Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 August 6 August >

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. JForget 21:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere (film)[edit]

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

The notability of this film/filmmakers is highly questionable. Does not meet WP:NF guidelines. Xxcvii (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT delete This film is perfectly verifiable and is part of the films available to download on the new Mi Shorts site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diceman cometh (talk • contribs) 12:41, August 6, 2009
  • Delete - Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. There is no coverage about this short film. No indication of significant awards or anything else that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @736  ·  16:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Business Conferences[edit]

London Business Conferences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If this were a newer article I'd {{prod}} it, but it's been edited by numerous other editors over the last two years, none of whom have done so, so maybe I'm missing some notability. Looks as obvious a piece of corporate spam for a non-notable company as I ever saw.  – iridescent 20:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a major company. By working my way through their web site, I find they run only a dozen conferences a year. DGG (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis Enforcer[edit]

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

Minor character, minor toy. No claim to, let alone evidence of, notability, nor citations to reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just started editing the page. Many of the charters are minor, but he had a major role in the original Movie and in the Comic he appeared. Many of the G.I. Joe pages being added have less information than this. I do not Support a delete. Sgetz (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sgetz. --Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to some appropriate list of charcters in the franchise If there are similar pages with less information, merge them also. This should be the default solution for characters . DGG (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a decent article for the character in question. It has more information than many of the basic characters, and is a good starting point for others to build on. It has several references that show the character has some notability. 72.237.4.150 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I said before, as I was the person that reinstate the article, I think there is enough material on it to keep it. Also, we have a Keep from Ridge Runner above. Sgetz (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is enough on this article for it to stay. 24.58.239.42 (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 School band. (X! · talk)  · @273  ·  05:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Band geek[edit]

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

it does not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines for naming articles, and its content may already be stated in the school band article. Burningview (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This was reformatted to conform to AfD step 2. Tim Song (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to school band. Little more than dicdef, but fairly well-written and I think it deserves a mention. --Merovingian (T, C) 22:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into School_band#'Band_geek'. This is not notable enough for its own article. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep yeah, it's short and maybe a definition, but it's got enough cultural impact to warrant a mention.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - this is not a standalone article. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to School_band#'Band_geek'. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A search in the Academic Search Premiere database brings up 38 articles with the term. Many are passing mentions, e.g. "'I was kind of a band geek in high school,'says Johnny Rockstar," but included among them are articles like "Adolescents' Expressed Meanings of Music in and out of School" in Journal of Research in Music Education Fall2007, and "Parents' Messages about the Role of Extracurricular and Unstructured Leisure Activities: Adolescents' Perceptions" in Journal of Leisure Research 3rd Qtr 2006 that I think demonstrate that there is potential for the article to grow into something substantial. That said, in its current form it's isn't much more than a dictionary definition with a lot of references (but no citations) Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vampire: The Eternal Struggle#Sets and expansions. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Shadowed Court[edit]

Blood Shadowed Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This product is a repackaging of earlier product, and is not notable. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't take any stand whether this article should be kept or not, but if it is changed into a redirect then it should point to Camarilla Edition, as this set reprints only crypt cards from that expansion. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 07:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I'm really not sure to where, but I think ThaddeusB's target makes a bit more sense. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would redirect to the entire game, while within the Camarilla Edition article a sub-section for the Blood Shadowed Court could be easily added, without any strayings within the articles. With the BSC article redirecting there no actual information would be lost anywhere within the bitspace, while still cleaning the Wikipedia a bit. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 07:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you are shooting for now. Agreed. Hobit (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Student robotics society, Southampton University[edit]

Student robotics society, Southampton University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable student club, doesn't win any robot competitions. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Student Robotics doesn't enter robotics competitions - it is an organisation whose purpose is to encourage young engineers by organising competitions for the students who participate to enter. It is thus comparable to the RAEng's Engineering Education Scheme, though it differs significantly. Peter Law (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We do not collect every single student society there is on the planet. Nothing to suggest that this one is notable. Tim Song (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not remotely notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Performance[edit]

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

Nothing that indicates notability. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Contemporary is such a choice word that could indicate many forms of theatre and I agree it doesn't seem notable in this case. Seems abit like Physical theatreMark E (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slide (software)[edit]

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

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete nothing to show notability. Really nothing there at all. TheWeakWilled 00:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Fitzgerald[edit]

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

WP:NN. Redundant fancruft for a fictional character that only appears in 1 novel. Topic already covered in My Sister's Keeper and My Sister's Keeper (film). -- RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 04:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Transwikified to Wikitionary JForget 22:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]JForget 22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-edge[edit]

