:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing issues combined with self-publishing are too much of a concern here. As [[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan] points out, if the book has crossed over from self-publishing to be a major commercial phenomenon, there should be reviews, best seller listings from market publications, etc. No prejudice towards re-creation if unambivalent sources are presented. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

++::Comment to Spasemunki: The article is sourced to an independent newspaper, as well as the author's website. (Others promised to follow) Rather more than some Wikipedia book articles at the moment. The page is also receiving a large amount of hits each day - almost 1,000 yesterday.[33]-- Myosotis Scorpioides 09:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Number of hits' is not a notability or verifiability criteria. The paper used as a source appears to be a very small local paper; papers like this often accept what are essentially press releases as articles. For a non-self published book I might find that to be OK, but I think a higher level of scrutiny should be applied in this case- if there is really a major motion picture about this book pending, as the article claims, it would be covered in sources other than a weekly paper for north Cornwall. 'Pillar of Fire' is perhaps an AfD candidate itself, but isn't self-published and doesn't affect this AfD per WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete I still find it amazing that so many people with no other editing history come on and tell us what Wikipedia is for. (Actually, no I don't...) It would be perfectly possible for the author or a friend to have written the reviews. I am not suggesting they have, only that it is not impossible for this to occur. I would prefer to see independent and reliable references before changing my mind. I to a large extent discount the Launceton Post knowing the stuff that can get into local papers. The Author Nation references are posted by the author. Fiction Reviewer is a place for anyone to submit reviews, and I do not know what safeguards they have against spamming, if any. I may be missing something, but I do not seem able to access any reviews on that site. It says I can submit a review without registering or signing in, which suggests little safeguarding, but I can find no way as a non-registered user to see the reviews. The Sarasota reference is also posted by Mark Cooper. The Blinkx 'trailer' is a brief reference and link to the author's website. I cannot access the Navy News or Soldier sources, I find it hard to see how the YEP would be reviewing a just published first novel by a Launceston man living in Florida. If you do have more suitable references that are verifiable, or if an editor with an established track record here can verify the offline sources, please do so. I'm sorry, but I take the rantings of single purpose accounts with a considerable pinch of salt. Peridon (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a search for this book on the Waterstones site, with no result. http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/simpleSearch.do?simpleSearchString=Fledgling+Jason+Steed&searchType=0&Image1.x=9&Image1.y=17 I can find many books there with Fledgling in the title, but none with Jason Steed. To all those coming here to support the article: Please note that we are not denying the existence of the book. We are saying that it hasn't yet achieved the level of notability required. Amazon and Barnes and Noble do not need to stock books in order to sell them. They can call them in when required. High Street sellers such as Waterstones stock what they can sell. Not everything there is notable. But if it's not there, it fairly certainly isn't. Peridon (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the statement: "I still find it amazing that so many people with no other editing history come on and tell us what Wikipedia is for." I have several DYK's, Good Articles and two Featured Articles to my name. And yes, I say Keep to this article.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 11:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you do but Johnwesley1995's, for example, sole contribution to Wikipedia has been to this page. The comment wasn't necessarily targeted at you. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 11:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The remark was not, indeed, targeted at those with an editing history. It was partly referring back to certain other AfDs I've taken part in where outside campaigns were organised to bolster the 'keep vote'. And hoping to prevent it here. If single purpose accounts came up with anything reliable and verifiable, I'd welcome them. Most of them never get beyond 'it's notable because we like it' or similar. I'm not a deletionist. I've taken part in discussions with SPA people on their own board to try to extract something reliable. (Without success...) If references I consider sound come up, I can change my mind. (Have done in a few AfDs before.) Peridon (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I can see how anyone can justify removing an article just because the book is self published? Sultan seem to have taken a personal dislike to the book, yet he posted a full page on a book Pillar of Fire that does not sell and has no notability.

Here we clearly have a book that has a huge folowing, has won an award on a website by voters, has been published in the Cornish & Devon Post, is clearly ranked among its peers, No doubt to that, has its own group on Goodreads.com, you will get over 50,000 google searches if you type Fledgling Jason Steed, or just type, Horowitz Jason Steed, or young 007 or Raymond V steed.The WP page is getting a huge amount of hits since it has gone live, Just tell me so I can understand please, I am new to this. Why does Beeholds article have to be removed when Sultans Pillar of Fire can stay? What is wrong with having a book listed here? It seems some have gone out of ther eway to find negatives, no one will comment on its success on the worlds largest book seller: Amazon, you just bring up you could not find it on Waterstones serch list? or belittle a newspaper or website. As for the comment on if its not in a book store its not notable. NO. Book stores now allow space for publishing houses and do not stock self published book. They only stock mass market publications. The comment made about Eragon author is true, his sales where only on the interent and not in stores until he was picked up. As for the comment on did Anthony Horowitz write it under a pen name check out Richard Bachman. Then check out Anthony Horowitz myspace site; http://www.myspace.com/anthonyhorowitzbooks this site has a picture of the book Fledgling Jason Steed and if you become a friend, it has 8 videos of his books and yes you guessed it one is the Fledgling Jason Steed video. There are at least 25 other book sites that state Horowitz wrote it just like the Richard Bachman case. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/973833 http://www.allreaders.com/Board.asp?listpage=1&BoardID=24378 http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080916123559AAgv34G http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html?ie=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2QYCL6YYLS4K6&asin=074144934X&cdThread=Tx2417HYWK4A5ZA http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1006753 http://www.thebookseller.com/blogs/61893-page.html that one is actually run by Horowitz's publishers. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1845837/fledgling_jason_steed_mark_a_cooper_book_trailer/ http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Anthony-Horowitz/Dennis-Abrams/e/9780791089682 http://amapedia.amazon.com/view/Fledgling:+Jason+Steed/id=917003and here it is mentioned on WATERSTONES http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayProductDetails.do?sku=6255756 Page after page its mentioned. wehther Horowitz or Cooper wrote it, that has to be notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy tucker NC (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Peridon I have spent yesterday and this morning doing as you asked sir, trying to find out if like the name Richard Bachman Horowitz did write it? I find it strange the www.fictionreviewer.com has the author of the month as Anthony Horowitz? I wonder if it is all a big trick by Horowitz. if not why would his publishers and agents say not say something and allow it on his sites? after all most of the reviews written about say its better than Alex Rider ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy tucker NC (talk • contribs) 16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate vote stricken. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me debunk some of these statements: huge following in terms of 255 Google hits is more of a delete argument. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS ("X has its page" and "it has better reviews than Y" is not a credible argument, send Pillar of Fire to AfD if you don't like that. Few books on Amazon are notable enough for their page on Wikipedia and probably every single book there has at least 5-6 reviews AFAIK. Just because the writer might have been someone else, it does not make a difference regarding its notability; you might make a case if reliable sources agree that Horowitz indeed wrote the book, but all else is WP:CRYSTAL and per WP:UNDUE most probably doesn't even deserve to be mentioned. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One criteria of WP notability is if a book is stocked in a number of libraries. A quick Google found this book stocked in a fair few, including:[34][35][36][37]. I will continue searching for other, WP reliable, sources.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 17:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh If the author of this book is Horowitz, then this book might achieve notability sooner than if Cooper is the author. Might. It might achieve a mention in Horowitz's article. If the book is really selling in notable quantities, it might merit the article. So far, as the Admiral points out, we don't know. We have no hard evidence. If it is selling and about to be filmed, there should be not too hard to find traces of it online. Not self-published references, not mentions in the course of something else (the BBC one referred to above was probably from self-supplied material), and not material exclusively about Raymond Steed which is not pertinent to the discussion. As to Pillar of Fire, that is by a long established author with a long list of published work. This one might not meet the standards here - bring it to Articles for Deletion with your reasons if you think it should be deleted. We'll discuss it in the same way. As to the YEP - if I'm not called in to work on Tuesday, I'll ring them. I've just looked through the wrong Infinity Publishing site, infinitypublishingcompany.com as opposed to infinitypublishing.com. Confusing. Now I've found the right one, I can't find Fledgling in their success stories section. Peridon (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the best with the YEP Peridon. I've had no response to my emails to the paper so far. I also rang last Thursday, and was put through to the back issues dept. "We don't keep back copies for more than six months." Got through to the newspaper's library, promised a PDF copy of page via email, but that hasn't arrived yet either. Perhaps it is the Easter break?--Beehold (talk) 23:28, 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. Most of the "keep" arguments seem to be based on WP:ILIKEIT. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Themis (Band)[edit]

Non-notable music group. Extensive references refer to the Wiccan religion, not to the Themis group itself. Related article deleted through separate deletion discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of this article has to do with the religion having a public entity advancing its beliefs. This is new for Wicca. Maybe I have titled the article wrongly. People keep bashing this issue around but the debate has centred on a musical band and not the fact that there is a music project done by some Wicca priests which significantly advances the concept of Wicca and gives Wicca greater notability and acceptance. We are talking about a religion wherein women who practiced homeopathy and herbal remedies were burned at the stake. Today a musical ensemble promotes Wicca openly for what it is: a nature based pagan religion. That's notable. There are no Wiccan Churches, Popes, Annual General Meetings; Ecclesiastical Conferences but there is a Music Band that promotes Wicca openly, widely, and in many different ways. Katie alsop (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Katie alsop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

Comment Actually, there are any number of public entities promoting Wicca and other new age pagan and naturistic belief systems, as this list demonstrates. The fact that this band openly espouses this religion does NOT make them notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I think I can't let you away with that. ;-) I checked your reference and accordingly there has been nothing in the last decade and mostly nothing in the past century that as you say are "[any number of public entities] promoting Wicca" and The fact that this band openly espouses this religion does NOT make them notable. -- it DOES make them notable to a Wiccan or a person who studies or just follows evolving religions. I think the band is notable regardless. Anyway, thanks very much for your input. Katie alsop (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I have added some references. Themis is Opening the Canadian Spirit of The Earth Festival and the Canadian Woodstock Festival in 2009 and I have added at least one link in that regard. These are very big Canadian National events. I think it is notable that a Wicca Rock band is good enough that it has been chosen for a Rock For Sick Kids Benefit and CD (March 8 performance, release date May 8); Woodstock 2009 (July 31 to August 2); and The Canadian Spirits of The Earth Festival July 7 through 12), the former two being exclusively Rock events and the latter being a Pagan festival.

The noteworthyness of this article has to do with the fact that it tells of a musical group which are the most outspoken public leadership entities for a modern, recently popular religion: a sort of pied piper in a gypsy vein. It will never be a huge commercial success: there aren't that many Wiccans in the world and most Wiccans seem to keep their religion a secret.

Wicca is heretofore a silent, individual and underground religion. In most religions the obviously visible aspect is a person (i.e.: a pope or evangelist), a church building or some other traditional centre point of a religion. This article talks about an emergence of an energetic, boisterous msuic that focuses on teaching the simpler points about Wicca.

Also the article speaks of a 'leader' that takes the religion in a somewhat new direction but along the lines of its most popular threads like: ecology; uncomplicated worship; eclectic choices; non-patriarchal (statistics indicate 70% female 30% male membership) aspects; and its more modern theology. I like it for its slant toward what is really ecofeminism and would like to see more of that aspect in the article as well.

I am going to try to do a little ( more and better ) work on this in the coming week. Cheers Katie alsop (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep

Another factor I just noticed on the notability question is that in 2009, in addition to being on the slate for two major Canadian national music events (Canadian Woodstock Festival and Canadian Spirit of the Earth Festival) Themis is also in the on-air rotation of Sirius Satellite on channel 86. Katie alsop (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep *I just read the discussion page on "Themis Music" that WikiDan61 referred to and that looks to me to be a "Keep" in conclusion. Notwithstanding the ambiguity on that discussion page, since Katie alsop has adduced new information for 2009 inasmuch as the band is notable as a participant in two major national concerts (in Canada) and is on the playlist of a significant radio station (CBC on satelite radio) the reliable sources are ok and the WP:MUSIC criteria are satisfied three times over in 2009, the new information allows KEEP Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

I wonder if Nymphetamine labyrinth would mind editing the page to add the reference on Sat Radio. I don't know the syntax for doing that. Thanks Katie alsop (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk · contribs) has already tried to add a page on this topic previously (as deduced from the history of User Talk:Nymphetamine labyrinth). I smell a sock. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The debate about this page goes back well over a year. All I am saying here is that in a year, things have changed notably and the band has become notable whereas according to Wikipedia it may not have been a year ago. If the Themis band's success continues, it will eventually become notable within one ore more of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Question: has that time come? I say yes, perhaps it has. If you disagree, say so specifically, but your calling people names adds nothing. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also am in favour of keeping this page on Wikipedia. I agree with a lot of the arguments already presented which share my view, so I won;t be redundant. I am not seeing any good arguments for deleting.. maybe instead of negativity we can all put our heads together. Those who have issues, bring them forward and let's all contribute to making it better. I think this is what Wikipedia is all about. Portrait of the Dead Countess (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Portrait of the Dead Countess (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

CHALLENGE - CONFLICT OF INTEREST - A quick look at Portrait of the Dead Countess's user page history (particularly, her first version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Portrait_of_the_Dead_Countess&oldid=205438713 shows that she is a member of this band. A vote on the notability of this article is clearly a conflict of interest.Taniwha (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Portrait of the Dead Countess (talk · contribs) was also involved in the previous AfD debate for this article. As at the previous discussion, the arguments to keep the article were more based on the supposed notability of a Wiccan band based on the popularity of Wicca itself rather than the ACTUAL notability of THIS band as demonstrated by the criteria of WP:MUSIC. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "based on the popularity of Wicca itself" ?? This religion, Wicca, my religion, is uncommon enough to be passed over by most, and common enough to scare the proverbial "Hell" out of those who fear any change (and have such a thing as "Hell" to be scared out of.) Wiccans are everywhere, and if the idea of a non-Christian babysitter or doctor frightens you, then be frightened. If the notability of a band has to do with it's message, so be it. In this case however, the notability is hinged upon its participation in a couple of national concerts in '09 and its inclusion on significant radio play lists. Maybe not exclusive, Themis is notable on its own irrespective of its message ideology. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not make this discussion an argument over Wicca. Wicca does not scare me, nor should it scare anyone who has an understanding beyond simple superstitions. However, this discussion is about the notability of THIS particular band, which has not been demonstrated. The "major" music festival of which mention has been made (Canadian Woodstock) consists of a collection of unknown bands playing 20 minute sets over the course of a weekend. The event's own website describes it as "Canadian Bands that are up and coming talents that need to be recognized" -- i.e. not yet notable. The event MAY be notable, but each of its individual participants is not necessarily so. Of the 38 signed acts, only one (Basia Lyjak) has a Wikipedia page, and that one is of doubtful notability itself. The fact is there is not a single reference on the Themis page that asserts the notability of this band to the standards of WP:MUSIC. Most of the references are primary sources, from the band's own website, or are unrelated references about the Wiccan religion, not about the band itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I remember working on and discussing a similar article. Notability has now nudged over on the plus side. But the article needs work. Bean Mouse 02:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can you say specifically which elements of the article are properly referenced (or could be properly referenced) and indicate notability? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I humbly suggest that the users involved in this discussion may not be entirely neutral on the topic. mobrien9279 (talk · contribs), Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk · contribs) and Portrait of the Dead Countess (talk · contribs) have all been extensively involved in articles about Wicca music and Themis music which have all attempted to promote this band. Mobrien9279 and Portrait... also claim a direct relationship with the band Themis, by claiming ownership of the Themis logo. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I am Wiccan. I have a bias and interest in anything Wicca and cannot be considered neutral on matters Wicca. I have my own beliefs which may differ from even other Wiccans so if religious neutrality is necessary to be involved in Wikipedia I must bow out. Sorry. I did not know. Here in Sweden the students I am with don't usually consider such things but just go ahead and write freely what we think from our own personal perspectives. What was I thinking? :-) Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neutrality is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Articles are expected to be fair and neutral. That is not to say that articles about Wicca should be eliminated, for surely Wicca is a notable religious movement. And if there is a Wiccan music tradition building, similar to the Christian music tradition, and if this tradition has reached a point of notability (as demonstrated in reliable sources) then it should be written about. HOWEVER, this discussion is NOT about Wicca, and it is NOT about Wiccan music. It is about a single band, and that single band has NOT reached the level of notability that would rate a Wikipedia article. I ask you all to PLEASE not make this a discussion about Wicca, but ONLY about a single band. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response The article is fair and neutral. The band is notable having satisfied at least three of the conditions set out in the WP:MUSIC criteria and still rises above that for other reasosns as well. The band is new (2007) but a rising star. I submit that the WP:MUSIC has been met whereas at the time of a previous article it might not have been at the level of WP:MUSIC.

Regarding PLEASE not make this a discussion about Wicca, I can agree with that except to say that because the band is a Wiccan band and the discussion and article attracted attention from Wiccans from at least three countries, the common thread being people interested in things Wicca, the topic will come up. Anyway, if the result is delete, I will put the article on hold and come back again another day as the band becomes more and more "notable". That has happened already once. Some of the authors of the first article supported my attempt. So what? Themis says it is an "Underground Wicca Rock Band" and some people wish it had more "mainstream" visibilty. That visibility and achievement is happening. WP:MUSIC is met! Cheers (and thanks for the input WikiDan61. Katie alsop (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No claim of notability made or possible. Fails WP:MUSIC comprehensively. Band has yet to release a single album on a notable label, no significant coverage whatsoever in reliable third-party media. Article has been repeatedly deleted and recreated by sole-purpose users. In fact, I was under the impression that it had been salted, though am happy to admit if I was wrong. In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that I have been party to previous AfDs concerning this article and received this response. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dare say 'speedy delete' (criterion A7) doesn't apply and your suggestion contradicts a process underway. There is a justified claim of significance with apparent reason. Also I checked WP:MUSIC and see several areas of notability. I agree that they are marginal but it doesn't 'fail'. Also please note that the failure to meet any of the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors. Katie alsop (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies for any confusion. The speedy suggestion was not for criterion A7 but for criterion G4, as the material is almost exclusively recreated, previously deleted material; specifically material that has been deleted on multiple occasions in the past. Further up this discussion it has been claimed that in the past year the band has become notable, according to WP:MUSIC standards. This is untrue. The band is not signed. They have yet to release a single record. They have, like many Myspace bands, played some gigs, but none of them have received any significant coverage in independent, third-party sources. They claim to be playing at two major Canadian musical festivals; neither of these events is in fact a major musical event, and as the events have not even happened yet, claiming notability on this front would contravene WP:CRYSTAL even if they were sufficiently notable events. Further to this (and I want to stress that I am assuming good faith), I believe that it is important that at least two of the above posters (and heavy contributors to the article in question) are members of the band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only Portrait of the Dead Countess is a member of the band Themis.Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on Blackmetalbaz's raising the (Blackmetalbaz vs this person) emotional exchange That's more passion than I can summon up for this debate. I imagine the precursor emotional exchanges to this were quite lively and I can't believe that there was none of the same ilk in the exchange from both sides. Religion does evoke strong feelings. Calm down.