Pseudo-edge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(1) The article does not provide sufficient context for the meaning or use of the term to be clear. (How and why is one colouring vertices? Why might one wish 2 non-adjacent vertices to be of different colours? etc...) (2) The article does not cite any sources, and there is no indication of notability. (3) Web searches do not indicate to me that this usage is common. I have searched through dozens of pages using the expression "pseudo-edge" and failed to find this one. My suspicion is that, if it exists at all, it is a nonce usage limited to a proof of one theorem, or something similar. It certainly does not seem to be notable enough for an article. (4) The article gives so little information as to be useless. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 344 hits in Google Scholar [3]. --132 19:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an excellent example of why uncritical use of "number of Google hits" as a measure of notability is an error. Yes, there are many hits for "pseudo-edge", but is there even one hit for the usage of "pseudo-edge" referred to in the article? If there is then please direct me to it: I can't find it. I said above that I had searched through dozens of pages and failed to find this usage. I can now add that hits from Google books and Google Scholar are included in those dozens of hits. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've done some searching as well and found nothing which looks relevant. If you add "different colo[u]r" or "graph-theory" AND "colo[u]r" to those Google searches above it cuts out most or all of the results; the few remaining ones which are actually in graph-theory publications aren't using the term in this fashion. James's theory about terminology in a single proof seems likely. I contacted an IP editor who said they'd add more material in case they know of something we're missing, though they've made only two edits so may be using a dynamic IP. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possible WP:CSD#A1 speedy deletion as the article lacks enough context for me to tell what a pseudo-edge really is or what it's good for despite my experience with graph coloring. My guess is that most of the hits found by Curtis involve situations in which authors have defined pseudo-edges in different ways incompatible from each other and with whatever meaning is intended here. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was, in fact, proposed for a speedy under CSD A1, and the speedy was rejected on the grounds "the context is clear: this is a graph theory concept". I agree with David Eppstein: "graph theory" is not enough context. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "graph theory, a field within mathematics", with a link to graph theory, gives enough "context". But the article is unsatisfactory in a crucial other respect: it never gets around to saying what a "pseudo-edge" is. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Google Scholar and Google Books clearly indicate that the term pseudo-edge is indeed used in graph theory. But the article does not say what a pseudo-edge is, let alone indicate why the concept matters. The items I found via Google Scholar that would tell us that were not actually viewable; only the abstracts could be read and didn't mention pseudo-edges (I haven't searched extensively; I've only looked at three or four). Similarly in Google Books I found just little snippets that could be viewed. So the solution would appear to be delete without prejudice; allow re-creation if the re-created article can be written in a satisfactory way. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a dictionary definition (implicit); the explicit form would be in graph-coloring theory, a pseudo-edge is a requirement that two non-adjacent vertices have different colors. Delete if no source for this meaning can be found; else transwiki to Wiktionary. In either case, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is relatively easy to produce a plane graph with non-adjacent vertices A and B which cannot be 4-colored with A and B the same color. They may be said to have a "pseudo-edge" between them; it is not so clear that there are cases in which the graph plus a real edge AB would still be planar.
    • Draw a triangle DEF around A and connect all three vertices to A; place a point C exterior to DEF and connect it to DEF and B. Then A and C must be the same color, so A and B can't be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
It is not clear to me why this has been relisted: 5 editors have said "delete", and nobody has said "keep"; to me this looks very much like consensus. However, since it has been relisted, here is a summary of what we have established:
Nobody has produced any evidence for any use of this meaning of the expression anywhere; if it does exist it certainly is not general enough to make it notable enough for an article. Also as Septentrionalis has pointed out, the "article" is more like a dictionary definition, so that if it belongs anywhere it is on Wictionary, not here.
All that seems very clear and unambiguous to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice per JamesBWatson. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary as this information should be preserved but is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Byronwrites (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete here (or redirect to a graph theory page). No matter the term is used or not, nobody seem to ever expand this tiny article. Materialscientist (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the given definition seems to be at worst a one-off useage and at best unreferenced and non-universal, I don't see that transwikiing would be appropriate. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pretty Little Liars. ~ mazca talk 21:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flawless (novel)[edit]

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

This derivative stub is a redundant spin-off of Pretty Little Liars, a relatively short article which already covers the series. Its author has created six stubs for related novels which include only plot information, and has yet to expand this article significantly with real-world coverage to assert notability (and seems unlikely to). She has reverted my attempts to boldly redirect, so I'm seeking a consensus on merging/redirecting or deletion. — TAnthonyTalk 18:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is getting repetitive: Merge indeed, since delete is not an option for me (the title is a viable search term). I don't see any potential for this acquiring content. Two hits on Google News, but nothing substantial. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @890  ·  20:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge fairly obvious merge. Not all the content, but perhaps abbreviated to one half,supplemented with information about the production and the reception of the book. The summaries in the main article are disgracefully insufficient, but there;s a middle ground. This is one time a group nomination could have helped. DGG (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pretty Little Liars. ~ mazca talk 21:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect (novel)[edit]

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

This derivative stub is a redundant spin-off of Pretty Little Liars, a relatively short article which already covers the series. Its author has created six stubs for related novels which include only plot information, and has yet to expand this article significantly with real-world coverage to assert notability (and seems unlikely to). She has reverted my attempts to boldly redirect, so I'm seeking a consensus on merging/redirecting or deletion. — TAnthonyTalk 18:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge fairly obvious merge. Not all the content, but perhaps abbreviated to one half,supplemented with information about the production and the reception of the book. The summaries in the main article are disgracefully insufficient, but there;s a middle ground. This is one time a group nomination could have helped. DGG (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pretty Little Liars. ~ mazca talk 21:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable (novel)[edit]

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

This derivative stub is a redundant spin-off of Pretty Little Liars, a relatively short article which already covers the series. Its author has created six stubs for related novels which include only plot information, and has yet to expand this article significantly with real-world coverage to assert notability (and seems unlikely to). She has reverted my attempts to boldly redirect, so I'm seeking a consensus on merging/redirecting or deletion. — TAnthonyTalk 18:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge indeed, since delete is not an option for me (the title is a viable search term). I don't see any potential for this acquiring content. This is the best I could find, and it's not really anything--it certainly does not address the novel in depth.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @890  ·  20:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge fairly obvious merge. Not all the content, but perhaps abbreviated to one half,supplemented with information about the production and the reception of the book. The summaries in the main article are disgracefully insufficient, but there;s a middle ground. This is one time a group nomination could have helped. DGG (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @736  ·  16:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congruent Partitioning[edit]

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

It looks to me as if a decades-old tech report has been transferred to Wikipedia. Apart from the "document in the files at WPAFB" mentioned towards the end, there are no references regarding the method, in particular no secondary sources. Another point is that the author's name is "JRobertLogan", and the principal investigator was J. Robert Logan. This has been removed from the article, but may be found in the history. Favonian (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fundamental technology described in this article is relevant, and has been taught in the Electrical Engineering Department at Brigham Young University. The fact that this "tech report" is old does not invalidate the concepts in any way. In fact, the elegance and performance claims made in the article are proven, and verifiable by simple inspection and testing. This article was only submitted today, and already it's nominated for deletion? It seems unlikely that the nominee took any time to evaluate the technology and compare it to the "old tech" Karnaugh Map and Quine–McCluskey algorithms which actually predate the Congruent Partitioning work. It would seem reasonable to allow some time for the author and others to add references and make other improvements (including conforming to guidelines), then re-evaluate the value of this contribution. LifeOfLearning (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do indeed find it difficult to read this article, and so will most other readers, which is why I've added a call for technical expertise to the talk page. The age of the report is not the main problem, but I think there is a WP:OR issues. Another question which I need to ask is: are you the original author of this article? This list of contributions seems to indicate it. If so, I think you should mention it when commenting. Favonian (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not the original author, who I know and who is quite old. I learned about this in a university EE class lecture years ago, so I am familiar with the concepts of this and the related technologies. My contributions are simply those of an kindred spirit, wishing no more than to share a useful technology with others. The constructive criticism here is appreciated, thank you. LifeOfLearning (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs at the very least a complete rewrite. The lead does not even explain the topic to a general audience, and the rest of the article is no better. Hairhorn (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unintelligible text, close to patent nonsense:

    Congruent Partitioning is a completely different genre in the automatic synthesis of logic equations.

    The Quine-McCluskey algorithm produces its output by reducing a selected canonical set through iterative comparison and elimination of common bits. Where a function is made of a significant number of variables a computer is the only way of handling this task. The processing algorithm is simple but it can take significant time.

    After reading that, I am no wiser about what this is or does. The claim about being a "completely different genre" suggests that the author is blowing his own horn about the merits of his original research. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead has been re-written, but is still opaque to non-experts: "Congruent Partitioning is an algorithm for the automatic synthesis of logic equations..." Hairhorn (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Brilliant, much faster than Karnaugh Maps. Jjcondie (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion is not about the method per se, but whether the article is Wikipedia material. Favonian (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jjcondie's argument is irrelevant to the issue at hand, as is LifeOfLearning's. Ihcoyc, the first part of your argument is, too. Deletion policy doesn't allow us to delete articles in fields that editors aren't competent in. Patent nonsense is text that one couldn't understand, not text that one simply doesn't understand.

    As a matter of fact, I do understand this content. Perhaps that makes me an "expert". I make no claims. As someone who understands what this article is attempting to discuss, I've looked for sources that document this, and not found any. The second part of Ihcoyc's argument thus applies. This subject as presented simply is not documented, in published works, outside of Wikipedia. It appears to be a novel invention, not heretofore documented in published works, being documented by its inventor directly in Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy.

    M. Logan, this is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It is not a publisher of first instance. It's not a research journal, nor an advertising billboard, nor a free wiki hosting service. Please get your research, ideas, and inventions published via the proper outlets, with the proper peer review processes applied. Wikipedia is not a shortcut around those processes. Get your knowledge out into the general corpus of human knowledge, the right way, before coming to Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion seems to hinge on two points: 1) whether or not references exist, and 2) whether the topic "as presented" is formally documented.

    The original article section entitled "Congruent Partitioning by Machine"by M. Logan corresponds directly to the referenced two volume document at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and the three other references. The Air Force document is reliable, available in the public domain, verifiable, and corroborates this section in every detail, but unfortunately not exposed by online/periodical searches. The claim that, "I've looked for sources that document this, and not found any", without any effort to obtain the referenced documents is a weak excuse. And then to claim that this subject "as presented" is not documented is simply not true, repetitive, and shows lack of due diligence. Please provide a reference to Wikipedia policy that requires references to be accessible online. The present introduction section and the section entitled "Congruent Partitioning by Machine" meet all of the Wikipedia requirements for encyclopedic content, although they could be improved of course.

    Wikipedia has no requirement for references to peer review processes or publications, only to "cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article", which this article does. This article cites published material that was originally produced under contract to the Air Force, including the original research that resulted in well defined algorithms that were also incorporated in a computer program. Military research contracts are not granted without prior careful analysis and review by qualified individuals - also a peer review process.

    A strict interpretation of "as presented" would require only direct quotes, and no paraphrasing, of published material - which would appear to invalidate most Wikipedia content. However, the claim that the original article could only be understood by an expert has merit, which is why I contributed the section on "Congruent Partitioning by Hand", based on classroom experience, to further introduce and simplify the concepts for non-experts. This section "as presented" is not formally documented out of the classroom, and I accept responsibility for violating the requirement to provide reliable references per se. However, this section does not represent original research, and is merely a simplification of the main concept, verifiable by simple inspection, and similar to an extended introduction that is common in the first section of Wikipedia articles. You are welcome to delete this section, as you please, to uphold the letter of the "as presented" law, so to speak.

    Jjcondie's argument is extremely relevant, as it lends credibility to the basic concept as being self evident, which also supports the requirement that Wikipedia content be verifiable.

    Keep. LifeOfLearning (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: You still seem to regard Wikipedia as a scientific journal and the editors as referees, who have to be convinced that your technical paper deserves to be published. Uncle G has told you clearly that this is not so. An encyclopedia article must be reference verifiable secondary sources. This article does not provide these references, and this is the main reason why our recommendation is to delete the article. Favonian (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adéla Kolínská[edit]

Adéla Kolínská (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to notability, no evidence of notability, no sourcing, potential BLP violation. Zero Google News hits, most substantive Google hits appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources have been added, but there is no consensus over whether they show notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley, Squirrely and Melvin: LIVE[edit]