I believe that this article's subject is NOW worthy of Wikipedia note even if it wasn't previously. If it isn't now, current trends considered, it will be. I'll be back, or somebody else will. I don't think the argument "we deleted it before so we should delete it again" is valid. Let's came back to this after the holidays. Happy days of Pesach; Happy Easter and blessed be -Katie. Katie alsop (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst AfD is not really the place to discuss personal Wikipedia grievances, I would just like to state for the record that in fact the above comment was not provoked in any way by something I had said to the anon IP. There were no emotional exchanges to the best of my (and the archives') recollection, although if I have said anything rude or inappropriate I apologise unreservedly; feel free to point any out. This is not a religious issue; it is purely about the WP:MUSIC notability of Themis. I would also like to voice a concern about the phrase "I'll be back, or somebody else will." Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read that too. Don't be concerned. Katie is not "The Terminator". Many articles that are initially deleted on Wikipedia come back as better ones. That's how I read it. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fear not, I do not believe that Katie is The Terminator. It is more a concern that this page is going to get recreated and recreated, despite the fact that they are not even signed, until someone actually re-salts it. As I said earlier, I thought this had already been done. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "I'll be back or someone else will"--I think that refers to socks. I have the feeling that the waters of this AfD are intentionally muddied by all-too lengthy expostulations on religion and accusations of intolerance. Alsop, you told an editor to "calm down" and "proved" their excited state by some diatribe someone else addressed to that editor. That is a classic example of blaming the victim. Some idiot yells an insult, and the person who is insulted must have done something wrong to set that off? Come on. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This was deleted before as Themis_music and is hardly more important or notable now. Taniwha (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics Please and is hardly more important or notable now. Why is the new information not notable. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The addition of a few gigs doesn't really make this band more notable. A few singles and self-release albums also do not make this band notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Their choice of religion does not make them notable enough for an article, either, I'm sorry.

Comment - I moved the page to Themis (Band) per WP:Name. I'll vote later. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a tough one. I am tempted to say keep, due to it being a pagan band, however, The article is POV. After a brief look over WP:BAND, the article does not appear to meet the standard, however it is well sourced, and makes a case for possible noteability. I would like to see it stay, but I will leave it for other editors to make their votes.

Keep Is this band notable? Nothing else matters. I would say yes. They exist, they have recorded, they are main-staging at significant festivals. As a band, that's enough to make them adequately WP:N. Rename to Themis (band) though, just to meet WP:MOS. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With respect to the above editor, their logic is flawed. Point A: please read WP:EXISTENCE. Point B: having recorded in and of itself does not pass WP:MUSIC; the criterion is multiple albums on a notable label, which Themis have clearly not managed. Point C: the festivals in question are not significant per WP:N themselves, and aside from this the band has yet to play at them. If they get coverage in, say, a Canadian national newspaper, a book or even a commercially published music magazine, recreate the article post-festival. If they're not covered, they're back to what they have now, which is effectively squat as far as Wikipedia notability guidelines go. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC is just plain wrong and needs changing: it emphasises recording on major labels above all else, and is biased against bands from non-mainstream genres (this is a problem across all of music, not just for Wicca). It also fails to take any account of the festival scene, where some highly notable bands that are regulars at niche-market festivals for years get deleted from Wikipedia because they don't get chart placement or radio play on Clearchannel stations. As to Themis, the events they've played so far, the coverage they've received (and has been noted on WP) does seem to achieve adequate WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to defend the music policy, but at issue here is verifiability. These festivals are not really the big time. Canadian Woodstock--I counted some sixty bands playing? for 20 minutes each? And the other festival strikes me as fairly small also. BTW, is this not Crystal Ballery, attempting to derive notability from future events? My main question to you is, however, what coverage? In reliable sources, please. Like a newspaper or a magazine, something not written by the Themisters themselves. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4. This material is no different from the previously deleted version, but for the fact that it has a different picture. The sources do not address the notability of the band, except for the 'sources' published by the band itself. Strip the references that talk about Wicca or about the Safe house, and all you have left is material submitted by the band itself of by sympathizers. I mean, look at the opening of the paragraph "Inspiring a new genre," which opens with the weasel claim "The music of Themis has been described[6] as a genre influenced by Wicca: Wicca Rock." And who has described it as such? The nameless contributor of a Canadian Webradio station whose editorial standards seem to be non-existent. Have they toured in significant ways? No. Have they released a record on a notable label? No. Have they even had the local newspaper write an article about them? No. What they do have are editors who stick more feathers in this peacock than I've seen in some of the worst BLPs that have come up here at AfD. Passing admin, please check the record and delete this article. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DrmiesTags: Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. so I ask please could you within the article pick a paragraph or two and re-write them the way you feel they should read JUST SO I KNOW. Many Thanks Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I didn't tag anything. Either way, even if I had, that's not necessarily my job. I don't think rewriting anything will make this notable, though it might make it less puffy. Rewriting should start with cutting--no matter how fast Wicca is growing, it doesn't help this band's notability. For a nice objective article on a band, see Sepultura, for instance. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a G4, clearly. We shouldn't be here. On the merits? Non-notable bands, from bubblegum pop to polka to straight edge to whatever this is try to promote themselves on wikipedia every day. And all of them should be deleted until they can pass the very low notability threshold.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I found the article interesting, it is a synthetic, POV essay about a band that does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. LadyofShalott ^Weave 03:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott ^Weave 03:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott ^Weave 03:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott ^Weave 03:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find any Google references for this use of Themis, despite trying to restrict searches to Wicca-related instances. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 07:44, 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 speedy delete. Already deleted by User:DGG per WP:CSD#A7 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Brick Dicks[edit]

Band fails notability Truthbanks12345 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. cmadler (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Says a lot about the band, but bupkis about their notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:05, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Chaillat[edit]

Delete per Wikipedia:BIO1E#People_notable_only_for_one_event. Chaillat does not appear to be notable in and of herself. Being the victim of a terrorist attack does not make her notable. Enigma^msg 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there is further information--such as her writing a book about it--this does fall under the type on ONEEVENT where the subject is merely an incidental victim, and does not warrant an article. I am very conservative in invoking this clause if there is any public notability or major attention, but this is a clear time to use it. DGG (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per DGG. — Jake Wartenberg 21:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. I can't find any references online about any films she's done. Matt Deres (talk) 22:54, 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 speedy deleted per A7 Nancy ^talk 18:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oyinlade Faleti[edit]

fails to assert notability in any way. Truthbanks12345 (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable person. Tagging as such right now. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:38, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slum wine[edit]

While this appears to be a real drink [38], it does not seem to be covered in any reliable sources; the only mentions of it that I can find are passing mentions on blogs [39] or listings on an occasional restaurant menu [40]. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 16:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. Google books finds several references, but they're all either OCR errors (e.g. "shun wine") or different contexts (e.g. "slum wine-shop"). Pburka (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to discourage new articles, but this drink is, at best, too new to be notable. Geoff ^T ^C 00:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism, but full props to the author who used the references section to ask for some references: "For references, I need help. Please look it up yourself or order it at a restaurant. References just aren't available on the internet yet." Matt Deres (talk) 22:59, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freaks of Reality[edit]

Non-notable music group with big claims, probably autobiographical. Truthbanks12345 (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Apart from that Juno nomination there's no evidence of them doing anything else - Google search for "Freaks of Reality" -wiki -facebook -myspace gives 10 hits. [41] Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Juno Award nomination alone passes WP:BAND #8 ("been nominated for a major music award"). TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article as written is a disaster, the Juno nomination does carry the band as a notable topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Juno award. I've updated the ref on the page for one that doesn't require the user to go searching. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Juno award means inclusion criteria have been met even if no other sources were to turn up. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does just a nomination make it notable even with nothing else? If so I change to keeep :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominated for the award, as mentioned above, so the requirement for existence has been met. Also, its a stub, clearly labeled as such, so you can't expect a full article yet. Dream Focus 18:19, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valentiger[edit]

Does not meet any of the notability criteria at WP:BAND. Zeagler (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: MySpace band, trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 23:35, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 21:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yelagiri[edit]

Advert. Truthbanks12345 (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Speedy? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious advert is obvious. --drhlajos (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but needs more content --drhlajos (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is now a stub. Plenty of reliable sources. Salih (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats better, keep as a valid stub. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might want to strike <s>~~crossed out~~</s> your previous !vote to make things clear for the closing admin. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Salih's edits. Promotional article is now a very short, but expandable, stub with reliable-source coverage. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid stub. — Jake Wartenberg 21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now that changes have being made to make it sound like less of an advertisement.JimmySmitts (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's reason no longer applies. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable hill station. more references can certainly be found in Tamil language. --Docku: What's up? 05:22, 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 Argentina and England football rivalry. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

England football team matches v Argentina[edit]

Long list of limited interest. Truthbanks12345 (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a significant and long-standing rivalry. It is readily sourceable. TerriersFan (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - no policy/guideline-based reason for deletion given. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Merge with Argentina and England football rivalry - (no reason to delete) Good find Sceptre! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Argentina and England football rivalry WP:NOT an almanac. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, look at the first pillar (However, I'm not voting to keep this page) —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Argentina and England football rivalry. Good find by Sceptre. However, the level of detail isn't excessive for national team results and is at the same level as that in England national football team results 1966. TerriersFan (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Argentina and England football rivalry. Giant Snowman 11:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per comments above. King of the North East 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7 Nancy ^talk 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drive Me Crazy (band)[edit]

notability issues....no such band exists in mainstream Italy. Truthbanks12345 (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 No hits outside MySpace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:37, 7 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 00:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FC de Rakt[edit]

Non notable club only claim is publicity stunt were team wore mini skirts. BigDunc^Talk 14:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point - it wasn't a publicity stunt and they still wear them now. It was also very notable for being reported around the world. ðarkun coll 14:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Step 2 of this AfD was not done correctly. I have corrected it to add the heading. No opinion on deletion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. It fails WP:N as there is a lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Giant Snowman 14:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For an article to be AfDed a mere sixteen minutes after it is started, I'd expect for there to have been no attempt to establish notability in the page. This article has international news sources as references. That the team may not be noteworthy in a sporting sense does not necessarily preclude them from being notable as an organisation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your keep doesn't make sense on one hand you are saying they are not notable (probably) and the other hand they are (probably), the link to reuters is only covering the publicity stunt were they wore skirts not on the notability of the football club which is the criteria that this article should be based on. Also I don't see how waiting for a set time is going to make this club notable apart from wearing skirts. BigDunc^Talk 14:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A club doesn't have to be notable because of their sporting ability, they can be notable generally, which this article might be. Just by googling [42][43][44][45] (the last one swedish). chan dler · 15:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the links are for the club wearing skirts this is a news story of course it will get coverage but the club are not notable sporting wise. BigDunc^Talk 15:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesnt matter, it's general notabilty. chan dler · 16:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So take out the coverage of the skirts being worn and tell me how this is a notable footbal club, which this article is about. BigDunc^Talk 19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't notable as a football club. However, they are notable for another reason. Gary Dahl is not a notable advertising executive, but he's still notable (for having invented the Pet Rock). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His article is about him as an inventor not an advertising exec. This is about a football club not a skirt wearing team. BigDunc^Talk 17:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you're wrong here. Articles are about subjects in their entirety - they are not pigeon-holed into being about some specific aspect of the subject, or written from the point of view of some specific role the subject has taken. We do not have "articles about football clubs" - we just have articles. If an entity is more famous for one aspect than another, then its article should lend that aspect greater weight. It seems you're approaching this from the point of view that because football clubs fall under the purview of the football WikiProject that it has to meet that project's inclusion criteria. But WikiProjects are simply ways for users to collaborate; they do not control articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the author of the article so I'll just add my vote here. And I'll further add that a sports club may indeed be notable for reasons other than its sporting success. Notability is not restricted to a certain field. ðarkun coll 14:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me, reading the generally notability guidelines for organisations, it comes down to whether the coverage of the organisation in the multiple reliable sources is "significant". As the coverage basically adds up to reporting on a successful publicity stunt, I'd say the coverage isn't "significant" so I'm suggesting Delete - fchd (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people may indeed view it as a publicity stunt, but both the club chairman and team captain say that it isn't, and explain precisely why they did it. They also say that interest has been shown by other clubs. Many would see this as a significant development in the women's game. ðarkun coll 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability for a football team is in playing football. DGG (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATHLETE is supplemental to WP:N, not a replacement. If a club has received significant non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources it need never have played a match. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:N trumps WP:ATHLETE but this is an article about a football team take away the wearing of skirts and would this article still get your support. All the sources deal with the wearing of skirts and the team are incidental. This is one news item and wiki is not a newspaper. BigDunc^Talk 22:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying take away the fact that Barak Obama is a politician and would he still get an article? Actually, if you check Google you will see that FC de Rakt gets well over 6000 results, only a small percetage of which are to do with the skirt issue. ðarkun coll 22:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no point in having this article. GauchoDude (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The team may well set a trend in women's football, I think, that makes it notable. The article should actually be linked in the Kit (association football) article and some information added. EA210269 (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone show me a source that shows the notability of this football club without the publicity stunt of the wearing of skirts and reply to TharkunColl of course if Obama wasn't in politics there would be no article about him not really sure what you are getting at, it is his political career that makes him notable. BigDunc^Talk 11:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources clearly state - both the club chairman and the team captain - that it isn't just a publicity stunt. You may not believe them, but that's a value judgement and it's not our job as editors to make value judgements. Look at the photos on their website, they're still using that kit now - it really is their standard kit (the senior women's team is called FC de Rakt DA1 by the way, if you want to look it up). The same sources go on to state that other women's teams are showing a strong interest. Far from being a publicity stunt, this could be a new and significant trend. Because of this, the club is already notable, and doesn't need any other justification for an article. As it happens, however, this club is very large and has dozens of teams in various leagues, and has more than 6000 Google hits. ðarkun coll 12:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the second time you have used the 6000 google hits, here are 6200 google hits you are referring to I will look at the first page

first link is to the club website
second a blog
third covers skirt issue
fourth a forum discussing the skirts
fifth the wiki article we are discussing
sixth is discussing the layout of the club website
seventh and eight are YouTube videos one of kids playing football the other a day at the beach with obligatory arse flash,
ninth is images of the skirts.
And finally the tenth which is the YouTube video shown in the seventh link.

So where are the sources that show the notability of this football club apart from the wearing of skirts? A one news story event is all that I can find. BigDunc^Talk 13:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the argument of "If we don't count what they're notable for, how are they notable?", they don't qualify as notable as a football club, but probably as a general organization. chan dler · 14:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedic article about a football team and I can't find anything that makes this a notable football club. They pull what I consider a publicity stunt, which got trivial coverage, where are the sources that make this a notable football club? It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. apart from the slight news coverage about the skirts I can find nothing notable about this club. BigDunc^Talk 14:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it is entirely irrelevant if they are notable for their sporting achievements if they are notable otherwise. The general notability guideline supersedes any of the supplemental guidelines for organisations, people, sports clubs et cetera. The kits were changed in September and I'm still seeing current new results (albeit not in English) for the club. That indicates that there may be potential for improvement here, such that an AfD the day the article was created might be a bit premature. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that be so an AfD gives the page creator a further 5 days to add verifiable and reliable sources to the article now a speedy would have been a different matter, which is why I choose this option. And regard the GNG I dont see how the sources provided ...address the subject directly in detail' in fact the sources cover one event which is the wearing of skirts which this article is not about. BigDunc^Talk 15:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should be careful not to judge the women's game using the standard of the men's. And it's not just "one event" - they've been using that kit since September. As for improving the article, I would very much welcome input from Dutch editors of football articles, and indeed from anyone else. ðarkun coll 15:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article not about the club as a whole did you not say the womens team were called FC de Rakt DA1? BigDunc^Talk 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The women's team play under the name FC de Rakt - the DA1 designation is simply to differentiate them from the club's other teams. They are all listed on the website. ðarkun coll 16:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is this article is about the club as a whole? BigDunc^Talk 16:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The club is notable because of its women's team. The distinction you're trying to draw is somewhat artificial - I see no need to rename the article "FC de Rakt DA1" for example, since the women's team, obviously, are part of the club. DA1 is simply an internal designation - the other teams have them too. The name of the team is FC de Rakt. ðarkun coll 17:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I might be wrong on this so correct me if I am from the home page of this club it looks to me that they have 20 teams, and the only notable thing about the club as a whole is that one of it's teams wear skirts. As I have asked before were are the reliable, independent and verifiable sources that bestow notability to this club and not just trivial coverage of one of it's 20 teams. This article is about the club not 1 of its teams. BigDunc^Talk 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's about both the club, and the fact that its women's team wear skirts. This is the very thing that makes the club notable (some might argue that such a large club with 20 teams is notable anyway - but that's not really the issue here). What you're asking, in effect is other than the fact that the women's team are internationally famous for wearing skirts - and indeed, are apparently the first to do so - what makes this club notable? Well, since you queried it earlier, I'll respond by asking this - other than the fact that Barak Obama is a politician and President of the United States, what makes him notable? You seem to want to exclude the very thing that makes this club notable, in order to say it isn't notable. Apart from the news coverage of Manchester United's men's first team, what makes that club notable? And it hardly needs pointing out that hundreds of items of news coverage from all round the world, as FC de Rakt has got, most certainly isn't "trivial". ðarkun coll 17:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Man Utd notable well read the notability guidelines they satisfy them all, then look at this football team they don't satisfy the notability guidelines especially WP:NOBJ one news story about the girls team of this club doesn't make this club notable. BigDunc^Talk 18:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do satisfy them. That's the whole point. And you rather missed the point about Man U too - what I said was - apart from what makes them notable, in what way are they notable? This is precisely what you're trying to impose on this article. I'll also add here that your last sentence could be read to imply that you regard the "girls" team as somehow inferior to the men's team. ðarkun coll 22:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not what I am doing what I am saying is a trivial news event that covered the girls team of this club doesn't make this club notable. BigDunc^Talk 09:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant notability as a football team. The fact the players wear skirts is completely irrelevant, one single and trivial fact hardly makes a subject notable. --Angelo (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been pointed out that WP:Notability outweighs notability purely in terms of football. But having said this, the team is notable in the footballing world - not for its sporting success, but for the very issue that is under discussion here - namely, the skirts. ðarkun coll 10:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does it WP:N states, Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail the sources don't cover this club in detail the sources are about a single trivial news story and Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. BigDunc^Talk 10:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a single event - they're still wearing them now. ðarkun coll 10:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is a single event/topic, they are wearing skirts thats all the coverage in the sources states one topic. BigDunc^Talk 10:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a very notable one too. ðarkun coll 12:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you keep saying, I just can't for the life of me see how it is notable. It's a gimmick, if it catches on it merits a word or two in the Kit article. The club, however, appear to be completely non-notable, none of the coverage covers the club itself in any detail whatsoever. Still Delete, and etting close to Strong Delete. - fchd (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The club chairman and team captain deny it's a gimmick, and it's not our job to call them liars. ðarkun coll 12:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not exactly independent and/or reliable though, are they? - fchd (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone doubts that the women's team is by far the most famous team of all the teams run by FC de Rakt, do a search at Google Images under "fc de rakt" - there are pages and pages of photos, all of the women's team playing all sorts of different fixtures (i.e. not simply from the news report in September). In the first six pages I only found one photo of the men's team, all the rest being of the women's. This team is genuinely famous. I really hope there isn't a tendency among some to denigrate it as somehow second class because it happens to be the women's team. ðarkun coll 17:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. The team isn't famous, the gimmick is. Where are the multiple reliable sources that cover the club, or indeed any of the teams in any depth? All coverage seems to be of the skirts issue. That, in my eyes, is a long way from making the club notable. - fchd (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep calling it a gimmick, but the sources say otherwise - so in other words, that's just your opinion. As for multiple sources, try doing a Google Advanced search, excluding the word "skirts". Of the 6200 or so hits for "fc de rakt", about 200 mention skirts. Demonstrably, therefore, what you just said about all coverage being of the skirts issue is incorrect. ðarkun coll 18:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - concerning notability. If, as some contend, FC de Rakt is not notable, then what about the following clubs, all of which have their own articles: Borrowash Victoria A.F.C., Eastwood Town F.C., Ilkeston Town F.C., Long Eaton United F.C., Matlock Town F.C.... all examples from the Midlands Regional Alliance, itself chosen more or less at random. How many of these clubs have received international press coverage for anything? Since Wikipedia has articles on all of these tiny, local, amateur clubs, and many, many more besides - surely FC de Rakt is more than notable enough to have one too. Incidentally, I'm currently in the process of improving and expanding the article - any and all help would be much appreciated. ðarkun coll 11:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that wiki uses some kind of level for club notability I don't know how it works maybe someone from Wiki Football could explain, the first team listed above play at Level 10. BigDunc^Talk 12:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied my post to the project for some clarification. BigDunc^Talk 12:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only the reserve team of those clubs play in the Midlands Regional Alliance. All their first teams play higher up the English pyramid. "International" coverage is not necessary, it merely needs t be substantial. I have my doubts about some of the English lower-league clubs deserving of an article, but that's an argument for another day and place. Keep this discussion to FC de Rakt please. - fchd (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That other stuff exists is not a rationale for keeping an article. If the other articles mentioned don't meet the notability guidelines they should be improved or put up for AfD discussion as well, but they aren't a reason to keep an article that may or may not meet the criteria for inclusion. Camw (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I can see both sides on this one. It happened. We can verify that. But we don't know how important the fact that it happened is. If we're going to mention it on Wikipedia in any article, probably at the kit article, maybe at the Women's football article, we may as well have an article on the team, but I don't think that should bloat to include coverage of the team, results and so on, unless they are sourced from national newspaper articles. We should tell people what they need to know about this team, rather than everything we could possibly tell them. Keep it short and simple, they're a Dutch team, they did this, they say they did it for this reason, they play in this league, this happened because of it. Maybe review the situation periodically to see if consensus changes. It may be tomorrow's chip paper. This one falls into that gray area of Wikipedia policy, it can just about be justified to delete as to retain. My heart says keep, because we are here to inform. My head says delete, because we don't know whether to inform. I think I'll let my heart rule here, provided we avoid bloating the article. Hiding T 12:43, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of CMMS Software Providers[edit]