Shirley, Squirrely and Melvin: LIVE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable album. Completely fails WP:MUSIC and no real artist to record to. Almost unverifiable beyond seeing a few people mention it in random blog postings and fansites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added two published references to strengthen my point. Hope that helps. --What about a squirrel? (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you added one, and its an encyclopedia which is a tertiary source. Two or one, however, still does not really show notability if its such a brief mention. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then what would? Also, must notability come before the technical aspect complete presentation of a group's discography in order for it to remain intact on the Wikipedia? --What about a squirrel? (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Notability does not preclude the album from being listed in their discography list, but notability is required for that album to have a standalone article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was one of the first mash-up albums to have been released (in terms of structure). Does that help?--What about a squirrel? (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean the Rolling Stone Album Guide or The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editor has made major efforts to attempt to source this article. Sources now meet all guidelines. Ikip (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included at Talk:The Nutty Squirrels and Alvin and the Chipmunks Ikip (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources that have been provided do not appear to be sufficient to support the article. For example, George Gimarc's book Post Punk Diary: 1980-1982 has been cited as a reference on the ground that his entry about Chipmunk Punk identifies the personnel on this album. Gimarc's book is available on Google Books [5], and it does have an entry about Chipmunk Punk, but it doesn't mention this album or Shirley & Squirrely anywhere. Another reference is to an article in Billboard magazine, which merely states that Shirley, Squirrely & Melvin were a novelty act on Excelsior Records, but doesn't mention this album or any alleged use of Chipmunks tracks. There is also no source provided for the claim that the track "Love Lives On" is a cult favorite on Los Angeles R&B stations. The article also claims, via a piped link, that the Ramones provided instrumental backing for this album under the pseudonym "The Amazing Rodent Rhythm Machine", another statement for which no source is provided. I don't believe that the article's claims to notability have been established as accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 19:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I look at the reference section, and it seems to prove notability. Even as a collaboration between two notable entities, it is notable. The Chipmunks are mega famous(their albums selling well, and they having a cartoon for many years), so they being involved in an album, makes it notable. Dream Focus 19:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does that include the Gimarc book? I am going to see if I can track down the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll cited in this article to see if that book mentions anything about this album. I won't be shocked if it doesn't. It's nice that this article claims the album was a collaboration with the Chipmunks, but that doesn't count for much unless it's verifiable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've now listened to one of the NPR items cited as a reference, "Annoying Music, In Honor of the King". NPR personality Jim Nayder has a regular segment in which he plays "annoying" music. While Shirley, Squirrely & Melvin were not mentioned in this segment about bad versions of Elvis Presley songs, their rendition of "Blue Suede Shoes" was posted on the NPR web site as an additional example. Since Nayder did not mention the group in his segment, he did not comment on any alleged collaboration between Shirley, Squirrely & Melvin and the Chipmunks. The only fact this source establishes is that Shirley, Squirrely & Melvin did a version of "Blue Suede Shoes". I suppose that verifying the existence of one track from this album is better than nothing, but it certainly doesn't prove the collaboration with the Chipmunks, much less with the Ramones. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Comparison of website monitoring tools[edit]

Comparison of website monitoring tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, Pages consisting of redlinks are unhelpful to readers. Repositories of Red link articles do not add content or meaning to the encyclopedia Hu12 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete while I think that almost all of the rationale for this deletion is only cause to edit the article, the first reason is sufficient: Article fails WP:NOT. It's certainly helpful, but it's not really WP's thing. Describing what a Web site monitoring tool is would be reasonable. Perhaps even listing some articles comparing them from the popular trade press would be fine, but such comparisons are ephemeral and their criteria subjective. Not encyclopedic. -Miskaton (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just an attempt to establish a reason to spam Wikipedia with a bunch of "website monitoring tools". On a page like List of social networking websites editors regularly have to revert red-link additions of non-notable sites with the edit summary including write the article first. The list in this AFD is almost empty except for red links to non-notable companies who individually fail WP:CORP. This list fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis W. Thabault[edit]

Louis W. Thabault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. I'm in favor of including major-party nominees for U.S. Senate who lose the general election. But losing a primary is different. In general, candidates who lose primaries are not inherently notable. Thabault falls under that category. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor candidate with no indication of notability. If the primary were worth an article, he'd barely merit a one-sentence mention. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NAC) Greg Tyler (t • c) 16:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NASAspaceflight.com[edit]

NASAspaceflight.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications of notability, no references to reliable third party sources, I believe that this site does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw: Well done for finding the citations as I could not. I would like to withdraw this nomination. The article is excellently improved now. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge- to Nasa.keystoneridin! (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. NASASpaceflight.com is not officially affiliated with NASA in any way.
    — Ω (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I posted a note on their forums, and Chris replied here with the following information:


— Ω (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References added to NASAspaceflight.com
— Ω (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On the basis of the information now supplied. Merge is inappropriate, since it is not part of NASA. Well sourced enough to stand on its own. I suggest the nom read the current article and decide if xe wants to withdraw the nomination. DGG (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per consensus - WP:CORP requirements are met. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undertone Networks[edit]

Undertone Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though the subject doesn't meet the notability requirements, although it fails WP:CORP and WP:ORG. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 23:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I doubt any efforts would make this article more efficient than spam.keystoneridin! (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Passes WP:CORP per the Gnews link above. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 00:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE. The article can probably be expanded, with more than 100 GNews hits (excluding PR releases) to choose from. The nominator has not even attempted to rectify the problems before nominating the article. The company has received coverage in dozens of reliable sources. The fact that the article was not expanded is never a reason for deletion and the above delete-!voters do not even try to make a reasoning based on the available sources. Keystoneridin's !vote is particularly interesting here since I do not think it's spammy (then again, I rewrote it...). Regards SoWhy 20:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Not convinced it passes WP:NOTABILITY Bradybd (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the current references are sufficient to establish notability. Perhaps not by much but falls on the notable side for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @737  ·  16:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zuzana Drabinová[edit]