Decline speedy, fails WP:LISTCRUFT. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List cruft indeed, very limited interest, all red links. Equendil Talk 20:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even with limited interest, I for one happen to have a company listed on this page. I say it is valuable, and will be putting my company up there shortly38.96.193.112 (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unreferenced and unverifiable list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. Blatantly promotional. A list with a couple of redlinks is fine, lists with all redlinks that are unlikely to be articles are not. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mgm. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:43, 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 redirect to WLOX. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13.2 WX[edit]

Digital subchannels only precipitate their own articles when they have big network affiliations. (See WHSV or CW-WHAM for an example of that.) Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 04:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the AfD was not listed, so I put it here. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 14:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WLOX; article content is easily merged within that article. Nate • (chatter) 00:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to station article, not enough to the subchannel/article to have it's own entry. Whatever can be said, can be said within the station's article. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 03:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Readd/Redirect - Since this is only a paragraph, it should be readded to WLOX and the page in question redirected. This should not give precedent to moving other subchannel articles to the main station though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 9, 2009 @ 04:57

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuljeet Singh[edit]

Personally I would have zapped this blatant bit of self-promotion. However another admin has declined a speedy tag so etiquette demands that we must drag it through AfD. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep I went ahead and tried to make the article more neutral, added some references. I was surprised to find no evidence that he teaches at University of Delhi (which may be due to my poor search skills, do double check), but he has played roles in at least one reasonably important film. Seems verifiable in most regards at least and probably roughly meets WP:N. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The theatre might be somewhat notable (some coverage here [46]) but I can't find any sources that talk keeping Kuljeet Singh as the main subject in view. Also his name is missing from the cast of the film he is (according to the article) famous for acting in. I will change my vote if someone comes up with offline sources (local newspapers/magazines) to support the claims in the article. —SV 18:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seems to be some coverage of his role as director of the Atalier theatre company[47], which itself may be notable, but they don't seem to have much to say about Singh himself. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF. There is a link for an actor with a different spelling in the IMDB, which seems to be the same as the subject. That goes some way toward meeting WP:BIO, under WP:ENTERTAINER, but not very strongly.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly does not meet WP:PROF, and I don't see enough coverage elsewhere to satisfy WP:N -- e.g. a news search here. Some of those hits are not to the Kuljeet Singh in question, and none of them covers him, rather they contain brief remarks by him about something else. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:25, 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 keep. No reason for deletion given, content issues can be worked out on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ~ mazca ^t|c 18:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Repertory Theatre[edit]

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

There seems to be a movement to delete the page about the Adelaide Repertory Theatre. This seems unjust to to the long history that this company has had in Australian Theatre. This company has been a breeding ground for major professional actors and technicians. Surley deleting history is like censoring the truth. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephendean (talk • contribs) 2009/04/07 05:43:15

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest early closure. No grounds for deletion are given. This AfD seems to be the product of edit warring caused by aggressive maintenance tagging, see the history. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep referenced, notable by dint of notable alumni, seems like a perfectly fine article to me Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:19, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mustiness[edit]

I am not sure what the author is trying to convey here. Maybe this is a type of a bar, in which case it should be merged with Bar (establishment) Anshuk (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV pushing about the UK smoking ban. No salvagable content. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A dicdef with some personal opinions thrown in. Could conceivably redirect to wiktionary, but I don't see the need. Cool3 (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. It's a plausible search term and plausible search terms shouldn't be redlinks.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV dic def. Word is not common enough to require a redirect to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and such links should only be used in extreme circumstances when we don't have an entry on a common subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to My Winter Storm. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Tour[edit]

Fails WP:N - not covered by reliable, third-party sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the bands article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable tour. JamesBurns (talk) 01:09, 9 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) 00:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ApNano[edit]

Advertisement, marked since 1997 Truthbanks12345 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep - A quick Gsearch indicates this company easily meets the general notability guidelines. I added a few references and cleaned up the article a tad. "marked since 1997" - Neat, this article is older than Wikipedia itself! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete All of the google hits I looked at are press releases and other things written by the company itself. There's very little here that isn't marketing. If someone pulls some real secondary coverage out of their hat that isn't a press release, then consider my vote changed to keep. Beware there's a lot of "news article seeming" press releases in the results. This company is very agressive in their marketing it seems. Gigs (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - And what would you say of the 4 sources I added to the article? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are still a little weak. I'll change to weak keep after looking closely at the IsraCast and World Tribune site, which appear to not be pure press releases. Gigs (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep IsraCast and World Tribune sources now in article are not too bad. Gigs (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no problem here, the article is sourced, and the subject is notable. --J.Mundo (talk) 12:38, 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. Valley2city^‽ 17:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Queen (JAG)[edit]

Unreferenced article about an episode of a television series. Article consists entirely of plot summary. McWomble (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty reliable sources that cover at least the basics of the episode.[48], etc. I can't really find any reviews online, but I found several from reliable sources via LexisNexis. Robert Fidgeon called it a "don't miss". Brian Courtis of the Herald Sun (don't know why I find so many Australians) , wrote a short review, but called it "good saturday night escapism." (if you'd like to see more of the text of these and don't have LexisNexis access, contact me via email). Suffice it to say that there aren't a million sources on this, but enough exist to write a neutral, verifiable article. Cool3 (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- For what its worth, I believe it was this episode that introduced characters that would be spun off to NCIS, which might provide some notability there, but since I can't look anything up right now, I can't say that for certain. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it did introduce the NCIS characters, which does seem to make more important than just your average episode. Cool3 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that it was the NCIS backdoor pilot brings it above notability easily, and the sources are there.Nate • (chatter) 00:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Projectify to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television or userfy to any interested party. Since the episode was instrumental in the creation of NCIS, it is more notable than your regular episode, but that is largely irrelevant. If it is possible to have well-referenced articles about an entire series, it is bad form to have holes in the coverage. (just as much as bad sourcing is bad form) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for being the pilot for NCIS and per Cool3 it has reviews in reliable sources. We don't need to projectify or userfy articles that have potential, we need to keep them in the mainspace so that they will be noticed by interested editors and improved. But there is no deadline for that improvement. DHowell (talk) 02:59, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 21:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grey wolf protection argument[edit]

CSD declined. Article has essay and pure hoax. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV pushing, no real content. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed: a semi-literate editorial essay. Any legitimate concerns could be added to the gray wolf or wolf reintroduction articles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NPOV and lacks sources so no way of knowing if it is original research - but I rather believe it is. --bonadea contributions talk 14:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's either a POV-fork on the one hand, or original research/essay on the other. Either way, I'm afraid it doesn't mean the standards for inclusion. Cool3 (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom --drhlajos (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced POV essay. Even if expanded, sourced and made neutral it would be nothing but a partial duplication of content that belongs at Gray wolf. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but is the content far from salvageable?-Caspian blue 05:35, 9 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 already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Men With no Junk[edit]

Spurious movie page, with no notability, no references and clearly a hoax. Alice (talk) 12:13, 7 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 via WP:SNOW. Clear consensus was to delete the article at the time the original editor requested speedy deletion. I have deleted the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Dowler[edit]

As I said in the Prod: This is anon-notable person. Claims of being in films seem to be trivial. IMDB, Youtube, Myspace and Open library are not reliable sources. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER; as there have not been multiple notable roles. As a composer doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. The reference to a book is just a link to buy it. The creator notes "all information is accurate" but it's still unverified as it lacks in line citations or it is original reserach. DFS454 (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this non-notable actor - makes big claims but fails to deliver - his appearance in Hancock was as "Rail Crossing Crowd #3",[49] his appearance "alongside" Billy Bob Thornton was as an uncredited Secret Service Agent.[50] Last time I looked, Wikipedia wasn't a place to store your fake CVs. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. That is nonsense. Did you watch the links. He delivers all the way. He's in the credits bro. And his music stuff is awesome. He sings with THE RIGHTEOUS BROTHERS. The group with the two biggest songs of all time. The legendary group. He's done Broadway. I just checked out the movie with Smith. He's in it Gomer. He has lines in a hundred and fifty million dollar film. Hello. I looked his book up. It's available around the world. What are you talking about. DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE. That's non-sense. I'm tired of reading about Abe Lincoln. We need new people to read about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.49.179 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC) — 71.129.49.179 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Are we sure about that? The only mention of Darren Dowler in the Righteous Brothers article was added by the author of the Darren Dowler page. [51] And there's no mention of him on the Righteous Brother's official site[52]. Speedy delete for pure vandalism. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ditto the Paul Revere claim [53][54] Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: 71.129.49.179 identifies himself as being Steven Spiegal in this edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasemunki (talk • contribs) 11:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and should probably be Speedy Delete. NO back up for sources - a quick look implies that most of the claims have simply been made up. Quantpole (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I have now found something to back up The Lettermen claim. If you look here[55] there is a reference that Darren Dowler had a stint as a member of The Lettermen. I still don't think this is notable, so am not changing my vote, but thought it should be made clear. Quantpole (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have tagged this with a Speedy but it would probably be declined as there are assertions of notability albeit fake ones. The author has a strong coi as shown in this particular diff as they are supposedly writing some sort of autobiography too. Remember wikipedia is not a crystal ball so claims about him starring in a film in a few years are irrelevant.--DFS454 (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all this in mind it would probably benefit from a little salt too. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ (per this edit summary this user is the same as 71.129.49.179) - Hello everybody, I am the author of the page and I'm not sure what you folks are concerned about, and I mean that with all due respect to your opinions. Because I do listen as you'll see in my latest edits. I'm admittedly new on here so if anybody can help me make the page look better, I welcome the advice I didn't start this page to waste time in any way. Darren Dowler is one of the fast rising talents in this business right now and that is why I am writing this article. He is not on Paul Revere's home page yet simply because they haven't updated the site. Older acts take a while to do so. But if you watch the links, Darren is the new singer for Bill Medley and Paul Revere without question. He is in a national TV commercial right now promoting their Branson run this summer.There are references there that prove it irreproachably. There are millions worldwide who follow the guy. This is an encyclopedia, meaning information for all of us to share who are interested in him. This man is of note. He's an international recording artist, author and has performed in huge film projects. I'm not claiming him a film star yet. But he will be soon I believe. This info is for all of his fans who are following him and want to keep up with his progress. His reference links are better than most stars. So what exactly is the objection? The reason I am writing a book on the man is because he is an amazing personality. If you need proof go see him perform. He's one of the best in the world, by many's opinions at what he does. So please work with me here and look into him. If you don't like my page, leave it for the fans who do. I'm writing it for them. And be watching for his new movie (which I dropped till after it comes out per your opinions) it's going to launch him even higher. That's why I bought his biography rights. I wish everyone a good day. Note: The man also has two more novels coming out this year. Let his fans have this information. Just because you are unfamiliar with him doesn't mean a million or so others aren't. And I am serious about the help. If anyone can help me to do the page more proerly, I'd love the help. I am a writer but not very technical I'm afraid. Thanks--Stevenspiegel (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC) — Stevenspiegel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- The simple fact is he's not been the subject of enough reliable secondary-source material up to this point. Therefore we can't verify any claims that are made. And then two apparently false (or at the very least unverified) claims are made about him being in two other groups. Not only in this article but in the articles of the two other acts. If he makes it big, newspapers will write about him, he will be reviewed, he will be interviewed, he will be the subject of countless words of flowing praise, I'm sure. He will be the subject of verifiable, reliable secondary sources. And then (and only then), will he get a keep vote from me. Hell, if we get those references, I'll even help you write the article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~(per this edit summary this user is the same as 71.129.49.179) Darren Dowler is definitely the singer for Paul Revere and The Righteous brothers. Video doesn't lie. Watch the links. I've been following the guy for ten years. Have ten albums. Saw him in Hancock. Saw him in Fearless. http://Fearless.msn.com. References. Punch in his name. In one second I found articles in the NY Daily News, and a dozen others. I personally saw the guy with Paul Revere at Epcot Orlando a few days ago. Go to you tube punch in Dowler Epcot Paul Revere. There's video of the show. There's video of The righteous brothers show on this page. His book is worldwide Borders, Barnes and Noble, Amazon, Target. There are a whole bunch of us interested in the guy. I'm a die hard fan. I'm not interested in elves but their on this site. Why can't an up and coming performer be listed. I am interested in him. Puch up Darren Dowler Lettermen Newspaper, you'll get a hundred articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinecaptain007 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC) — Marinecaptain007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The famous Darren Dowler has now appeared in the Backstreet Boys article too.Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ (per this edit summary this user is the same as 71.129.49.179) It's obvious my friend that you have nothing better to do that to sit at your computer and try to tear down whatever. What reason do you have to spend all this time on this. I have a reason. I'm writing an article. You obviously have nothing better to do. So good luck to you. Hopefully Wikipedia knows people like you are sabbotaging information for no reason. Please my friend, find more to do in life. Taking a personal vendetta against a writer or entertainer, whichever, that you don't even know, shows you have nothing better to do. Get outside. Go jogging. Find a girlfriend. Do something.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenspiegel (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 April 2009 — Stevenspiegel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- You don't get multiple !votes, so I've stricken this one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are currently 4 votes for keep. Two are from the same person, and the others are from people who have not made any other contribution to wikipedia. Looks like a bit of vote stacking to me. Quantpole (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll concur with Quantpole in regards to stacking (I suspect multiple socks at this point). I would imagine that this attempt to KEEP will have an inverse effect/affect to the desired intent however. I haven't been able to find any strong WP:RS to support any particular WP:N at this point, and would probably suggest that the author userfy the article until such time as the actor does become notable, or quality links are found to support the assertion of notability. — Ched : ? 11:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verifiability and notability are the kickers here, in my opinion. There are a lot of claims made in the article, but some of them can't be confirmed, and despite claims of availability, I'm yet to see any new sources. Google search turns up little of significance. Nothing here establishes notability- one of several people to sing with The Lettermen 30 years after they were a major act, bit parts in films, a self-published novel, etc. There's a very promotional feel to the current article, as well to what material that shows up on the web. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to become notable, it's the place where an article about you may appear once it's happened. Notability is claimed in the article, but quite implausibly and without proof. "Rail crossing crowd #3" is not a notable role in the sense of an encyclopedia. As for playing the main role in a Broadway musical in 1989 – this sort of conflicts with the only relevant (though self-published) source that I could find. [56] To make matters even worse, I must agree with Clay Collier about the "promotional feel" of the article and Google search results. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lettermen per WP:MUSICBIO. We already have two sources (one above, one in the article) that Dowler was in The Lettermen. What's missing is additional sources to show he's been in any other notable band, and a Google News search doesn't deliver any proof of a connection to either of the claimed acts, nor do the bands' official pages. When proof is available, he may be notable enough for his own article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also note that having checked LexisNexis, it seems that any notability Dowler has is as a member of The Lettermen, so a redirect is quite appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability established. seicer | talk | contribs 12:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As usual with such hyped bios, he's on the verge of being the next big thing, in which case, once he is the next big thing he can have an article. We are told that he is a published author. Indeed, he is a published author with a vanity print-on-demand publisher that averages about 100 copies of each book it publishes Mayalld (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm unable to find any sources the would make this individual meet WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:35, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex unions in flux[edit]