Zuzana Drabinová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability in question since February. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Could not find any reliable sources about her to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The subject of this article fails to meet the WP:Pornbio criteria, nor does the subject's general notability appear to be otherwise established. This article cites zero sources, and has been tagged as such since June. The article has also been tagged for its lack of apparent Notability since February. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Asserts basic requirements of WP:N. WP:PORNBIO is additional criteria for inclusion, not qualifiers for exclusion. Chuthya (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How the heck can an article with zero sources possibly achieve Notability? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also satisfies requirements for WP:ENT. Lack of sources just means the stub article needs to be fleshed out, not deleted. Chuthya (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:PORNBIO. 86.164.58.117 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: searching Czech sources it looks all information in the article is correct (she used names Ariana / Eva D. / Kirsten / Michelle / Raylene Latias / Raylene Richards / Wendy / Wendy AW / Zanette / Zuzana / Zuzanna / Zuzanna Drabinova). If she is notable than it would be for her stripping photos, her RedNews anchoring is atrocious and marginal. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And as a curiosity, few days ago Police of the Czech Republic started country-wide search for her [6] (reason was not specified, she could be missing or suspected). The article may change in the future. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not present intersections of reliable independent secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Empires[edit]

War of the Empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable computer game that has not been created yet. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charity: water[edit]

Charity: water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not blatant advertising in the sense of CSD, the article as stands is not encyclopaedic and is self-promoting. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep But since when do charities get a pass on promoting themselves? Needs a ground-up rewrite with sources. ukexpat (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep But it reads like and advert and needs to be rewritten completely. Bradybd (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Krishna in Krishna Consciousness was already redirected to International Society for Krishna Consciousness prior to closure. --JForget 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krsna in Krsna Consciousness[edit]

Krsna in Krsna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Way too much detail of part of the Krishna Consciousness belief system. All references from Krishna Consciousness sources. ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason :

Bhagavad-Gita in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Vedas in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jesus in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rama in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lord Jesus Christ in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sanskrit in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sanskrit as it is (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And, also

Krishna in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Vedas as they are (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To extend on the above, the articles have extensive detail at the point where, if it was a fiction article, it could be deleted for being "in-universe". No analysis or external sources, just a presentation of "the truth". I can see where a summary of some of these could go into the International Society for Krishna Consciousness article, but not at this level of detail. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would personally prefer to keep, because I like the idea of having so much detail in articles. However, if not, much of this information should certainly go in the ISKCON article. Academic Challenger (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to International Society for Krishna Consciousness. All very badly written, one cannot WP:VERIFY any of the data, as not one in-line reference. To keep would require a complete rewrite to obtain WP:STYLE, and even then WP:NOTE may still be in doubt.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No valid references, personal essay style, wrong place for such content. Any such information, if it were ever to be validly and encyclopedicly written (and with reliable inline sources), should go into the ISKCON article. Priyanath talk 23:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. References are of not for anything in any of the articles. Merge information into Krishna Consciousness if there's anything worth salvaging. OlYellerTalktome 23:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. -Falcon8765 (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. It appears to be a synthesis, and the tone is that of a discourse, not an article. An option is to userfy one article and let the editor work on it before getting it to main space if notable enough for one. At present the articles don't appear to be anything more than content that belongs within International Society for Krishna Consciousness, but not really merge worthy. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 00:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, as unencyclopedic POV in-universe essays sourced from non-RS websites. In addition, there are copyright violation concerns; for example a random check shows that:

The activities of the incarnation are the marginal features. ... "Let us leave aside all these discussions and continue with a description of the saktyavesa-avataras."

Note that encyclopedic articles on some of the topics (say, ISKCON's view of Krishna) can possibly be justified and written based on third-party sources; however these article titles and content don't provide a useful start and are not worth retaining. Abecedare (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. One sentence about each in the ISKCON article will be sufficient (and they must be referenced). — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article not only unsourced and does not meet notability criteria, it is also grosly misrepresentative of the views it claims to represent, while using copyrighted material as well. In fact is should be speedy deleted due to copyvio. WP:SNOWBALL - do not wait. Wikidas© 06:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a bunch of forks.Pectoretalk 15:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That, too. And a perfectly matched set of them. Priyanath talk 23:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as essays and copyvio. In addition, the author of the ten articles mentioned in this AfD also created another ten articles of the same kind which have since been redirected to International Society for Krishna Consciousness (just like Krishna in Krishna Consciousness above); while these redirects don't harm anybody it's questionable whether they are plausible search terms or mistypings for Int Soc for Krishna Consciousness. The ten redirects are listed below:
Lord Krishna in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lord Shri Krishna in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lord Rama in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jesus Christ in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vedas in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Bhagavad-Gita in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lord Shri Rama in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bhagavad Gita in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Sanskrit Language in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Sanskrit language in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sellsumerism[edit]

Sellsumerism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed by primary author (User:Christy Chung - I suspect a WP:SPA). Author seems to be using this to substantiate another article: Matt Garcia, which I believe should also be deleted. Per: WP:Neologism, WP:ADVERT. Jujutacular talkcontribs 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lenka (album)[edit]

Lenka (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Merge: I think this article is better off merged with Lenka. This page is only a stub, lacks content and It's her only album. Her page isn't too large. Abc518 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Other artists have only albums listed, can't be prejudicial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8launch (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand if she had half a dozen albums (Eminem for example), however, she only has a single album, and her main page isn't too big to support what's contained in this article plus some. --Abc518 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (ec)I'm not really sure with that (I don't edit "album articles" too often), but I've found a plenty of sources, reviews and further informations about that album. It has potential to be kept separately. I've already added some links, check it, please. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 22:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough album, plenty of reviews and charted in the US and Australia. If there's enough info out there to sustain an article, there's no problem having an article. I'll work on it a bit :) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've now added four reviews to the infobox, I'll do some more work on it in the next few days as I anticipate an avalanche of keep votes. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reviews Dylanfromthenorth added. Passes WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 16:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable 83.71.37.118 (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dylanfromthenorth's arguments. Notable enough (reviews, charts) to warrant a separate article. Europe22 (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepEnough notable to have it own article. Facha93 (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Speedy delete CSD G4 as recreation of content previously deleted via AfD. No significant change since its last AfD. I am also going to salt it. --Angelo (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Dos Santos[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jonathan Dos Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league Black'nRed 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MakRadio[edit]