This seems to be a neologism. A google search of Same-sex marriage in flux and of Same-sex unions in flux doesn't suggest it is a widespread term, with (currently) 6 cumulative hits--two of which are to Wikipedia and none of which are reliable sources. There are 0 hits for the term at google books ([57] [58]), 0 at google scholar ([59], [60]) and 0 at google news ([61], [62].) The article makes clear that it is asserting that this is a term, not just a concept: "Same-sex marriage (or "same-sex unions) in flux" is a term that describes a form of same-sex union"; "The term "in flux" helps other users and readers diaffentirerate between a country or region that has already ruled in favor of legalizing such unions." Also, the article is unsourced and only ever cited to another Wikipedia article. We already have both Same-sex marriage and Same-sex relationship. This was a challenged PROD. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arguably speedy as an attempt to communicate, since the promotion of the term is aimed at reader and users - implicitly, those of Wikipedia itself. In any case, this is a useless neologism. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and/or attempt to coin a new term. Exactly what Wikipedia's not about. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this neologism.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all content not regarding the neologism into Status of same-sex marriage, if it's not already there. Dcoetzee 03:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until sources are cited. Even giving the benefit of the doubt that this isn't a neologism, I'm having trouble understanding the fine points of what the article is trying to say--fine distinctions between "in flux" and "future legislation," what "accomodating" means, whether we're talking about just same-sex marriage or other legal unions, etc. As an editor, I need reliable sources before I can improve the article for clarity. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment(To the last two.) I'd be fine with userfication if the contributor requests. Otherwise, I'm afraid it might just delay the clean-up for later. I also need to note that, until this term is taken up by a community, I'm afraid that it may always be a fork of Status of same-sex marriage, now that I've read that one. :) With respect to merging material into that article, the only information here that does not relate to the neologism is "The most notable examples [of countries with changing legislation] would be Ecuador and Nepal, though the situation in Nepal is not seemingly stalled as in Ecuador, therefore Nepali same-sex marriages should be legal by 2010 at the latest." I don't know much about the topic, but this unsourced statement doesn't seem to mesh with Recognition of same-sex unions in Ecuador. The 2010 date for Nepal is covered by Same-sex marriage in Nepal, where it is sourced. If it needs to be merged, it might be better to merge it from that article, which is otherwise likely to remain on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 8 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 Slashdot. This is more of an editorial decision than anything else. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CowboyNeal[edit]

The name of the article is CowboyNeal, which refers to an option in opinion polls on Slashdot.com. This is an anecdote, and should probably be moved to a more appropriate location (Slashdot). Jonathan Pater is the really world person behind the CowboyNeal username, for whom the article is a biography. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the first AfD discussion comments, there are no WP:RS present, or available in a g-search [63], to confirm that Jonathan Pater was a co-founder of Slashdot. Even if he were, there would need to be non-trivial coverage of why that is notable enough to merit more than being mentioned in the history section of the Slashdot page. I believe this would fall under the argument for notability not being inherant or inherited. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the fancy wiki-speak, so please be patient with me. The references to Pater are just for background info. It is like mentioning Astley on the Rickrolled page. I don't think Pater deserves his own page either, but cowboyneal does. If 35,000 people in one day, and 5.5 million per month are using the term, isn't that notable? Would it be better to call this a stub at least, rather than delete the whole thing?--Dongemus (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a question to consider, and you don't even have to answer it here on the board, but if Jonathan Pater does "not deserve his own page", why would his username? If it is because it has come into common use on one website, I'm not sure that will meet the guidelines for inclusion. If the term "Cowboy Neal" is being argued as being notable, and not considered to be a Neologism, there would need to be more impact on a broader segment of the web, or popular culture. An example might be Crazy Ivan. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Pater nor his username are notable of Wikipedia. I do, however, think the meme is worthy. At least as worthy as lolcats, dancing hamsters, or ORLY. If Pater being mentioned is a problem then censor him, but i think that would be a detraction. I wonder if prejudice is a factor here? I certainly can't comment on something in Korean culture, because I am ignorant. This is geek culture, and pretty prominent in that culture. As ridiculous as this may sound to say about 'geekdom', I don't think we should be discriminatory of minority subgroup. I have 4 sources so far, and I am going to bed now, but they are from 4 different websites not one of which has Pater as a contributor.--Dongemus (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: lolcats have had significant coverage in the media. All your base are belong to us was in Time magazine. CowboyNeal has received no comparable coverage. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the sources are 1) some sort of a resume/bio service 2) a wiki 3) a wiki-like site (anyone can submit content) and 4) another resume service. Both bio sources appear to just pull data from Myspace, linkin, even Wikipedia. These are not reliable sources for a Wikipedia biography... these sources exist (or could be made to exist in a few minutes) on me and half my friends. They're trivial sources so they don't establish notability. However, this article name is a plausible redirect to the Slashdot page. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exactly the sort of topic on which we should provide information. People will want to find it, and this is the place. The sources are adequate. DGG (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? I could have an article about you with those sources... considering they are all user-editable. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not even remotely have the same internet presence :) . In any case, this is not really a BLP, but an internet meme, and the standards are lower for that than for BLPs. DGG (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless they're still all sources that can be generated or modified by random anonymous users. Sources like that could be made to say anything... they're totally unreliable. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Slashdot. This information should be retained, as it helps understand the culture of slashdot users, but I see no necessity for a separate article for it. JulesH (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Raise your hand if you really care that there's a CowboyNeal option in every Slashdot poll. Not notable enough for Wikipedia, and probably could have been taken care of with a Speedy Deletion.--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification for the record... since this article has already been nominated and kept on the AfD discussion board, it would not seem to be "non controversial," and therefore would not have met the criteria for speedy deletion. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 02:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Dongemus, the creator, has had few contributions outside Slashdot topics.--01:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge/Redirect to Slashdot. Nowhere near notable enough for its own article but keeping it somewhere will undoubtedly keep the fanboys happy and provide information for those who seek it. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 11:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Slashdot, echoing Greggers. Yes, he's a notable part of the Slashdot culture, but beyond that of limited interest. (And his interview on Slashdot was a complete disappointment, so I might be biassed on this subject.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is basically just an explanation of a Slashdot inside joke. None of the sources pass muster as RS. Likelihood of significant 3rd party coverage, ever, is 0. This sort of thing is better suited to a Slashdot FAQ or Urban Dictionary. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:57, 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 Redirected to 11:11 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11:11 (album)[edit]

This disamb-page is fully covered in disamb 11:11. Suggest Redirect. DePiep (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect A redirect doesn't require an AFD. --JD554 (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 11:11. Flying Toaster 10:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 10:12, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MES Pattambi[edit]

Delete - Non notable ~~foreign~~(no matter where it is from, I would have nominated it for deletion) school. The only references don't even qualify as reliable secondary sources(like this one). The only reference that could qualify as a reliable source barely mentions the school and is just "Trivial or incidental coverage", which does not meet WP:SCHOOL#Criteria. Furthermore, the article makes no real claim to of notability. Also, not that it matters, but the article has already been deleted before(under multiple name variations) for copyright violation and ~~notability issues~~. Wacko Jack O 08:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the parent organisation Muslim Educational Society; not covered non-trivially by any independent, reliable sources. But a school's being "foreign" has precisely zero bearing on notability. cab (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you are saying we keep it, even though it is not notable, and is not mentioned(non trivially) by any independant, reliable sources? My poor wording in nominating the article, shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not the school actually meets notability guidelinesWacko Jack O 11:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I did not state that we should keep it, I stated that we should merge it to the parent organisation, as is typical practise for non-notable subsidiaries and especially for schools. Existence of the school and its association with the Muslim Educational Scoiety is quite easily verifiable if you search as requested at WP:BEFORE; results found in the first page of Google results [64][65] cab (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Erm, one links to the school website which is not even a secondary source; the other is a listing for a school fete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - For the THIRD TIME, I am arguing that the article should be merged. Redirects are not articles; they are not and have never been required to meet WP:N. cab (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I added a sourced "Schools" section in the parent article; see Muslim Educational Society#Schools. If we merge this article, a shortened description can go into the "Notes" column there. cab (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nom describing this as a "foreign school" is evidence of massive systemic bias. To Wikipedia nothing is foreign. I suggest we keep the info to avoid such bias. The internet is mostly American; the World mostly isn't.--Patton^t/c 11:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you are saying we keep the article to make a point(no matter what the notability)?Wacko Jack O 11:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No I say the notability threshold is lower for articles like this because of systemic bias.--Patton^t/c 14:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I would have nominated the same article for deletion if it was located in the U.S. or the U.K. I guess I shouldn't have used the word foregin, but I was trying to be specific. Either way, are should every single school be covered on Wikipedia? What is the claim of notability for this school?Wacko Jack O 11:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs to be either deleted as non-notable,or references from verifiable sources given, as per the guideline for schools or merged with Muslim Educational Society; however that article doesn't give references either and is in frankly terrible shape and another prime candidate for an AfD. I'll hold back nominating that til we get through with this AfD. Wacko worded his nomination for AfD badly but all should assume good faith in the nomination of a poorly sourced article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a high school with a significant community profile. I notice that sources are available but Indian schools have a poor presence on the Internet so, to avoid systemic bias, sufficient time should be given for local sources to be researched. Nominating such pages less than a day after creation is not helpful; we should be looking to develop the article not deleting it. TerriersFan (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has actually deleted multiple times before(with different variations of the name). It was started by the same user each time. However, there is still no claim of anything notable, and no source that actually mentions the school as being notable in any way.Wacko Jack O 13:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The various deletions were all made in the last few days. The page has had wholly insufficient time for local sources to be found. Experience shows that high schools are invariably notable if sufficient effort is put in to research them. TerriersFan (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: The previous deletion was due to copyvio, not due to notability issues as claimed in the nomination. Salih (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC
    - There has been more than one previous deletion, the person who created the article, created it under different name variations.Wacko Jack O 14:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. Additionally, I have added a source to the article. Salih (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia school criteria: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.". For this article to meet notability standards, it must be covered in depth by reliable, secondary sources, and the coverage must not be trivial.Wacko Jack O 14:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The latest "source" is a directory entry and not an adequate source. As far as I can tell its the equivalent of using the Yellow Pages as a source. All we need are reliable, secondary, non-trivial sources... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That source is a 488 page book published by Institute of Objective Studies (New Delhi). You can't compare it with Yellow Pages. Salih (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, you can compare it to the Yellow pages. The name of the book you are refering to is " Directory of Muslim educational institutions in India." There are also still no sources that aren't "Trivial or incidental coverage"(at best).Wacko Jack O 14:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you really call things like this a reference supporting notability?Wacko Jack O 15:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools with a real existence are notable for Wikipedia purposes. Obviously the article should be further expanded, andthis generally does take place. DGG (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking through Wikipedia:SCHOOL#Criteria, I don't see where it says any high school is necessary. From what I see, it has to have some notable coverage in a secondary source.Wacko Jack O 01:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"necessary" is not the standard for keeping. To remove it, you need to show why it is necessary to remove it. DGG (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Furthermore, how can the article be expanded, if the school is not covered in in depth by secondary sources? The only way to expand it would be from original research, etc.Wacko Jack O 01:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is kind of hard one but I dont think references for this are enough to make school notable. References in this case seem to be internet listing, vanity, or barely mentioning school. If I saw some good references I would think different but I am sorry I dont. This is just my opinion.JimmySmitts (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's got room for improvement, but it's clearly notable. Just needs some slightly better sourcing. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 13:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is, there is no better sourcing. The only references are either not valid secondary sources(this), or barely mention the school(like this).Wacko Jack O 13:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually read the article and this page before commenting. I also evaluated the sources. My interpretation of the notability policy is that the subject of the article is notable, and I believe that it is plausible that the assertion of that notability can be increased. It seems that numerous other users agree with me, which indicates that I'm not fundamentally misunderstanding the whole issue. I'm particulary impressed with TerrierFan's comments, which I think hit the nail on the head perfectly. So I stand by my argument to keep. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 14:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just very hard to believe that people think that the sources for this article meet WP:SCHOOL#Criteria.Wacko Jack O 14:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they clearly do, and haranguing everybody who disagrees with you, and insulting their intellects (even if they're a very clear majority) defies the point of consensus; I therefore advise that you let this AfD run its course without commenting again unless you have anything new to say - so far, you've just repeated the same links and statements about four times each. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 14:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : "All high schools can be assumed to be notable." per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). C21K ^talk 09:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) : "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." Wacko Jack O 10:06, 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 16:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otkrit Ću Ti Tajnu[edit]

entire references relies on a single website, with the dubious claim the song has been downloaded 309 236 times. Unable to verify that claim with an independent reliable source (It would qualify under WP:BADCHARTS anyway as it appears to be a sourced from a "single vendor"). Does not appear to have officially charted either way. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And it was given away, not sold. 300K people taking something offered to them for free is not notable. Fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:58, 7 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) 15:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Drummer[edit]

Non-notable Hrhadam (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quick google search comes up with three awards, one nomination and a hatful of reviews. It's a miserable attempt at an article but that can be fixed. The writer on who's book the film is based is also notable and has a wikipedia entry. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator, forgotten what prompted me to write this stub, think I heard about it and its award noms and did a quick google when I found wikipedia didn't have anything on the subject. It may be in Flemish, but that doesn't mean it isn't of note. Viridae ^Talk 01:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AFTER. Did a quick news search and found a number of reliable sources that speak of the film and filmmaker. Once added to the stub and it expanded, will be a delightful addition to these pages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only is the film based on the novel of a notable novelist, it also won awards at multiple well-known film festivals. It clearly meets the guidelines. When Dylan is done editing, the article will indicate its notability too. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 8 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 21:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino–Uruguay relations[edit]

Unnotable; Prod contested Rcawsey (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete other than embassies I cannot find anything covering relations between these two countries, and since San Marino has a population of less than 30,000 I didn't expect to. Hut 8.5 08:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything other than embassies (which, incidentally, Uruguay lacks) to justify the notability of this relationship. Not that I was expecting to, since the entire San Marino population can fit into Coventry's stadium and still have room. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no assertion of this topic's notability in the context of history, only that it should be notable based on the title. The scant information found in this article can be merged to the two "Foreign relations of..." articles in the "See also" section to create more exhaustive and coherent articles there. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. There is no assertion of notability between the two countries. Tavix | Talk 22:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability whatsoever. Does anyone know how many of these strange foreign relations articles are online? Pastor Theo (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Too many. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And growing --BlueSquadronRaven 15:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whimsical pairing with no particular notability demonstrated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Why was the prod removed? Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see significant content here yet. The article can be reconstructed when it becomes available. DGG (talk) 17:06, 9 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 16:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Noonan[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. As far as I can tell, notability was never established for the subject and the notability tag was removed by an anonymous IP (70.63.97.110) back in '07 without addressing the problem. The references (external links) give don't establish any notability either and I've found nothing on Google to indicate any. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 07:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any references to him in reliable sources to back up the claims made in the article. It seems strange that someone who is supposed to have won a national competition isn't even mentioned on the competition organiser's website[66] or that there are no ghits[67] to verify the five claimed tours of Europe. --JD554 (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo liable references.Jamiebijania (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 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 Michiko Suganuma, merge and delete Wagae-nuri to Michiko Suganuma; [note: credit to initial editor given on my merger edit summary] - Nabla (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wagae-nuri[edit]

Also including Michiko Suganuma, creator and apparent sole practitioner of this obscure style of urushi.

Lack of notability, self promoting to the point of being borderline spam, or worse Svartalf (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Michiko Suganuma was previously nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michiko Suganuma. Fg2 (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no wonder that was looking familiar -- thanks for the pointer. Based on the links in that debate, Michiko Suganuma clearly passes WP:CREATIVE on the "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" clause if nothing else, so KEEP that one. Wagae-nuri is more problematic -- as written it's very spammy, enough so I cannot tell whether it is notable on its own or would be better merged selectively into Michiko Suganuma; withholding !vote on this for now, pending further research (by others, as Japanese is beyond me). —Quasirandom (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Michiko Suganuma unless additional refs can be found showing the lacquerware is notable on its own. I couldn't see anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So keep Michiko Suganuma (which is also nominated)? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to, and Keep Michiko Suganuma but no redirect. Suganuma may have established enough notability for her works, but we need yet to see some (totally absent to date) critics and/or reviews by third parties in the field to justify a stand-alone article for this denomination. (With no such information available right now, it only appears to me to be a mere self-named brand, than any new technique.) As such, I am inclined to say there should not be re-directs from the many internal links to "Wagae-nuri" that IP user 211.4.122.37 have planted, but delete them. --Mantokun (talk) 11:01, 9 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 00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Kohntopp[edit]

Everything notable about this person is already included in a single event article except for his early career, and that information comes from a webpage (pdf) that is now dead. I recommend deleting this article and redirecting to the incident article. Cla68 (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dead pdfs have online archives. I know we prefer online sources here, but if a book went out of print, would that by itself render information from the source unusable? Unlike users at wikipedia, article subjects have no presumptive right to disappear. If the fellow continues to live "in hiding," then a reader might well look to find out more than just the after-action stuff. Lots of room for expansion once he goes public again. He's notable, he's cited, and the lack of resolution to the incident and his disappearance make him notable for more than a single event, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I should add that in view of the subject's absence (willing or otherwise), deleting this article may give the unintended appearance of pedia participation in any perceived cover-up activity (actual or otherwise). BusterD (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment I don't think that anyone is going to mistake Wikipedia for the US military, and if they do we can just point to this AfD to show the process which was followed and the continued existance of 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources = notability. He seems to have received rather too much coverage for this to be considered a single-event biography. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —BusterD (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would say there is too much verified biographical information to be merged/covered in the FF incident sufficiently. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the deadlink fixed, there's too much biographical information to rely solely on the article for the event. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
feh - non-notable except for the one event, we'd be deleting this vanity bio if he'd created it himself and not been in that awful friendly fire incident. Policy wise, we're unlikely to delete this, though I think we should. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If I could interject at this point...what we have here is a guy with an entirely non-notable USAF flying career, who then is involved in a single friendly fire incident, which may or not have been his fault, and from which since he has tried to disappear. Again, I suggest taking a brief synopsis of this guy's life and career and putting it in the event's article, perhaps in a footnote, and then deleting this. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with everything you've said in your first sentence. I assert that his disappearance constitutes a second event (being a notable fugitive from some kind of justice) and the nature of the unresolved incident and his subsequent disappearance make it essential that the pedia offers both positive information about him (his bio) alongside the negative (the incident), in order to offer a balanced total view. If this situation had been resolved through normal channels of inquiry, I'd agree with the deletion. The apparent coverup changes my view. I am concerned about BLP issues, but I don't see any associated with this pagespace. BusterD (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Cla68 that everything notable about this individual is in the 190th Fighter Squadron Article. This article will go no where from here and info on G.K would be best maintained in the article about the incident.--Looper5920 (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:ONEEVENT. This is a clear case of where we should write about the incident, and not the otherwise non-notable individuals involved. There doesn't seem to be anything here worth keeping which shouldn't be in 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ONEEVENT. I agree that all (or if not, the vast majority) of the content that can be written about this indidual is either linked to the friendly fire incident, or is background information on the individual that has only come into the public eye because of the incident. Also, I feel that having an article around so that 'positive' information can be provided to balance 'negative' information sounds like trying to use two POVs to make NPOV...which is not somewhere any article, let alone a BLP, should find itself. I definitely support a recreation as redirect to the incident as a plausible search term. As an alternative to outright deletion, that this article be heavily trimmed down and merged into the incident...I don't think that the article has reached such an excessive size that a paragraph or two providing some more background information on Gus, both before and after the incident. (As an aside, I would happily support a similar merge, for the same reasons, for Matty Hull, the soldier at the less fortunate end of the incident) -- saberwyn 12:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the incident is sufficiently important. And NPOV is in fact made by the inclusion of POVs from different sides. DGG (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But having an article for the purpose of holding some warm-and-fuzzy info to 'balance out' the facts of what the person is actually famous/infamous for? I thought NPOV was the neutral presentation of facts, not making this guy's life apear karmically neutral. -- saberwyn 22:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Does this bio as currently edited represent anything "warm-and-fuzzy"? To my reading, both the bio and the incident pages look pretty damning, and relatively neutral, when compared to other stuff (which I'll concede exists). Both pages seem to conclude the subject has been convicted by the U.K. inquiry in absentia (and by the U.K. media), and he's currently "in hiding", with the U.S. government refusing to participate in official inquiry, and appearing to be involved in a cover-up to protect the pilots. I see a number of well-respected wikipedians who've been involved over a considerable time with both pagespaces, including the nominator of this proceeding. That we're addressing "karmic" sensitivities is something nobody else seems to be suggesting, and casts negative light on the important work these wikipedians have done here. I don't think we should be tinkering with anyone's perception of karma, as it regards a BLP article. BusterD (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'keep per Ryan. There's enough information on Kohntopp that it would be difficult to merge this into the article on the incident. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a reminder, WP:ONEEVENT states that that the number of references is unimportant if they are all about a single incident, and that separate articles on individuals involved in incidents are only appropriate when the incident is historically significant. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Exactly at whom is this reminder aimed? Closing admin? I see exactly two users in this discussion with less than 10K edits (me, and I've been editing since 2005; and Ryan4314, who's been editing since 2007). BusterD (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incident in question was one of the most infamous friendly fire incident in the ongoing ~~Afghan~~Iraq war. Yeah, that fits historically signficant. Furthermore, some of the sources about Kohntopp such as "From Stealth to Southwest" were written before the friendly fire incident occurred. It would take work, but one might even be able to get him to satisfy WP:BIO without regard to the incident. So ONEVENT/BLP1E are not that relevant here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The incident in question was from the 2003 invasion of Iraq, not the Afghan war. Cla68 (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I knew that. Need more sleep clearly. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:38, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads Christian Church[edit]

A shameless, blatant advertisement. Also, as a resident of Corona, CA, I do not believe that Crossroads is notable enough. Uses self-promoting sources, and was obviously written by someone affiliated with the church. Novalord2 (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This Google News Archive search returns a number of new stories, many of which mention the church in passing. Cunard (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT and unconfirmed WP:COI are not good reasons to call for deletion. Articles with self-promotional text can be edited to meet Wikipedia's standards. Cunard's Google News search confirms some degree of notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how the article advertises the business hours of its cafe. This article does not necessarily have to be deleted, but it is very un-wikipedian in its current form. Novalord2 (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you nominate it for deletion rather than cutting out the promotional stuff? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a "re-write" or "clean up" tag would have been more appropriate. A major re-write is needed. Novalord2 (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started copy editing the spammy fluff out of the article. I would welcome you, Novalord2, to help improve the article. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made some improvements, added an "expand" tag, for when the deletion is closed Novalord2 (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. There are RS, though fewer that I would expect. Springnuts (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Google search shows that the church is active in the community, establishing notability should not be a problem. --J.Mundo (talk) 12:30, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 21:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly McClelland[edit]

Contested prod. I have detailed my objections to the article here. The short version is that none of Ms. McClelland's chess achievements are notable. The claim that she won a national chess championship is simply not the case; she won a class section for players with a rating under 1600, which by definition has excluded all the strong and notable players. These class sections are in place to give less experienced players a chance to play against players of their own skill, not to determine a champion. Any tournament player can win a section like that on a good day. (I won a section like that in 2007.) Those who play for the championship enter a section where they can meet the strongest players, not a class section where the strongest players are barred from entering. Her peak rating of 1668 makes her a class "B" player in the United States, which is far below the master level (approximately 2400) where one can begin to consider a player as semi-professional. Regarding the film portrayal, IMDB confirms that Saycon Sengbloh played "Kimberly" in The Ditchdigger's Daughters, but I cannot see evidence that it is the same person, and even so, the role appears to be fairly minor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. SyG (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Voorlandt (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Loosmark (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --DaQuirin (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The under 1600 section (restricted to low-rated players) of the US High School tournament is not a national championship. Bubba73 (talk), 13:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Much as I deplore "per nom" !votes, in this case Sjakkalle's said everything that needs saying.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In addition to everything above, from what I can find, most of the events depicted in The Ditchdigger's Daughters apparently took place before the subject was born, thus making it unlikely that she is the "Kimberly" portrayed in the movie. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. We have deleted as non-notable articles about chessplayers far, far stronger than Ms. McClelland, including FIDE Masters Charles Weldon and Boris Baczynskyj (sorry, can't guarantee the spelling of that last one). Both of them had ratings of 2300 or so, placing them well into the top 1% of tournament players. Ms. McClelland's rating is perhaps in the top 20%. Krakatoa (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy has been to delete ones similar to this person, e.g. Emily Bentley. Bubba73 (talk), 04:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While "the first African-American woman to win a national chess championship." is a good claim of notability, it fails to mention that she did not play in the highest class at the tournament (making the claim highly misleading). Players need to have at least an expert level rating before they should be considered for inclusion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, winning the under-1600 section of the National High School Championship is like winning the National High School Fish Championship. It's ridiculous to call that a "national title". Krakatoa (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special note from the page's subject (Kimberly McClelland)[edit]

First, let me say how honored I am that a few people have now actually become aware of something that took place over 15 years ago (thanks, Shotcallerballerballer! :)). However, seeing as though the internet has now become a place for such "discoveries," allow me to set the record straight on a few things:

1. The tournament in question was never "professional," so the comments pertaining to that aspect of the page are irrelevant. The tournament was a scholastic championship (although my section was not) and there is never any monetary compensation for such tournaments. Additionally, I was much lower rated than my peers, in addition to being much younger, and was in no way "favored" to win such an event. However, if one were to contact the USCF about the result of the tournament, they will verify that the information is indeed accurate.

2. The fact that I was 12 years old at the time should speak volumes to those who have no idea as to the environment surrounding a black female in the chess world. There were many occasions where (white, male) players would call me a "n----- b----" (or some variation of the phrase) whenever I defeated them in either scholastic or professional play. As a ringer (as I was often called), I was repeatedly insulted and even threatened by players if I did not change my winning result on the scoresheet to reflect my "inferiority." So, I ask that this be taken into heavy consideration when determining the fate of this page, as well as the struggles faced by black female chess players in American society.

3. My brother, Shearwood McClelland, III, MD, deserves FAR more credit for his accomplishments in chess than I do. However, being FEMALE, I must say that there were very few others like me in any tournament I entered (and, as any tournament director can attest, the number of black females present at any tournament is usually fewer than three--particularly in the South), so in many respects, my brother experienced much less ostracism than I.

4. The fact that a black female took home 1st place in a national chess tournament should indeed be recognized in some way, regardless of whatever technicalities certain individuals may conjure up. Considering the activities of the usual 12-year-old black female, coming in first place in a national chess tournament before reaching 8th grade is certainly a noteworthy achievement--if for no other reason than for the next black girl to see that it can be done, despite all of the negativity/racism/sexism inherent in the chess world. But, as my grandfather said, "If you look back and think you did a whole lot then, you ain't doin' a damn thing now." And if winning my section is not "good enough" for Wikipedia, I'm glad it was good enough for both Stanford and Columbia's admissions committees.

5. Personally, having this page removed would serve my private life very well, as I have enjoyed my anonymity for the past 15 years and would very much like for that to continue. However, given that certain individuals have taken issue with my "claim to fame," I felt it important to "come out of hiding," so to speak and remind those who are likely not aware of either the context within which this event took place or the reasons why supporting (internet) information is currently unavailable. The fact still remains that chess was a doorway for me, a black female, to become a successful college and master's graduate, something that is rare for African-American slave-descendants; and those who are so quick to criticize the "realness" or validity of such a doorway exhibit behavior that is discouraging for any future black women who wish to follow a similar path. Additionally, groups such as The Chess Project should be ENCOURAGING black females' presence in chess, not attempting to remove the one shred of evidence that a black female finished first among over 1,000 participants--at 12 years of age. Anyone who says, "I can do that on a good day" is likely not a black female 12-year-old, nor has he likely faced any of her aforementioned challenges.

6. FYI, Saycon Sengbloh did play me in "The Ditchdigger's Daughters," but literary license was taken by the film's producer, Paris Qualles, to make her about 7 years older than I actually was at the time. (Information pertaining to "The Ditchdigger's Daughters" is currently unavailable for several reasons, primarily pertaining to legal/copyright issues.)

Zoette (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess is not to "encourage black females to play chess", it is to develop and maintain encyclopedia articles about notable subjects in the area of chess. Bubba73 (talk), 16:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tournament crosstable says that there were 165 players in her section, not "over 1,000". Bubba73 (talk), 16:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bubba73's first comment above. And he is correct that the tournament crosstable, which the article links to, shows that there were 165 players in her section. Sorry, being co-winner of a tournament consisting of players a bit above beginner level is not a notable achievement by Wikipedia standards. Krakatoa (talk) 10:50, 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 speedily deleted (G10) by Lectonar. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Lemons[edit]

Probable hoax. Reference: lemming suicide, "hard time on reproducing as they are easily confused", "Black Dog" like fur, etc... OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Could vandalism be any more obvious? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 06:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I researched "lemons", which led to "lemmings" which led to numerous articles discussing the little critters, but none with such low self esteem that they have to turn purple and commit suicide. ;o) However, there are lemmings (lemons) which dwell on cliffs. So, AfD, and not CSD. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preyed upon by the wild calliope, though? Or the wild Pasadena lands of California? (I can assure you that the only wildlife found there is found in the Rose Bowl stadium. Well, OK, with the exception of the wild parrots.) This is pure nonsense - no need to bring it to AfD. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:45, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philatino[edit]

Unremarkable company, with tone of article very much towards self-promotion. Was originally tagged as a speedy deletion which might have been a little harsh. So going for AfD to get some further thoughts. Oscarthecat (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's just a random company writing self-promotions. BecauseWhy? (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising: Philatino is an international organization born to ensemble the best possible selection of recognized world stamps auctioneers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, before you delete it tell me what should I change, because I took parts of different journals and that's what the articles say, I'm trying to change the article but everything I put you say Its advertising, when a administrator from here told me I could write an article about a company. I don't trying to advertise, I know that wikipedia doesn't have a page rank and I don't even put the page url in the article. I'm learning how to use wikipedia but I can't learn if every word I put is deleted. If you dont have time to help me with this unless dont delete the article and give me time to change it.

Tell me, what information can I put about the company? Thank you. Sylvia. 200.122.14.72 (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sylvia, and welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've attempted to improve the article by adding some reliable sources to establish its notability, which is a good first step. But since article subjects need "significant coverage" in those sources (I've been mentioned by the BBC, but they certainly didn't say enough about me to warrant a Wikipedia article!) it would be helpful if we could see exactly what they say. I had a quick look online and found one of the publications you reference but not the specific article, and I couldn't find the journal 'Philatelie' at all. Do you have links to some of your references? If so then posting them here would let other editors decide whether the level of coverage is enough to show notability, and also whether the publications look 'reliable' in the Wikipedia sense (a national newspaper for example is a good source but a personal blog is not). I hope that helps - feel free to ask if you have more questions. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've taken the liberty of moving your comment so the AfD discussion is in chronological order - Wikipedia convention is to post new comments at the bottom. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Olaf!!!

I'll put links to linns page (linn is already in wikipedia) and "Philatelie" is a Dutch magazine recognized worldwide but with less weight than linn's, I'll try to find a link to it.

I really appreciate you're taking the time to respond and help me. I am ready to change and improve everything that you'll propose me. And sorry for my english.

Sylvia.

200.122.14.72 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This has been deleted four times already. Each time there has been little, if any, improvement. None of the so called sources links to anything about the subject. I searched around Linn's Stamp News website and even though search results showed instances of the name, none of the pages actually had any mention of the topic. If it is so hard to find or provide direct links to verifiable reliable sources, and if the creator in unable to actually furnish links that work, then it is not notable and must be deleted. Assuming it will be deleted, I request protection from recreation considering how many deletions have already taken place. ww2censor (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The four deletions were made because I was lerning to use wikipedia and although I read all I could find about their conditions for use I made mistakes because there are a lot of rules and the rules have exceptions and when I was writting the article I found another article "Cherrystone auctions" that was on wikipedia for more than two years and was the same thing that im recreating with philatino, I mentioned this site to a few administrators and noone deleted It until I request It. So I was confused about the use of wikipedia, for this I'm asking you to don't delete the article, It's not advertise as I said before! I'm trying to honor a company that my grandfather made grew with his love for stamps and hard work, and if you dont understand philately please dont discuss about that. Because if you have a bussines of shoes and it's good, the whole world will know about it but philately is a small enviroment and appear in two of the greatest magazines of philately is a huge thing. But if you expect Maddonna to be talking about a philatelic company in the BBC understand that it's not gonna happen!! And I checked but Linn's doesnt have all of his publications online, but if you want I can scan the pages and send everyone a copy or put it in the resources. But this is all that a person who wants to describe an important company in a small enviroment can do, and you'll have to accept that. Wikipedia is for all, not only for the things that the most people understands or likes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.16.92 (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this can be confusing and irritating, Sylvia. As you say, Wikipedia's rules can seem pretty daunting at first! If you can provide scanned copies of your sources without too much trouble that would be very helpful. My Dutch isn't brilliant but I can find someone to translate the Philatelie article if you have a copy of that too (it doesn't seem to be on the website). Also, if you sign in using the username you've created and make sure to end your posts with four tildes (~~~~) then your signature will appear as 'Sylvia.Plath07' instead of your IP address, '200.122.14.72'. That makes it easier to tell who's written what. And your English is fine! Olaf Davis (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a clear conflict of interest here. The edits are being made by an employee of or the owner of the company (considering the comment about it being founded by her grandfather, I'm guessing owner). That in itself amounts to self-promotion. Added on top of that, I attempted to add an AfD tag to the page, which didn't appear to have any significant improvements since it was last deleted. She removed the tag in violation of policy, while I was getting ready to post the info on the AfD discussion page. So, I just decided to mark it for speed deletion instead and she removed that tag too, it seems, while I was away for a day or two. Oscarthecat is now attempting what I tried (and thanks for the headsup about that, Oscarthecat!). Another issue is the concept of notability in this instance. All of the non-links are to what amount to trade publications. Linn's and the others mentioned are not particularly reliable news sources. Many of the "articles" amount to no more than paid advertising, disguised as articles. Most of Linn's is devoted to ads, in fact. This doesn't really meet the standard of notability. If this company were mentioned in an actual news piece somewhere rather than just a trade magazine, then it might rise to the level of notability. There is no evidence that such is the case. Simply being mentioned in a trade publication added to the COI status of the page's originator weights the issue in favor of deletion, in my opinion. Age Happens (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI and failure by an inexperienced user to abide by deletion policy aren't reasons for deletion, though. On the trade magazine issue you have a point: I always find it very difficult to gauge the borderline of reliable sources in these cases. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,I'm Sylvia again but I can't Log in. I'm 18 years old, and I have no job, and I'm definetly not the owner of the company! If you know a way to prove you I'm that age please let me know, for the moment I can only give you my fotolog, blog and facebook and that proves I'm only a teenager learning how to use wikipedia, http://fotolog.com/mayfairwitch http://cubremisojos.blogspot.com and my facebook is reserved to who is really interested to solve this missunderstood, if you are interested please contact me to my e-mail [removed] And thanks olaf again for your help. Sylvia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.189.229.50 (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia, I've removed your email address because Wikipedia's a very visible site which makes it a likely target for bots that search for email addresses to send spam to. I don't think you need to prove your age to us. If a topic is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia then it's notable regardless of who first wrote about it or how old they are! If you're having problems logging in you might want to explain the situation on the Help Desk and hopefully someone can give you a hand. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by ChrisTheDude. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Everding (Baseball)[edit]

Non-notable person. JaGa^talk 05:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. A statement that a kid plays Little League baseball is not an indication of importance or significance. I'm off to so tag. Deor (talk) 11:44, 7 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. Early WP:SNOW Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alpharetta ghost[edit]

Not a serious article. Possibly speedy-worthy. JaGa^talk 05:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google, Google News, Google books search doesn't provide sources for its existence.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's almost no content to the article at all! BecauseWhy? (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V. What content there is seems to be entirely lies and the single unverifiable source does little to demonstrate otherwise. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, speedy, speedy delete TheRingess (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best, possible hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. As G3 - blatant hoax. So Why 08:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pahara[edit]

A google search for "Pahara" yielded no results. Looks like a hoax to me Mblumber (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Blatant misinformation. The poorly made images were enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 05:18, 7 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 Keep because no one is arguing that the article be deleted (and several excellent references have been provided). Non-admin closure. --GRuban (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slake's Limbo[edit]

Proposed for deletion in August 2008, deleted by me. The deletion was later contested, so I've undeleted it and automatically placed it on AFD as routine. No vote. JIP | Talk 04:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is tricky - it claims notability through the two awards,but when you search for the "Lewis Carroll Shelf Award" it's missed from the list of winners - I guess because the book went out of print and those sites with the list of winners were linked to other sites that are selling books. It's missing from Wikipedias list of winners too. It's now in print again but with no reviews or further awards it's not looking good: although notability is permanent. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that this is tricky - I asked for this to be considered for "undeletion" because I think it is an important piece. If you Google the title, even with specifying only educational (.edu) sources, you see hundreds of results, which you wouldn't see for an insignificant piece. However, I haven't seen a scholarly analysis of the book which could be used for Wikipedia. Perhaps the page could be kept for the time being, until someone comes along with some better sources. --Jjm10 (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep....I think OK, I've trawled thru the net and found.....a review in the New York Times, which unfortunately is archived so most of it behind a paysite,[68] but I've added it to the article. Then there's this, which gives a ton of good info, but gimme some feedback on how you all rate it as a source. If it's good, I'll sort the article using this and whatever else I can dig up.[69] Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep under criterion 1 on the grounds that the nominator isn't requesting deletion - there is no procedure that says that a restored prod has to automatically go to AfD as routine. If for some unfathomable reason that isn't done then keep per the hundreds of reliable sources found by a Google Books search. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some references and removed some maintenance templates (as explained in the edit summaries). As to the question of notability: 1. there're the awards (now sourced) 2. I've seen this book being mentioned very positively on some serious sites (here and here) A definite keep. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Williams discography[edit]