AfDs for this article:
MakRadio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still a non-notable internet radio station since 2007. Now that it's dead, it's more of an ad for McKeehan, who isn't notable. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, there really isn't much else to add RadioFan (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alexf(talk) 12:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TQC[edit]

TQC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spammy vanity page of a non-notable company Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleteper nom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8launch (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and probably could be a speedy deletion as a non-notable company without any reliable sources provided. I just wanted to remind everyone that according to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest we should avoid using the word "vanity" in AfD discussions; we can assume good faith and consider that the individual who created the article was trying to expand our coverage. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. The 'per nom' delete comments are simply stating that because it's at Wiktionary, it needs to be deleted. Nowhere in the policies does it say that, and as such, they are given little weight. (X! · talk)  · @275  ·  05:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceroma[edit]

Ceroma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entry has been copied to Wiktionary. It is very unlikely that it can be expanded into an appropriate encyclopedic article. It is possible the information could be added to another appropriate article if there is one. Sophitessa (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Agree with nominator. As it has transwikied over already, delete. ShoesssS Talk 20:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteagree per nom, if in wictionary already, no need listed separate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8launch (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Information about who used this in what manner and for what purpose is not part of the definition of the word, but is encyclopedic information. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The present article is indeed no more than a dictionary definition. However, the question should be whether it is a stub that ought one day to be expanded inot an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. Every bit of information in the current article, including "information about who used this in what manner and for what purpose" is currently at Wiktionary. Cnilep (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it was in an earlier print encyclopedia, it should be in ours. If it was mentioned in classics sources, it can be expanded. DGG (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect via {{wi}}. Presence in print encyclopedia suggests appropriateness of inclusion, but current entry is little more than DICDEF. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Phil Bridger and DGG. This isn't merely a definition, has definite potential for expansion (although perhaps little interest amongst users to do so). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devon ladson[edit]

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

In removing the speedy tag, the creator added just enough of a notability assertion to avoid a speedy deletion, unfortunately not enough to ensure the long-term survival of the article. The USA Today biography on this man is empty, and Google returns little else. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The coverage is local. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I, the inclusionist of all things college football and defender of deletions, have done research and found that this guy has done basically nothing but suit up. He's made the roster a couple of times, at least on the web. Not finding any actual things he's done in games--finding lots of statistics columns with zeroes in them. Plus, the article says he's now sitting out and working at a UPS facility. Tail end of article reads as retaliatory against the school. This is not the kind of article that Wikipedia wants and it should be removed pronto.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G1 by DJ Clayworth. Amalthea 19:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson basketball championships[edit]

Jackson basketball championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft. Tckma (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shouldn't it be a db though, as there is no content? TheWeakWilled 18:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horatio Holzbein[edit]

Horatio Holzbein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. No hits in news aside from a press release, no indication of notability aside from a prize at a non-notable art show (no news hits for the art show itself), and no hits in scholar. His books do not show up at Amazon or google.books. NJGW (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - could have been an A7, in my opinion, but DGG felt we should give it a chance. Still fails all notions of notability and verifiability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peak civilization anachronism[edit]

Peak civilization anachronism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

wp:NEO, and only uses one source. Just summarizes a book. No hits in scholar or news for the made-up phrase or the book title (in English and German). Seems non-notable. NJGW (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - non-notable neologism allegedly created by non-notable writer/artist (whose article is also at AfD). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable book.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A book summary of a book with questionable notability. Clubmarx (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An essay-like speculation based on a single questionable source. Materialscientist (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. already deleted per A5 by User:Fuhghettaboutit JForget 22:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sociotypical[edit]

Sociotypical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

yet another non notable neologism...when are we going to get a speedy category for things people made up one day?? WuhWuzDat 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki/Delete – Transwiki over to Wiktionary (as tagged now), as this is a legitimate term, as shown here [10] and not part of our sister's project as of today, then delete. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was SNOW delete. Hammer time, indeed. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Offspring's ninth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Offspring's ninth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates Wikipedia:Crystal ball. Things like "...he would like to have the new album out in 2010, but the band isn't likely to hit the studio until January." don't really indicate that this is currently a scheduled event and shows little in the way of notability at this time. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shell account[edit]