This is an awesome case of content fork. I never saw an article like this in Wikipedia before; almost an avantgarde work, really. Now, what makes this article a discography? Canniba loki 04:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an artist who has never even released a solo single clearly does not merit a stand-alone discography article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That's truly impressive. And here I thought that musicians needed albums before they could have discographies! BecauseWhy? (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Cannibaloki, to address your concerns. In regard to content forking -- how many releases does consesus believe an artist must to merits the discography it's own article; because there are further compilation appearances made by this artist, that I am planning on including once I find a reliable source to back it up. In regard to "what makes this article a discography?", according to Wikipedia's discography article, "a listing of all recordings which a musician or singer features on can be called their "discography". This is a listing of some of her recordings. In regard to ChrisTheDude and BecauseWhy, their interesting opinions, but what is an artist has released several EPS, singles, music videos and appeared on numerous compilations. This all count as 'releases' and if a discography only needs ten of these, it can become a featured list. Also, this discography will be part of a hopefully featured topic, "Young Divas member discography" and without this article the entire topic will be opposed due to cherry picking. This is only due to a limited subject matter, which is covered in 3)c) of the featured topic criteria, and although the list generally cannot achieve featured-list status it can still be included in part of a featured topic. Finnally, its not as if the artist has given up on her solo career, she continues to make compilation appearances and is working on her album. Overall, if your going to delete that's okay, I just need to know how many releases she needs before her discography warrants another article? Three? Five? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I would say that an artist needs to have released at least two albums to merit a stand-alone discography article. This artist has no solo releases whatsoever (IMO a single track on a compilation does not count as a "release" by the artist in question). There is no reason to break this material out into a separate article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ChrisTheDude, two albums? Should we delete Lady Gaga discography, she has only released one album, but she has a quite large amount of singles, music videos and compilation apearances? It has enough releases to achieve featured-list status with some clean-up. Should that go through AfD or FLC? So I ask you how many releases does Emily need before her discography warrants another article? Three? Five? When an artist gennerally requires ten to achieve a featured list status discography. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only on the grounds that the list can be recreated after she has ten releases; including guest appearances, compilation appearances and songwriting credits. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few releases as part of a group, and no releases as a solo artist do not warrant an individual discography, use the one on Emily Williams page. Bacchus87 (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No releases as a solo artist? There are two appearances on compilations listed clearly. I ask you how many releases does Emily need before her discography warrants another article? Three? Five? When an artist gennerally requires ten to achieve a featured list status discography. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has NO solo releases, they are appearances. Young Divas one should be in a Young Divas discog and the Aus Idol one is bearly notable. Wow, she was on Australian Idol, this does not make her notable, she's just like the 100 other failures...? You've done a good job with references, however, this info would all be perfectly fine in the actual article. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 06:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason why the very little content contained here cannot be incorporated into the artist's article. As for how many releases does someone need: I would say that 10 is a good rule of thumb, but they would need to be 10 releases by that artist (ie their own singles or albums) and not simply being included on a compilation. There will always be exceptions, but I can't see why this needs to be one. No solo singles and no solo albums doesn't warrant its own discography. --JD554 (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect The discography contains references and information not included in the main article. The main article would therefore benefit from a merge. It is not yet of the size that requires a spinoff article to be written. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 10 entries is the typical rule of thumb for justifying a standalone list. Not neccessarily 10 albums, but 10 releases (singles, eps, albums, what have you). This could clearly be merged into the main article and present a much clearer source of information for readers. Drewcifer (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no individual solo releases, non-notable artist. JamesBurns (talk) 01:46, 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 Speedily deleted G7 - author blanked. Mfield (Oi!) 06:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-invasive ultrasonic fat removal (NUFR)[edit]

I can't seem to find anything that says this even exists except a load of adverts. Spam? Hoax? Procedure only used by one company? You decide. Ironholds (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article is certainly poorly written. I can find just one JAMA article from 1998 that suggests it is a valid technique to supplement liposuction, here. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 03:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and author's blanking. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:22, 7 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) 15:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chile-Haiti relations[edit]

Article prodded and restored. It should be deleted again, as bilateral relations are not inherently notable (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Estonia relations), and the only notable fact about this relationship is that Chile now has some troops deployed in Haiti - a condition noted (with numbers!) right here. Also, paragraph 2 reads like a news article (maybe because a troop deployment of one force out of a 44-nation force is news, not really encyclopedic material - cf. the Multinational force in Iraq: we do have an article on the Polish involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq (because that was pretty big) but not, say, on the Danish involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one. Deploying troops into a country is a pretty notable foreign relationship. Gigs (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to confirm: you would, then, support "Iraq-X relations" articles for these countries, and if they had no other relationship with Iraq (which is generally the case), have them read "X has (or doesn't have) diplomatic relations with Iraq. X sent Y number of troops there in 2003 as part of the Multinational force in Iraq; these departed in 200_"? Personally, while I wouldn't dismiss troop deployments as trivial, I would say the information is covered better (and adequately) elsewhere. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False dilemma. A small country getting troops from only a few other countries makes each contribution more notable than the individual contributions to a massive multinational coalition. The reason these deletions were broken out into individual AfDs were so that we could consider each unique situation. The standard I'm using for these is pretty low, but still much higher than some who seem to want to keep them all. Gigs (talk)

11 countries have >100 troops (arbitrary number) in Haiti, and 7 have >100 policemen there. And while it's true that 30 countries sent >100 troops to Iraq, theoretically at least, they too are worth mentioning in separate "relations" articles if this deployment is. Or we can just keep it at this... - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Chile sent in 650 peacekeeping troops. I'd say that makes it notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established the usual way. Highly encyclopaedic topic. I see no compelling reason not to follow the standard practice here. Wily D 14:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Foreign relations of Chile and Foreign relations of Haiti and then Delete. What little referenced information is here does not warrant its own separate article, especially not one of a mass-created type that ignored any other places for inclusion such as the longer-established "Foreign relations of..." articles. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging and deleting results in a copyright violation, and is not a permissable vote. Wily D 15:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the principal though, this information is clearly so valuable that it belongs in two places not one. Hilary T (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WilyD: ExCUSE me? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? --BlueSquadronRaven 15:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe he read the deletion policy, something you could try too. Hilary T (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Read and apply WP:GFDL. It's explained in simpler terms at Wikipedia:Merge and delete, I believe. There's simply no way to merge into two articles with a copyright violation. WilyD 15:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are now officially grasping at straws here, rather than making any real argument to save the article, you realize that, don't you? --BlueSquadronRaven 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This statement appears divorced from reality. My own argumetn for keeping can be seen above. You're free to argue for keep, delete, merge, redirect or replace with poorly captioned photos of kittens. You're not free to suggest we engage in copyright infringement. You are, I guess, free to replace arguments about the article with snide personal remarks, as has been demonstrated. Wily D 15:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a lot of work, nonetheless, the article is notable and has references to backup the information. Likeminas (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is among the articles of the sort that has content; I would say the same for the Iraq example-the governments involved decided to send troops , and such is not a trivial decision. DGG (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- sources are available to establish notability. A quick search in Google News shows the importance of this relation to Chile, 1, a "significant portion" of the revenues from the state-owned copper company is now financing Chile’s peacekeeping operations in Haiti 2. --J.Mundo (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on ambassadors, as well the items mentioned above. I can't imagine that Chile's government is so flush with money that they need to fund a presence in this fourth-world basket case. (If they need the equivalent of a Siberia for their diplomatic staff, there are far less expensive options available.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:05, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Latvia relations[edit]

Article prodded and restored. Deletion is the answer here (bilateral relations are not inherently notable; see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Estonia relations), as this relationship is not notable. (No embassies, for starters.) That Argentina was first in Latin America to recognise Latvia is nice, but could easily have been a coincidence: someone had to be first. Also, link 1 says nothing on Latvia, and link 2 says nothing at all. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very trivial and non-notable relationship between two far-flung nations. Gigs (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No embassies, no references that work, no sources and no notability. The fact that Argentina was the first Latin American country to recognise Latvia's independence is irrelevant to the discussion - someone had to be first. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no assertion of this topic's notability in the context of history, only that it should be notable based on the title. The scant information found in this article can be merged to the two "Foreign relations of..." articles in the "See also" section to create more exhaustive and coherent articles there. The two "references" aren't even referenced in the text, and only point to news articles when wikipedia is not the news. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topics such as this can be helpful when doing certain types of research. The only other option is to put text that would go under such a heading into the topics of both countries - which inevitably leads to duplications or one-sided viewpoints, rather than an ability to have a topic which is covering the issue properly. The current text may not be good but that is no reason to delete a topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.1.175 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see significant content here yet. The article can be reconstructed when it becomes available. DGG (talk) 17:03, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–Chile relations[edit]

Article prodded and restored. It should be deleted because the two countries have essentially zero historic or cultural ties (and no geographic ones), no embassies, and the fact that Chile recognises the Armenian Genocide is duly noted at Recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Also, the Sassounian article is an opinion piece and not really a reliable source. Finally, bilateral relations are not inherently notable; see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Estonia relations. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not establish why this relationship is notable. Gigs (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Whilst the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide would mean it would be deleted (as it can be covered elsewhere), the fact that Armenians living in Chile can have Chilean citizenship without having to renounce their Armenian status sways it to keep for me. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: if notable, couldn't they be covered at Demographics of Chile, or at a new Armenians in Chile? That's usually standard practice for expatriate/immigrant communities, who don't necessarily impact relations between their "host" and "parent" country (though they often do). - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no assertion of this topic's notability in the context of history, only that it should be notable based on the title. The scant information found in this article can be merged to the two "Foreign relations of..." articles in the "See also" section to create more exhaustive and coherent articles there. The two "references" aren't even referenced in the text, and only point to very recent news articles when wikipedia is not the news. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established the usual way. I see no argument presented for why we need a much higher inclusion standard here than is the norm. That the article can't be redirected to a single, other article shows pretty clearly why a merge is inappropriate. Wily D 14:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blindly pointing to WP:N is not the best argument. Also, why have three articles saying the same thing when you can have less? Wikipedia may not be paper but that's no excuse not to use a little prudence in editing for sake of clarity, context and ease of searching. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is the usual standard for inclusion. Unless there is some reason to believe this is an exceptional case, why not follow the usual, default practice? Additionally, WP:N has longstanding acceptence - what we're sampling here is the opinions of a few people, while WP:N represents the collective opinions of far more people - it's much easier to let a handful of people discuss each issue while referencing the general thoughts than try to get everyone to participate in every discussion (or conversely, let only the handful who show up decide things - something that's a constant problem for all policies, be they NOR, NPOV or N - but we do the best we can). Wily D 14:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation of information for pedagogical purposes is not an easy thing, but we serve as a better reference by not breaking up a single topic into pieces and scattering it everywhere - this is a standard practice. Newspapers have "sports" sections, and "economic" sections and so forth for eaiser perusal. Wily D 14:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think we're trying to break information up? In every AfD on these such articles I haven't seen a single argument against integrating it into the existing "Foreign relations" articles that you choose to ignore, which predate these mass-produced bilateral articles by years and would benefit from the inclusion of such properly cited material? I'm not arguing for the removal of any information, in fact I'm arguing against the very thing you just argued against: the breakup of a topic! Now answer us this: Why does this information warrant its own separate article based solely on what is in the article rather than inclusion in Foreign relations of Armenia and Foreign relations of Chile? --BlueSquadronRaven 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is a merger really a good idea? Not only is it going to produce duplicate information (the same in both Foreign relations of Armenia and Foreign relations of Chile), but it is also going to turn these articles into gigantic lists, like Gun politics in the United States (by state), which is far from well-rounded and easily navigable. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient content, though just barely. DGG (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to delete, as the article obviously has enough content to move away from the stub status if someone has time and effort. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Very little content and few cited reasons for notability but it still has potential for expansion.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources not sufficient to meet WP:N. Both are unreliable, only cover Chile's recognition of the Armenian Genocide (which occurred while Armenia was part of the Ottoman Empire and anything but an independent country), and say next to nothing about the relationship between the two countries. This source is from an unreliable source which states that it is the "full-fledged organ of the ARF" (whatever it is) at [70] and the Spanish-language source is also unreliable as its a Armenian Genocide awareness group rather than a news source and the content in the reference is basically a press release on an Armenian delegation visiting Chile to thank it for recognising the Genocide once it is translated into English. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topics such as this can be helpful when doing certain types of research. The only other option is to put text that would go under such a heading into the topics of both countries - which inevitably leads to one-sided viewpoints, rather than an ability to have a topic which is covering the issue properly. As for not having embassies, the information on which embassy is used for diplomatic relations is, in itself, indicative and helpful. --87.115.1.175 (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That argument is basically WP:ITSUSEFUL Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Brenders[edit]

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability, Page has no primary or secondary sources, also reads as promotional Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnotable. I have to say, too, that "His compositions are boundless, containing a broad range of idiomatic allusions" is easily the most unencyclopedic sentence I've ever read, as well as baffling the hell outta me Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems unnotable, claims little. Possible violation of WP:COPYVIO from myspace page. Bacchus87 (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete If it's a copyvio it's G12, if he releases the information, it's still written with a promotional goal in mind (G11). Neither would survive. _ Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where life begins[edit]

A song with limited notability. Never released as a single. Does not appear to have charted. No awards or covers either. A-Kartoffel (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Not enough info for a reasonably detailed article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual song that is not notable enough on its own. Gigs (talk) 05:49, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free sportsbook[edit]

No establishment of notability or significance for a new website. References are flimsy. JNW (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Website is very notable. It is a legal place for US citizens to bet on sports. Given the size of the industry, current legal hotbed, and lack of options for this, it's very notable. I will add more detail on this to the article as well as another reference - video from CEO (talk) 8:26, 7 April 2009

There must be reliable third party sources to support its significance; saying it's notable is not sufficient. The video from the CEO is essentially an advertisement. Can reliable sources by added, instead of external links that promote commercial entities? Please see WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SOURCES. JNW (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This concept of law loophole sportsbooks is interesting and might even warrant an article, but in that case it should be free from advertising. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page seems more like an add for the website listed, and as far as I know, there are no other 'free' sportsbooks on the web. Mandermagic (talk) 20:54, 9 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) 15:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill May[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I regret creating this BLP. The subject is marginally notable. One of the sources is not reliable. Wikipedia does not currently have an effective system for managing BLPs such as this one. I therefore urge deletion. Cla68 (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article you created deleted, then place a {{db-author}} on top of the article, which tags the article for speedy deletion (G6). AFD is not necessary here. MuZemike 01:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G7 actually. --76.65.140.230 (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged, as Cla68 is now blocked. Grsz¹¹ 01:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And declined. I don't mind of course. Grsz¹¹ 01:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've improved the page a bit now (after this request was made), so Cla68 is no longer the sole contributor. This guy easily passes WP:ATHLETE; I can't see why he is seen as "marginally notable" with several bits of coverage and a championship at what's apparently the highest level that a male synchronised swimmer can go. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I guess if you put it that way...you're right, there aren't many venues for a male synch swimmer. If he had attempted to swim at Olympics, Pan Ams, Goodwills, and denied at all of them, but swam at some YMCA competition somewhere, I'd guess he'd be notable then too. Grsz¹¹ 01:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a national championship is hardly a YMCA competition. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was the highest amateur competition. This is an odd case, but you made an effective argument. Keep. Grsz¹¹ 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I see what you mean now. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, this person seems to pass current notability standards, marginally. Absent any information about the subject's wishes (which would sway my view to delete if that's what the subject wanted, under "default to delete" and "subject's wishes" policies) this is probably a keep. I'd suggest merging it instead of actually keeping it, and making it a footnote in the Synchronized swimming article instead. This is a poster child for "liberal semi-protection" and for flagged revisions, though. ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say 'regrettably', Lar? Is there something wrong with having an article on him? And what exactly is the "subject's wishes" policy you're talking about? Obviously we have plenty of articles on people who'd rather we didn't, and I don't see anything here that violates BLP, so could you explain what you mean? Olaf Davis (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per preceding. Fulfils notability criteria. I agree with semiprotection. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. I see no reason for semiprotection either, but that is not for AfD is for anyway. Possibly flagged protection when it comes. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to significant coverage in multiple sources, and as Nyttend interestingly points out he's reached the highest level he can. (I hadn't even realised synchronised swimming was a sexually-restricted sport. How sad.) Olaf Davis (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Semi-protection was a bad choice here, but I see no reason to delete, as the subject is apparently notable. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Object to deletion of marginally notable people in general, and this individual isn't even marginally notable so that's not an issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he won a national championship in a sport, and there's nothing more to say about it. In any case, marginally notable=notable. DGG (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Phoenix[edit]

Possibly non-notable DJ. BJ^Talk 00:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as an un-sourced article on a DJ who's station does not even appear to be notable. I tried to find some sources but came up with nothing. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - This radio personality is currently with Monster Radio BT105.9, a provincial station of its MOTHER station of RX 93.1 (http://www.rx931.com/). This should be kept. This person is one of the oldest Radio DJ in Cebu City Philippines even to date. Show currently starts at 6pm-9pm, Monday to Friday, Philippine time. Phildjs 18:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~DO NOT DELETE~~ - For live person verification, go to ^[1] april 7, 2009(UTC)Phildjs (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We heard you the first time, no need to SHOUT, let along twice. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, they copyright holder has emailed OTRS and released the information in this article under GFDL, v. 1.2 or later and CC-BY-SA version 3.0. Ticket:2009040610068956 for those with access. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well the OTRS is a big help to this article, at the same time I still question this articles notability. I will wait and see how this progresses, and may or may not change my opinion. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage, non-notable dj. JamesBurns (talk) 02:10, 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. Per arguments on lack of non-trivial coverage. May be useful for the Buffy Wikia, but we don't have a template for that and I don't know any of the admins on that wiki to do an import. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buffyverse objects[edit]

This is apparently a list of magical objects that occur in the "Buffyverse" wihch apparently means all writing, TV and Movies connected to buffy the vampire slayer. None of these magical fictional items have received any independent coverage and this fan-site type list of non-things should be deleted. Bali ultimate (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reasonable fork-for-length of a widely covered subject with many forms (movie, TV series, books, comics). JJL (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no problem here. Zoo Fari 00:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give a valid reason to keep this article, there are plenty of problems here. Secret ^account 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no signs of notability, no reason to have its own article (no reason it shouldn't be in the Buffyverse article). TJ Spyke 00:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - No sources at all, fails to meet WP:N. This one should probably be either deleted, or merged to Buffyverse. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikia would be a great place for this article, but not a serious encyclopedia. There are no sources and no indication that a list like this is something an encyclopedia should be covering. I also don't think that a content fork justifies perpetrating this fork- if an article becomes so bloated that content needs to be spun out, please make sure it can stand on its own two feet first. Otherwise, removing or trimming content is the preferred option. Reyk _YO! 01:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable objects that don't even belong in the Buffyverse article. The context of these objects are explained in their parent articles. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely minute details of Buffycruft. No content to merge anywhere. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to be buffy wiki 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no context, no topic as near as I can tell. It's just "List of fictional stuff". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep Quistisffviii (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I rather doubt the list is finished at this point. The objects need to be sourced by explicit reference to the primary source,as appropriate for this sort of content. DGG (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Secret ^account 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why it shouldbe expanded. Because there are a multidude of other objects in the fiction. DGG (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that interpreting the primary source and slicing it into many different subjects and sub-subjects is original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is recording the obvious, not interpreting. DGG (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it obvious that these objects bear comment, and not others? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't he say the list needs to be expanded? So he feels that other objects do bear comment. What is "obvious" is that anyone viewing the published sources should be able to verify that these are significant objects within the Buffyverse. How is "interpreting ... primary source[s] and slicing [them] into many different subjects and sub-subjects" fundamentally different from "interpreting secondary sources and slicing them into many different subjects and sub-subjects"? DHowell (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what he didn't do is offer any sort of reasonable criteria for a list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "significant objects in the Buffyverse" not a reasonable criteria? DHowell (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Define significant. The usual definition for "significant" in this context is "stuff for which we can find reliable sources offering significant commentary" and that is currently a null set. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fictional works themselves are the reliable sources offering significant commentary. The third-party references show notability (maybe not notability enough for a separate article, but notability enough for a mention in a list). DHowell (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The works of fiction are already summarized in explicit detail elsewhere, and they aren't independent. The third-party references are not significant. Significant, independent, reliable. You need all three. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only for independent articles on each item, not for them to appear in a list—and only according to a guideline which is subject to reasonable exceptions. And we have all three, just not all from the same source. DHowell (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the number of significant, independent, reliable sources on the topic of random stuff in Buffy is zero, because it's not much of a topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "random stuff in Buffy", it's "significant objects in Buffy". And it's not zero. It may be less than what you require, but it's not zero. DHowell (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Significant according to whom? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FICTION, no reliable sources Secret ^account 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "a list of objects that have appeared in the Buffyverse" seems to fail WP:N and WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Objects which had an important role in the series deserve mention in the article about the series or the sub-articles about episodes or characters where they are important. The fact that script writers made up some term like the "Chordnash of Thagarug" does not mean that it belongs in a standalone article with all the other "Glagafarbs" and other made-up throw-away Macguffins used to move one episode along. Other than a gimmick to move the plot, they have no importance. Edison (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with a catch. The Orb of Thesulah and Gem of Amarra have received coverage in a number of books. It wouldn't be inappropriate to merge content from Orb of Thesulah into this list, much like List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, and keep this article in preference to a few other stubs. Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference is an offhand mention of a single nitpick of a single episode in an unlicensed episode guide. That isn't substantial coverage; you can barely make one sentence of coverage of the subject from reliable sources (and I'm not entirely convinced this guide is one), and even if we did want to cover it we can already cover it in the hideously detailed article on the single episode it appears in. This is not substantial coverage in multiple, reliable sources.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference to what? There's way more than that if you follow the Google Books search. Remember, that a mention in an independent, reliable derivative fictional work is itself evidence of notability. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed a second unlicensed episode guide that offered a single nitpick. This still isn't substantial coverage, and novels aren't reliable sources for commentary on pretty much anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to assume good faith here, but your statement is not congruent with reality. In [71] five of the seven listed books appear to be commentaries or other non-fiction. Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial. Substantial. Substantial. Not an offhand reference in an episode summary in a work that summarizes a whole season of episodes. Substantial. Substantial. Substantial. You don't have to assume good faith, you can assume I'm a horrible ogre out to get you, but it doesn't make "Also, Spike rips the necklace off when he realizes it isn't the gem of Amarra, but in the next shot it's back on" substantial coverage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about you take a couple of those extra substantials and move them back to refactor your previous comments so they're actually accurate? As in "The only substantial reference is an offhand mention of a single nitpick of a single episode in an unlicensed episode guide". Wait, that doesn't work either. So sorry, I'm still at a bit of a loss to explain what you meant. I find arguing against a list by arguing against the notability of individual list members is an interesting, and possibly unproductive, per the last criteria at WP:AOAL. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An offhand mention of a single nitpick etc. is not substantial. That's my point. There's no substantial coverage of these objects as a group or individually; all of the sources deal with them as minor aspects of the story not worth individual mention, and we should as well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about a list, not an article for each individual object. Substantial coverage is required for a full article, not for a mention in a list. DHowell (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're currently at zero references dealing with objects in this particular series as a whole. Anything that would go in this list is redundant with the articles on every single episode AND every single character. The potential for referenced info that belongs in this article instead of some other article is nil. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that because no single source lists all of these objects together, that neither can we? Does that rationale also apply to featured lists like List of English words containing Q not followed by U? DHowell (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff does indeed exist. In the meantime, this is culled from trivial references in a variety of sources which are not chiefly about this subject, or just plain old OR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other featured stuff exists, stuff considered the best that Wikipedia has to offer, showing that Wikipedia does not require a list of things to be sourced from a single source, but can be collected from multiple disparate sources. And here's a source which specifically talks about magical objects, and specifically references the Buffy series. DHowell (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the point of "other stuff exists"? It means that those very different articles may be kept for very different reasons, and bringing them up, especially in an offhand way, is an obnoxious distraction tactic. Maybe it shouldn't be featured any more (it doesn't have inline refs, grouse grouse grouse). I don't know.

That reference devotes a half-sentence to Buffy, in a way that doesn't include fully half of the items on this list. Significant, reliable, independent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.". The references for List of English words containing Q not followed by U also cover the subject in a way that doesn't include fully half of the items on the list. The comparison is exactly on point, not an "obnoxious distraction point." It's only obnoxious to you because of your strong desire to see this list deleted—your continual failure to see why this list should be retained is obnoxious to me. I'm sorry you find certain featured lists annoying, but it only shows how far from consensus your position actually is. DHowell (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we every have a deletion debate on an article even remotely similar, you can trot that one out. In the meantime, the only thing they have in common is that they're lists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're both lists that your specific arguments would deem deletion-worthy, but at least one is considered "the best of Wikipedia". And I don't believe critera which would delete our best content is useful. DHowell (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in an argument by exhaustion where you make me figure out what you're talking about. Explain why they're related and what my arguments have to do with it or stop wasting everyone's time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here's some more refs: Google News for Gem of Amarra, Google News for Orb of Thesulah. Wow, there's even Google Scholar for the Gem of Amarra. Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read those refs. TV.com's hits are all from a fan-written episode database. The BBC hit is from a brief story an action figure with a sales run of 750, on a BBC-hosted Buffy fansite. The Scholar hits only mention the Gem of Amarra briefly as part of summarizing an episode for context. Substantial, these are not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unreferenced, and further lacking any evidence of meeting the Notability guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons JJL mentioned. Some of those items have been seen in different media sources, from television, comic books, etc. Dream Focus 18:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:WAF. Unreferenced, pure plot summary. Probably a candidate to transwiki to the Buffy wiki if it isn't already there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT, and the guideline at WP:WAF. Eusebeus (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a place for this trivial cruft. Move to a Buffy Wiki (if it's not already there), it's not needed here. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because these objects are referenced in multiple published and popular works, and so are notable by any common sense definition of "notable". If there were "substantial" coverage in independent sources of each of these objects, they'd each get their own article. But since they are presumably just "mentioned" in reliable published sources, it is appropriate to "mention" them in a collected list. DHowell (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some objects with a similar amount of coverage in these sources: Angel's vest in one flashback scene, Xander's Jell-o, the light switch in a demon's apartment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument if it were true. After the fervency and looseness with which you've been arguing, I'm inclined to believe that it's not. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an illustration of how trivial in each the coverage in the cited links is. But you don't have to believe me. You can read the sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were any of these objects a significant element of the plot in the works in which they appeared? Did any of them do something significant like render people invincible, restore souls, or trap demons? DHowell (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Seven of the above delete !votes assert that the list is unreferenced, when in fact as of now each entry has at least one reference. This suggests that several of the delete !voters have not revisited the discussion since improvements have been made. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And each reference is a trivial mention in passing in an episode summary or a nitpick list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... which they could have said, but haven't. Your !vote is very clear, but that doesn't mean that you can magically make all the "unreferenced" !votes turn into "trivially referenced"; the fact remains that these !votes do not match reality and should be weighted accordingly by the closing admin. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said "no sources" above, even though I saw the bad sources in the article. Unreferenced can just as easily mean "no good references." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per the continued and exemplary improvement done by User:Jclemens since the article was first nominated. His understanding and use of WP:AFTER is to be commended. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Well, yes, the list was certainly incomplete because it lacked Buffy's scythe, which appeared in season 7, 8, and the Fray comic books. I inserted it and referenced it, and there are plenty of Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar references. The number of RS's covering this most major of Buffyverse objects places its notability beyond a doubt. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per nom and above. This list itself is not notable in the real-world. Outside mere trivial mentions of the objects, there is little that has been discussed in an encyclopedic manner relating to these objects, or the list of them itself, which is not acceptable per WP:WAF. Furthermore, the list is a violation of our policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY which states Wikipedia articles are not lists of loosly associated topics. The individual entries have recieved only trivial coverage, and the list itself is wholly nonnotable. This also violates WP:PLOT which states (at the time I'm writing this) The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance. I've looked and I can not find any substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance apropos of these objects or the general list of them. In short, this hasn't made a difference in the real world at all, and can only be covered from an WP:INUNIVERSE perspective which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Cleaning up an article with such fundamental flaws as these cannot help it as you can't create encyclopedic coverage when none exists to begin with. Them From Space 09:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the work on this article by Anobody and User:Jclemens. Ikip (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AfD has been listed on, Talk:List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes, Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture, Talk:Buffyverse canon, Talk:Angel (TV series), Talk:List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) Ikip (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reasonable spin-out article of huge and notable series in TV, comics and movies. Hobit (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update Added three more entries (Buffy bot, Mr. Pointy, and Dagon sphere) with at least one RS reference each. There's potential for expansion beyond this, of course, but the article has now been completelty transformed since it was nominated. Jclemens (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned, I fail to see how these updates have addressed concerns from people who claim that the scope and subject of this article aren't fit for an encyclopedia per WP:NOT. None of my issues above have been dealt with. Them From Space 19:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The vast majority of delete !votes have not referenced such arguments, but have only complained about lack of (reliable) sourcing. Fact is, however, that in adding RS's and list items, the list article has expanded from a six-item list that referenced half primary sources, to a ten-item list that references newspapers, university press books, and independent secondary source commentaries. I'm sorry if you don't find that satisfactory, but there's a large body of commentary on a franchise that's spanned 12 TV seasons, scores of comics, and dozens of novels, of which this is but a small representative sample. It would be nice if there were no deadline, but this article is in AfD. My effort has been to demonstrate that there's far more potential for encyclopedic, notable content than what this article's previous state would imply. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability isn't inherited from the parent topic. The notability that has to be shown is the notability of the list of Buffyverse objects and this has to be notable within the real world, not the "Buffyverse". Just because the coverage is verifiable doesn't make the subject notable, as the coverage must be significant, and the mentions must be non-trivial. If the coverage is verifiable in the real world but the subject isn't notable, a mention in other articles relating to the series which have notable subjects would be appropriate. Them From Space 20:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, added some real world info, by way of replicas for a few of the items. I'm not really sure what reasonable real world impact you expect notable fictional elements to have, but give me some ideas and I'll see what else I can find. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these references is a strictly trivial mention in an article that is chiefly about something else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Including the replica references? What, pray tell, are those about, if not the real world replica of the fictional item? I'm sorry, but I'm having an increasingly hard time taking your repeated protests seriously. I continue to add RS'es and expand the list to demonstrate that the concept of a list of these ficitonal objects is notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic, and you have yet to acknowledge the slightest possibility that there may be more beyond what's been found in the limited time I've been working on this. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, when I say "references" I mean articles in reliable sources, not links to sales sites or press releases. Sorry for not being clearer; I'm blurring some different debates together in my head since I've been making this argument a lot. I'm gonna consolidate my replies to all of this in a new comment, addressing the new article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fundamentally wrong-headed way to organize this information, and the low quality of the sources is symptomic of this. We're pulling scraps of trivial info from all over the place and creating a new topic from whole cloth. The sources are chiefly summaries of the episodes the items appear in, mentioning the objects in passing as part of the plot or as props in continuity nitpicks. The cited sites (I hesitate to call them references) are press releases or catalog sites (or, in one case, a fansite) mentioning licensed replicas of the objects, with no hope of insight or commentary. The former, if useful at all, belong in our hundreds-of-articles-long series on every single episode, issue, or novel of Buffy-related fiction anywhere. The latter belong in a unified article on merchandising, on which this is not a useful start.
Currently, this list has no references that set some sort of topic or standard. The only implicit standard is important (enough) to the fictional universe, with no reference to our own.
This is trivia from either low-quality or off-topic sources, with little standard for inclusion. It's everything wrong with "Things from fictional universe" articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'd argue this is exactly the right format (well it could use some improvement, but you know what I mean) for this type of information. I'd ideally like to call it "significant" object or some such and organize it more by type. It's a good spin out article on a huge series. Hobit (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Significant meaning what? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, AMIB, do you have ProQuest access? If not, can you explain why you've been making blanket statements about the references, when 5 of 26 (and the BEST 5 of 26, I might opine) aren't available to you? If so, can you comment specifically on a few of the ProQuest sources? Thanks. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Normally, it's on people who would justify keeping something to explain how the sources are applicable. Oh well. Using this article version:
  
  Ref #1 is a review of the first episode. Chiefly about the first episode and the series as a whole contrasted with the movie.
  
  Ref #3 is a capsule review column that summarizes the day's shows, used only to claim that such-and-such object is in such-and-such episode.
  
  Ref #4 (which was a pain to find because it was misnamed) is an episode review that doesn't even mention the plot point stated in our article.
  
  Ref #16 is a summary/review of an episode, mentioning only the connection with Fray.
  
  Ref #18 is a local daily reviewing the first collection of the season eight comic, again, only mentioning things in context. It does make the Fray connection, though.
  
  So. All of them mention the objects briefly as part of a plot summary. I am suggesting that we deal with the objects briefly as part of our hundreds-of-articles episode/book/issue summary series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  
  BTW, it didn't take ProQuest access; the only one I needed to register for through other means was #18, and that was free registration. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also get the fact that you don't like fictional articles like this at all, that this can never satisfy you, and that you've put almost as much work into complaining about this list here as I have into cleaning it up, expanding it, and sourcing it. I'm sorry about that, but the fact is that there's now nearly a dozen objects that have multiple RS references to meet any reasonable interpretation of WP:N and WP:V. Sorry that you're not satisfied. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd rather discuss this article than humor offtopic discussion of people. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  So you don't find it relevant at all that you've been editing WP:FICT to reflect your deletionist views? I'll give you full marks for intellectual consistency, but less so for transparency. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Yup, I'm part of a mean scary cabal and I'm conspiring behind the scenes etc. You've got a lot of work ahead of you to find reliable sources independent of the subject with substantial commentary, don't waste time on ad hominem nonsense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Actually, let's talk about how I commented on WP:FICT, since it's relevant. I opposed the old FICT not because it was too inclusionist or too deletionist, but because it was both. When you're breaking down a fictional topic, you need to break it into logical subtopics that flow naturally into each other. The problem is that the old version didn't do a good job of identifying these natural subtopics from, say, random shit thrown into a pile and called a list.
  
  This list is random shit. It's mostly plot devices, with a few MacGuffins, background details, and in-jokes or callbacks to different episodes spiced in. The reason it's such a heterogenous potpourri (sue me, I was doing my crosswords) is because it has no unifying topic. It doesn't descend naturally from anything else, and the only object rising even close to the "understanding a work" level is the scythe, because it's such a twisting path through Fray to the last season to the comic.
  
  Now, I don't know how to cover the scythe. If I had the answer to that dilemma, you'd see me starting a new WP:FICT with my sudden revelation. But one line in this random pile of trivia isn't it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — An indiscriminate list of trivia; besides, her tits didn't make teh list ;) G'day, Jack Merridew 06:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give the inclusionists a reason to cite WP:HOTTIE as a rationale to keep this. Reyk _YO! 08:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mebbe we need an article on the Promenence of tits in popular culture ;) G'day, Jack Merridew 09:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT Buffyverse wiki. A lot of the objects seem to have only trivial mention by outside sources. Many others only play a minor role in one or two episodes. What is the notability of the topic as a whole? That is, can anyone point to a reason why 'list of objects that play some role in a Buffy episode' is more significant than, say, 'list of objects used as evidence in Law and Order' or 'List of technological MacGuffin from Star Trek'? --Clay Collier (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find even a "trivial" level of coverage for evidence objects in Law & Order in third-party reliable sources? And we have various lists of Star Trek objects, but you'd probably argue that those should be deleted as well. I'm actually surprised we don't have a list of major Star Trek objects like the replicator, the transporter, the holodeck, etc—I think we ought to. DHowell (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be unsurprising to me if TV-preview type articles of the type used in a couple cases here didn't say 'This week on law and order, the discovery of a pipe wrench leads to blah blah'. There are Star Trek objects that have received significant enough third-party coverage to be notable, but the techno-MacGuffins that appear in a single episode or so and then are never heard from again- which is what the majority of the Buffyverse objects are- don't warrant inclusion even in list form. Furthermore, there is still the problem of the notability of the very idea of the list; is there a source that says 'In the Buffyverse, objects are used in a significant way that makes them more than just single-shot plot devices'? --Clay Collier (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - How many of these differing items only appear in one unit (novel, episode, comic) of the fictional work? At least three (Scythe, Gem of Amara, orb of Thesulah) span franchises within the Buffyverse, appearing in Buffy and Fray, Angel, and Angel, respectively. Buffybot spanned two seasons of the show, Olaf's hammer appeared twice in Season 5, the Dagon sphere appeared in at least two episodes of S5, the Urn of Osiris was in at least 2 S6 episodes and referenced in others, and Mr. Pointy existed from S2-7, Resikian urns were used multiple times in Angel. Anyanka's amulet only appeared one actual episode, but the effects of its destruction were referenced throughout later seasons. Now, I absolutely grant that there were plenty of "foo of blah" magical components that didn't have any effect beyond a single episode, but these aren't those. These are the ones that made such an impact on the culture that they, for example, appeared in a Forbes article on scythes, and of which commercially sold replicas were produced. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Appearing in two or three episodes as a MacGuffin is no more significant to the series than appearing in one, thus 'one episode or so' above. The coverage of many of these objects in the references is also quite trivial- an off-hand mention of the Dagon sphere quoted in an article primarily talking about something else, something mentioned once in a season recap or preview, etc. There just hasn't been enough written about the objects themselves, in my opinion, to consider their coverage in independent sources anything other than trivial. There might be a rationale for an article covering the reproduction items made and sold if there has been discussion of the replicas in independent sources, but that would be a different article. There are lots of fictional objects that rise to this standard from fictional franchises, but I don't think that anything from Buffy has reached that particular plateau. No one is writing 'Technology of the Buffyverse' books because Buffy, as a series, had much more of a character focus and tended to use objects like this just as frequently-discarded plot devices. --Clay Collier (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't answer the so what? question. --EEMIV (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, that would be because it never tried to be notable under the GNG, but 1) as a fictional element, under WP:FICT and 2) as a set of content legitimately spun out from a larger fictional topic. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List criteria have now been added, and three entries removed from the list. That leaves 10 items, 3 original which have been expanded or cited, and 7 new ones. Three of the original 6 have been removed, which gives us somewhere between a 50% and 233% turnover during the AfD process, depending on how you count. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Arbitrary criteria don't really improve this list much. How does appearing in two consecutive episodes matter more than one? How do more references that devote a half-sentence to the object help the article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you will recall You asked for them. Are you now admitting that your request for list criteria was done in bad faith? Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I asked for reasonable criteria, not arbitrary standards. The idea is that a good list has criteria that flow naturally from a topic. "Plot devices in Buffy" would be a topic. "Magical items capable of [X] in Buffy" would be a topic. "Stuff in two or more episodes" is not a topic, it's a coincidental quality. Good lists start with a topic you can say something about, then say something about it, and use the listed items to illustrate this topic. Look at the lead; there's little said because there's nothing to say. There's nothing to say because there's no topic that reliable sources have covered. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking over the rewrite, I stand behind my original vote %100. None of the fundamental problems with the topic have been addressed. The article has merely been prettied up to make it look nice, although it is still fundamentally a few things which Wikipedia is not, nor has notability of the list been established. This still fails WP:WAF as well. Them From Space 05:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of WP:WAF do you think this list violates? I think it is exceptional on point with respect to WP:WAF#Summary_style_approach. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The real-world / in-universe dichotomy isn't properly addressed, nor do I think it can be addressed. This just hasn't made a difference in the real-world. Verifiability isnt notability. Saying a list of items is notable within the Buffyverse isn't the same as saying the list is notable within the real-world. The latter is what's required by WP:WAF which states the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline. Them From Space 05:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with caveat. The entire list should be present in the Buffy wikia, but it does not have enough of a bearing on the real world to be in this encyclopedia. Someone should make sure that this list is represented fully in the Buffy wikia so that the work on it is not lost and it is readily available for the show's fans (myself included) to read and reference. Once a confirmation that the list is reproduced or represented in it's entirety in the appropriate wkia, it should be deleted from here. Medleystudios72 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, split from overly long article. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 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 21:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Ferdinand Bockman[edit]