Shell account (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete - This article has no reliable sources as references and disputed external links, notability is questionable. --Hm2k (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per obvious notability. The sources are more than adequate to cover this, and the only ones who would dispute these links are those who get involved in anti-"insert OS here" wars.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into shell (computing). The topics are inseparable, and shell (computing) is currently little more than a list. I'm not sure whether shell accounts are independently notable, but they're clearly an important aspect of the broader topic. (Incidentally, I note that user account is a redirect to user (computing) rather than a distinct article.) EALacey (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and rewrite. According to better informed users, this is a major historical means of Internet access, something not indicated by the current article. EALacey (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into shell (computing) per EALacey. Excellent suggestion, saves this article's useful content. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Two reliable sources have been added to the article since the AfD was initiated and sources are not lacking for this topic. The AfD nomination by Hm2k is a violation of WP:POINT and is clearly a case of WP:REICHSTAG. This is a continuation of the ongoing disruption [11] by Hm2k with this article and its talk page and it appears to be a reaction to the RFC not going in his favour. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I presume nobody is questioning that the phrase "shell account" is used in the computing literature. Without intending to take a side in any running dispute, I can't see how the added references demonstrate any more than that. EALacey (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- Tothwolf, assume good faith. I expect the outcome will benefit us both. --Hm2k (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.
        --Tothwolf (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You do realise that is just wikipedia humor, don't you? Are you trying to be funny or did you mistake it for policy? --Hm2k (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Read WP:NPA. Both of you.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • We've already had this discussion, Tothwolf has a quite a history of bad faith. It gets tiresome constantly trying to defuse the situation when you're constantly under attack. Yet none of this belongs here. Issues with behavior belong in user talk. --Hm2k (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • ...and that right there is a personal attack. As you are well aware, the history you claim is not accurate and I've already brought this to the attention to the editor who created it. I've yet to see you defuse anything related to Shell account and the edit histories of the article and talk page make it quite clear that you continued to instigate arguments and conflicts with the editors involved. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hm2k, I assure you that climbing the Reichstag is no joke. It is a Wikipedia neologism that represents the absolute pinnacle of a dispute. You've clearly reached that point; edit warring on the article itself, [12] the talk page, [13] edit warring over the {{3O}} template and then changing the 3O request, [14] removing references, edit warring over the RFC, trying to add false logic and loaded wording in the RFC, and when none of that worked to your advantage, you initiated an AfD for the article itself. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tothwolf, your constant accusations are getting boring now. If you have a problem with my behaviour, use the user talk page or report me to an admin. Discussing it here is inappropriate and simply disruptive. Stop this dickery. I will not be engaging you on this matter here any further. --Hm2k (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a basic type of internet account, and the standard type of internet access account preceding the establishment of always-on internet accounts. How could it not be notable? 76.66.193.221 (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- None of the references detail what a "shell account" actually is. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. (WP:GNG) --Hm2k (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The concept of getting a shell account to access the internet via telnet is strangely alien in a Microsoft/GUI broadband world (see this howto). A merge may be possible but I think there is rather more to be said than defining the words. If the article were expanded to explain how people used shell accounts as part of the environment of the 1970s text driven "internet", scientific forums, early MUDs, BBSs, the beginnings of international social networking and how people chose shell accounts in the 1990s as they were the only form of internet access without hourly charges; then it would be easy to see why this article is notable and not quite just a sub-topic of shell (computing). As for sources, they are there, you just need to check through rather early computer enthusiast magazines. Damn, now I feel old.—Ash (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(source) Here is an article from Linux Journal in 1994 where Johnson, the editor of Linux Journal, shops for an ISP who can provide a shell account.
(source) 1994 again and here is a TidBITS article which reviews a possible funky new graphical replacement for shell accounts called The Internet Adapter; within a couple of years, it too was gone.—Ash (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ash, It seems your sources mention the legacy usage, something that is not even mentioned in the article. These sources are not suitable for the current content. I recommend you look at adding new content to support your sources. --Hm2k (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had completely forgotten about TIA and it most certainly deserves mention here. I remember trying it out and finding that I preferred the simplicity of the open source program SLiRP (which even though SLiRP was very important software historically, it too is currently lacking an article). --Tothwolf (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that a merge is a more likely candidate over keep. There's a different between the legacy usage of shell accounts provided by ISPs and modern usage which mainly consists of running background processes for bots and bouncers. However, you'll agree that neither have enough reliable sources at the moment to say which is right for this article. I'm unable to find anything conclusive that describes exactly what a shell account is, legacy or modern. --Hm2k (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's interesting because I continue to find lots of valid references. For example: Los Angeles Times: Core Fans of Shell Accounts Mourn Netcom's Demise We actually should have a section on Netcom's shell system netcom.netcom.com since this was one of, if not the first, commercial ISP to offer shell accounts to the general public. IIRC, those systems were SunOS 4.1.4_U1. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obsolete does not equal non-notable. If there are two different topics involved, the article should be split. DGG (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article could use some elaboration, that does not mean it is not notable. Shell accounts have a very long and large history. There are many references to shell accounts in reliable sources, such as the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. If the subject is notable enough to be casually referenced in two of the largest news papers of the United States, I would think it is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. It just needs to be researched and expanded on. The problem with referencing this topic is that shell accounts have not been in widespread usage in about 15 years. Less than 5 minutes of Google searches produced a number of links to useful articles which could be used. If you wish to improve the article as you state on the talk page I recommend taking the time to actually do so, adding references and external links rather than just removing invalid ones. Recommending the article for deletion does not seem appropriate. Iarann (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You'll notice the sources provided don't mention shell accounts in the same context of the article (ie: no mention of the legacy service provided by ISPs in the article and no mention of the modern IRC usage in the sources). That is why "5 minutes of Google searches" isn't always the best approach, because although it contains the right words it might not be appropriate to the article. Deletion would be the best way to prompt a rewrite. An AfD request has other benefits too including prompting the improvement of the article so that your "keep" is justified. My view is that there is no point disputing external links if the article is completely pointless. Note: I added the 2 original references, when there was previously none and added the current external links. Improvement is the aim of the game here. --Hm2k (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I read both those articles, and maybe you should too. They both reference shell accounts in the way defined in this article. In the New York Times article, the author casually mentions his provider wished him to no longer use his shell account, and in the LA Times article it discusses how those with shell accounts with miss the provider they were using. The first article only casually mentions the author using a shell account, but does not describe it, the second article does give an actual description. They both mention shell accounts in the "legacy" way described by the article, so I'm not sure what your point is. I wasn't using them as examples of sources, I was using them as examples of how popular it was in the early internet days. You can also find plenty of references to how they are now used for IRC bots or hacker/cracker purposes, but I don't feel a need to drive this into the ground. I stated keep and gave examples and evidence for that. I have no intention of rewriting the article myself but I would not like to see it deleted either. Your usage of recomending the article for deletetion specifically goes against the whole point of the deletion policy. To quote WP:AfD and WP:Deletion policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Iarann (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree with the use of AFD to "encourage a re-write" and I disagree that "deletion" can lead to a better article. If an article is deleted, then anybody who tries to write a new version will see a notice that the article has been deleted and might be discouraged from continuing. Even if a new article is created, there will be the specter of a G4 hanging over it if deleted via AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am aware of the contents of the sources I have provided and yes, one does indeed mention legacy usage, however it was the best I could find. I realise now that they aren't really suitable, which puts the whole article under question for notability, if it's so difficult to find suitable sources how can it be notable? Perhaps my reason for AfD is not suitable, however the outcome would establish whether it was worth improving further or not. I get the impression it is. --Hm2k (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This is a basic part of many operating systems. Maybe it needs better sourcing, but it is clearly notable. Bradybd (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(clarification) An operating system shell (a piece of software) is not the same thing as a shell account (a personal access account).—Ash (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is an important part of the Unix/Posix system, and it is proper to have its own entry established inside wikipedia. Unresolved personal disputes from some article maintainers, shouldn't affect its overall value. -- Prunk (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it's a very widely used technology of historical, current and continuing importance. It seems counterproductive to remove a factually accurate article without a very good reason. Possibly needs better sources. -- Franki-macha (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's clear there is confusion over what a shell account actually is, possibly due to the poor information in the article and lack of reliable source to support it. If this article is not deleted, a rewrite would be required. Alternatively I would propose a merge with shell (computing) to help with clarification. --Hm2k (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A shell account was the primary way most people accessed the Internet before Dialup SLIP/PPP became widespread in the late 90s. Early ISPs such as Panix and Netcom offered these before they offered PPP --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramasubramanian.T.K[edit]