Genealogy-style entry about a small-city police officer killed in the line of duty in 1924. Sources appear reliable, but the only two with significant coverage are (1) a site that appears to try to list every single US police officer killed in the line of duty, and (2) a local newspaper article published just after the event. Yes, he's listed on various memorials, but merely including his name at a major memorial isn't enough: the state memorial includes 113 other names, according to one of the external links, while the national memorial's website states that includes over 17,500 names. Notice that the creator was User:John Bockman; perhaps a descendent? Moreover, because the man is only known for one event, I don't think that this is radically different from the various victims of the Virginia Tech massacre: while BLP doesn't apply to any of them, their significance for only a single event equals nonnotability. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - If the subject is only notable for one event, then an encyclopedia article is probably not warranted. On the other hand he was Chief of Police and is the only officer killed in the line of duty in the town, which seems to confer some degree of notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shall we create articles on every chief of police killed in a small community? It's a city of little more than 2,500 people; and there's no reliable sourcing concentrated on him, save the original article. Nyttend (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a question I do not know the answer to, that's why I left my recommendation at "neutral". I know that's kind of a cop-out, but I could be convinced either way on this one. If I were forced to make a decision, I'd have to say "weak delete" at this time. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A true test of notability does not expire; would this policeman be entitled to his own article if he had been shot and killed in 2004 rather than 1924? I don't believe so. I don't know of any policy of inherent notability for officers killed in the line of duty, although they are (rightfully) remembered in memorials to fallen officers. Mandsford (talk) 18:23, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a memorial; if the event itself was notable it could have a page (I don't think it is), but this page would still be a BLP1E case. JJL (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – the article, as constructed as-is, seems to be nothing more than a memorial, which is not what we're here for. It could be rewritten as an event, provided other sources come in and support the events leading to the murder. MuZemike 01:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epson ink cartridge controversy[edit]

The article does not assume a neutral point of view, and is largely composed of original research. The purpose of the article appears to be to campaign against the Seiko Epson Corporation. Notability not established. Ringbang (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, axe-grinding over something with minimal coverage. (WP:SYN) WillOakland (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a soap box article; no notable 'controversy' appears to exist. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this topic does merit an article, it appears to primarily attack Epson in spite of the fact that it's an issue that also pertains to other companies (Lexmark, HP, others) that have been well-known participate in the same type of behavior. Lexmark has been involved in a number of legal cases regarding similar issues, such as ACRA v. Lexmark as well as another case where a third-party ink cartridge manufacturer was sued for copying "copyrighted" code onto microchips needed to make refilled ink cartridges work. I would suggest that either the article would be drastically rewritten and criticize *all* printer companies, or (more likely) simply add a brief section to the Seiko Epson article regarding this issue...in a similar fashion to what is done at the Lexmark article. Scootey (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an obvious attack on the Epson brand. It isn't needed. If you want, you could just add this as a section in the article relating to the company itself, even though I don't think that is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonrox24 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that printers are an example of so-called "Freebie marketing" has generated news coverage and may be notable, but that this particular company does it isn't notable. JJL (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a hatchet job of a coatrack. It has no encyclopedic purpose and very little real content. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge the verifiable material to Seiko Epson. The rest of it is obvious synthesis. MuZemike 01:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a neutral POV, soapboxy, and not all the information is verifiable. Tavix | Talk 02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This ridiculous complain (or criticism) against Epson was originally in Seiko Epson. I deleted the nonsense from Seiko Epson and created this article to avoid an edit war. I think it's time to delete.--Krtek2125 (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the above comment says it all: if the original author says it should be deleted, then it should be. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The section involving the retracted boycott by the Dutch Consumer Association and the American class-action lawsuit seemed sourced and NPOV, unlike the rest of the article. If the controversy is notable, I hope that those things will be mentioned in Seiko Epson. BecauseWhy? (talk) 10:14, 7 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 03:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jahmile Addae[edit]

Undrafted not notable college level athlete. Does not meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Amateur_sports_people or WP:ATHLETE — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the prod because the infobox indicated he was signed by 2 NFL teams. However, the article claims that while he was on the active roster, he never played in a game. Therefore, like Johnny Dingle, notability is borderline. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is "signed" a contract and being singed. Theres a big difference. Looks like they gave him a shot, and didn't perform the way they wanted and he got booted. I'm no expert but I assume A LOT of them end up with that fate, making him no more notable then the hundreds of others. To qualify under WP:ATHLETE you need to have played for them, i.e. in a regular season game. Not just attending a training camp and then getting sent home. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, being signed isn't enough for notability (or being singed, for that matter :-) and there aren't the sources to make him notable for other reasons. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the independent reliable sources shown doesn't provide adequate coverage to establish notability. You got the one article what does an OK job, but the high school article has only a trivial mention at most. MuZemike 01:59, 7 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 03:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Colombini[edit]

Non-notable magician with no substantial coverage in reliable sources. While his name appears in some Google News results, they're mostly trivial in that they are simply mentions of appearances; they don't provide in-depth coverage of the person to demonstrate notability as per WP:BIO. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 21:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read you loud and clear. Trust me, as a significant contributor to Wikipedia, I believe in establishing notability.....please give me a chance....I've got some reliable sources....I need a little time, please. Buddpaul (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – All the given sources are either trivial mentions or are what seem to be primary sources. It doesn't look like notability is sufficiently established. MuZemike 02:06, 7 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 Survivor: Africa. MBisanz ^talk 21:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lex van den Berghe[edit]

Lex van den Berghe's claim to fame is third and ninth place finishes on two seasons of Survivor. It is questionable whether this qualifies as sufficiently notable. Plastikspork (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think perhaps a merge ito the survivor articles might be more appropriate than a delete Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Already done. The Survivor material in the bio (basically just glorified recaps) is basically a duplication of information the respective Survivor season articles. I could see merging with one of his bands, if one of his bands had a substantial article, but alas, they appear to be not so notable either. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a merge has been performed, then we should redirect so the history is retained for proper attribution. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm aware that WP:REALITY is not a universally accepted criterion, but he meets it due to having been in two reality shows (the specific example in WP:REALITY is for two seasons of the same programme). Possibly not enough on its own for notability, but his association with a reasonably notable band tips the balance for me (his latest effort appears to have some other notable bandmates). Actually, the reason I looked into this was that he was sufficiently notable that I recognized his name and called his face to mind, some years after the programmes aired; again, not evidentiary, but contributory. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 3 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 00:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to whatever Survivor article the content was merged to, trusting that the content is already on another page. MuZemike 02:08, 7 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 21:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Dingle[edit]

Undrafted not notable college level athlete. Does not meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Amateur_sports_people or WP:ATHLETE — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won major awards in college, was good enough to declare for the draft after junior year Ringerfan23 (talk) 04:26, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – regardless of whatever awards were won, there's nothing else coming from any independent reliable sources that can establish sufficient notability of this athlete (note that I am not looking at WP:ATHLETE but the general guideline as a whole; I don't normally deal with athlete AFDs). MuZemike 02:13, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Parker's Flashback (1981 film)[edit]

No claim of or supporting notability, fails notability guidelines for porn. Prod removed by IP SPA editor without explanation Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The eponymous star of the title meets WP:PORNBIO for his unique contribution and, of his limited filmography, there are ten other articles describing specific films. I'm not claiming this is a classic of world cinema but pre-AIDS direct-to-video gay porn films are few in number and of some social-science interest. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:31, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or as an alternate redirect to Al Parker. Just because Parker is notable doesn't mean every film he has starred in is. There doesn't seem to be sufficient notability for this film in either case. MuZemike 02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In general, classic bareback is a limited and collected genre. Specifically, Flashback is a great example of this genre and people who collect classic bareback will probably wiki the movie.De Bergerac (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think either of the keep !votes is grounded in policy; while the film might be of "social-science interest," that wouldn't make it notable absent an appropriate published social-science source; if just being collectible were enough to confer notability; we'd have thousands of articles on individual coins, stamps, comic book issues, and probably even Beanie Babies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:02, 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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrktorrent[edit]

Hrktorrent is not notable. I can't find any coverage in secondary sources, and the only results on Google are repositories. The mention in libtorrent (Rasterbar) is sufficient, I think. Theymos (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Theymos (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deletion Mutation 15:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I cannot find any reliable sources Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – that can establish any notability of this software. MuZemike 02:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability neither asserted nor demonstrated through sources, and as MuZemike demonstrates it appears unsourceable. A distinct lack of any support for the article over two relists also speaks for itself. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:03, 7 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) 22:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute (record compilation)[edit]

Non-notable long-running series of compilation albums. I can find no sources to back up anything in this article; this search is particularly telling. Oo7565 (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very notable. Many of the Absolute compilation albums have since the 80s and until today topped the Swedish album charts. Also "absolute music" gives 522,000 Google hits. bbx (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The comparision might be made to the article Now That's What I Call Music!, but in that situation virtually every NOW album has charted. Individual ABSOLUTE albums needs to be proven to be notable prior to the brand being notable. Untick (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to the Swedish Wikipedia article loads of these albums have charted. This should be easily sourceable by anyone who can read Swedish and has an interest in popular music. This says that the subject is "Scandinavia's largest CD compilation company and producer of approximately every tenth music CD sold in Sweden". As a press release it doesn't count as an independent reliable source, but I think it would be very unlikely that anyone would make such a claim in a press release without it being reasonably close to the truth. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 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 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'll assume good faith in that, if the Swedish Wikipedia notes that the compilation has charted, then it meets a minimum standard of notability. The sources just need English interpretation; that can't be hard. MuZemike 02:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see Swedishcharts.com and Guld och Platina-certifikat År 1987–1998 (IFPI Svenska Gruppen) Canniba loki 16:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also, (if it makes any difference) I'm from Sweden and I know it is notable. —TheLeft orium 16:30, 7 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 03:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullahi Ali Hiirad[edit]

Non-notable person. I can find no sources to back up anything in this article; this search is particularly telling. Oo7565 (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator: which search is telling? Did you mean to link to a particular result, or did you mean that a general search doesn't turn uop anything useful? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question still stands, but suggesting to delete. Google search turns up either mirrors of the article, or web pages in Somali. The external link that was in the article was to a page consisting only of the word "welcome" and a recursive link to itself, so I removed the link. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment i ment general search doesn't turn up anything useful? - i should have been more clear sorryOo7565 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although the article asserts claims for notability, it has been over three years since the article was created and still no references to verify/support the claims of notability have been added. Unionsoap (talk) 14:35, 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 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Looks like it's clear that notability cannot be established per the searching done by the others and the very quick one done by myself. MuZemike 02:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I also searched the Internet and found nothing to verify this article. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 01:11, 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 delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual Abuse in the Twenty-First Century[edit]

No indication that the book passes notability criteria for books. No reviews, it has won no awards, led to the creation of no motion pictures, plays, art or movements, is not the subject of a course at any level, and the book's authors are not sufficiently notable that all works deserve a page. In addition, the books are by a publisher that is vanity press.[72][73][74]. The creator of the article is a [confirmed sockpuppet of the banned User:ResearchEditor, now permablocked for sockpuppeting to evade a community ban.WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. WP:NOT Amazon. Rd232 ^talk 12:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unimportant. almost no research libraries bought it, though they tended to but heavily it this subject. That it was a vanity press publication undoiubtedly deterred them. DGG (talk) 16:09, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no significant coverage of this book, combined with the lack of publication by anyone reliable—being published merely by a vanity press—makes this particularly damning. MuZemike 02:29, 7 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 Linkin Park. MBisanz ^talk 21:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Bourdon[edit]

Member of a notable band who has no individual notability outside of that band. Fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article is clearly lacking references (bad for a BLP) and half of it is trivial info on his drum kit, but it's quite possible he can meet the WP:GNG later on. Redirecting to the main band because his name is a viable search term is the best solution and allows someone to add references if they're so inclined. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable on his own. JamesBurns (talk) 06:12, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 7 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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse[edit]

Fails to pass notability for books; two reviews in scholarly (not popular) press do not pass criteria 1, which requires reviews to address a general audience. It has won no awards, inspired no motion pictures or movements, it's not the subject of a course, and the author is not notable. The creator of the article is a confirmed sockpuppet of the banned User:ResearchEditor, now permablocked for sockpuppeting to evade a community ban. The book has existed for 15 years and made no real impact. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:58, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly a rather trivial book regardless of its merits. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – there seem to be a couple of serious reviews about this book, so I am inclined to say that there is some notability established here, but not much at all (hence the weak). MuZemike 02:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews in scholarly press might not pass the first guideline of WP:BK, but they do pass WP:N which is not superseded by WP:BK. JulesH (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:45, 7 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 deleted per G7 (non-admin close). JJL (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NLATS[edit]

Made-up. Two web hits, one being attributed to Richard H. Stafursky. - only contributor is User:Rstafursky, methinks this may be something that the author is attempting to give credibility via a Wikipedia article. pablo_hablo. 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. SpinningSpark 21:08, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete currently blanked but looking back is seems like something made up one day; no evidence of notability (or even existence). JJL (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Fails WP:MADEUP. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G7) – the author blanked the page, which usually means a request for deletion from the author. Will tag as such. MuZemike 02:34, 7 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 21:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NTU ACES[edit]

Unremarkable cheerleading team. Might fail WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 20:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub - A good deal of irrelevancy in the article (who cares that they have 7 roll mats?), though the national competition wins may qualify for independent notability. [75]. If not, maybe mention the verifiable bits in the main article on the university. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tempodivalse =) I have attached two articles one from media and one from campus circulation which narrate the truth about NTU ACES, for the notability part that u have highlighted, but I can't understand the citation in wiki...as in i can't do the codes nicely...anyone please guide me on it to cite it better? Thanks--Wildfirex (talk) 07:04, 3 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 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, probably move to another title link Nanyang Technological University cheerleading or something like that. Looks like a sufficiently notable article in regards to the championships won. MuZemike 02:40, 7 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 21:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leopoldo Gout[edit]

Non-notable author. Prod was removed by a new IP who said that since we have articles on South Park episodes, we should have an article about him. Out of all the sources mentioned in the article, the only source independent of the author that gives more than a mention is this Variety article. CyberGhostface (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - peripheral film figure (some sort of associate of James Patterson), non-notable author; only argument of the IP who yanked the prod was that he is an "upcoming" writer (I assume that's meant to be "up and coming", not "upcoming"). The IP is not totally "new", Cyber: it was previously templated for a very brief streak of vandalism; but let's certainly AGF and figure it's a dynamic IP reassigned. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain I am the author of this article and I don't understand why Gout is considered non-notable, nor why out of the resources listed only one is considered an independent source. Does IMDb not count as a viable resource? Also, the author page for "Ghost Radio" is hosted by HarperCollins, the publisher -- another outside source. I can certainly provide more article / interview sources if need be, but I would be grateful for some clarification and/or guidance. MissusMorris (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)MissusMorris[reply]
- IMDB, like Wikipedia, isn't considered a reliable source by itself. If anything, it's less reliable than Wikipedia. And Harper Collins wouldn't be considered an "outside source" as it's affiliated with the subject.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. I have now updated the entry to list hopefully more acceptable sources. If there is anything else I can do or should be doing, please let me know. MissusMorris (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)MissusMorris — MissusMorris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Please provide us with sources that indicate the subject's notability. Links to reviews of his book, of a movie he was associated with, etc. are not the substantial coverage of the subject required to establish notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I don't agree with the reason to deprod (still necessary, however, to deprod), but it looks like sufficient coverage via reliable secondary sources are there to provide plenty of notability. MuZemike 02:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:46, 7 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 03:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take It & Break It[edit]

Non-notable series of remix albums. Fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The reviews provided in the external links section should demonstrate notability. If the article is not considered sufficiently developped, it should be merged/redirected to the corresponding section on the Celldweller article here. Neelix (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews of 2 volumes on CDBaby (a store), 1 review of 1 volume in ReGen, an online music magazine, and 1 review of 1 volume in the ReGen blog (not in their regular reviews section). And, really, the CDBaby reviews should be removed from the article. Certainly any sourced content that is noteworthy in the career of Celldweller should be merged to the parent article. As the article in question amounts to little more than a track list, that shouldn't prove difficult. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:19, 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, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – there's some coverage in the magazine link provided, but that's it; the CDBaby links do not strike me as reliable. I don't think notability has been sufficiently established. MuZemike 02:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now, see what reviews and where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkey45 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how "see what reviews and where" fits WP:MUSIC, your meaning is unclear. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable release. Canniba loki 16:46, 7 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 21:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instyler[edit]

Declining db-spam, taking to AfD. When there's a long list of "reports" in reliable sources, but the marketing campaign for the product screams "promotional", I'd rather not have one person (including me) making the call, I'd rather see all the arguments first. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – no, not spam. Notability is already taken care of. MuZemike 23:14, 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) 00:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still dubious to me. It's an actual product and probably sells well, but it's no ShamWow. Most of the references are of either dubious quality, non-notable time-filler product reviews from TV stations, or the 'it's been put in this giftbasket' mentions that don't say anything except the product has been put in a giftbasket to give vendors press they wouldn't usually get. Nate • (chatter) 00:03, 7 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) 13:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Louise Amias[edit]

I don't believe there are any independent WP:reliable sources which discuss this person in the detail required by WP:N Nerfari (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 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, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor roles only [76], no evidence of greater notability. JJL (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no significant coverage found. The sources provided are trivial in mention. MuZemike 02:55, 7 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.

^ http://www.rx931.com/Contact%20Us.html.

[1] ttp://www.rx931.com/Contact%20Us.html.

[1]