Ramasubramanian.T.K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax. Google searches for the book titles turn up nothing. User has also created several redirect pages, including Hellbaron and Ramasubramanian iyer; Google searches for those names produce a number of hits, presumably all pages created by the article author - his twitter page, profiles on chat forums, etc. This page shows him to be in same city mentioned in the entry, while another page describes him as an undergrad student in civil engineering. (The url for that page is a banned wikipedia link; the link is titled "myLot Photos - koodhi" on the page of Google results.) Not a famous physicist or an author. Hairhorn (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Smurfs (film)[edit]

The Smurfs (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious keep. Easily meets general notability guidelines, rendering NFF moot. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]... I could easily go on. Powers T 16:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the first diff is nearly 4 years old and has a completely different cast, I think this is a textbook example of why we DO have the NFF guideline. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first diff didn't have any reliable sources. If you're suggesting that NFF should override the General Notability Guideline, you're going to have to make that case first. Powers T 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't seem to remember suggesting that. That being said, there's no consensus that either guideline "outranks" the other - they are both guidelines, and thus neither has precedence. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If neither has precedence, then an article need only meet one or the other, right? Powers T 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss possible merge. With respects to the nominator. WP:NF of which WP:NFF is a sub-criteria, states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Certainly, there are not many acceptable exceptions to WP:NFF, but when a subject has the coverage as does this subject, it is time perhaps to use best judgement to decide that the topic should have an article in some form, even if merged into one of the many Smurfs articles. The production began in 2003, is part of a very notable franchise, has received continuous coverage for those 6 years, and a blanket deletion does not best serve the project. And for a merge, the article must be kept first and such merge discussed on the article's talk page. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep sources found by Powers confer notability. Most future films are non-notable, but that doesn't mean all are non-notable and this one passes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maryjo Adams Cochran[edit]

Maryjo Adams Cochran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. Proposed deletion tags have been removed repeatedly by the subject of the article, or one of her employees or relatives. I would say it is a weak delete, as deans of colleges are not per se notable, and I'm not certain that she passes the notability guidelines for academics. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as I don't see how she meets WP:PROF. The fact that it's written by her daughter Hallie Cochran introduces further issues of sourcing, WP:OR, and WP:COI. --Transity (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC. The obvious COI by the subject's daughter leads to inflated and unsubstantiated notability. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 17:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to WP:PROF the dean of a school is not intrinsically notable, but might me if one considers the school--we generally consider deans of major law and Medical schools as notable. She is Dean of an academic division in a fairly good but undistinguished non-research university where over half the students are part-time students in distance education programs --I can not judge from the Wikipedia article the importance of this college, as it talks very little about the academics there, emphasizing the athletics and the fraternities (not that one should judge the college itself unfavorably from that--except that the college PR staff had a major role in writing it--and see List of Troy University alumni ). I do not consider her notable as an administrator. She has apparently done nothing notable otherwise. DGG (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Side of the Game[edit]

Other Side of the Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability on this "independent" film "due for release at the end of 2009". Google results only in the home page of the film. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball. SGGH ping! 15:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Unfortunately I did not finish editing and in response to your attack please see the following links.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1331112/

http://www.othersideofthegame.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjVk22rPaQw

http://www.galwayfilmfleadh.com/pr_2009.php?p=saturday/other_side_of_the_game

Please give me some credibility and allow my page to go forward. Thanks keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitwigs (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not an attack, this is a discussion about whether the article meets the requirements for a wikipedia entry. To me, this page looks like promotion for not yet notable film. None of the references you have given is "independent of the source.". Delete without prejudice. Hairhorn (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why is it considered a promotion? I have seen many references like this.It is just information about the film, the production and actors. What can i do to change it and make it acceptable?keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitwigs (talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is just that it's not notable, it's not really a question of how the article is written. Hairhorn (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-X#cite_note-0 is this notable at the time it was written?keep—Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitwigs (talk • contribs) 18:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perrier%27s_Bounty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorelei_(film)

Also how are these notable? Should I post more examples so i can understand? KEEP

You can comment as much as you like, but you can only make one keep or delete vote. --Smashvilletalk 19:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok Im very new to this so no offense intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitwigs (talk • contribs) 19:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because another entry exists does not mean it meets the notability criteria either. See wp:otherstuffexists. Hairhorn (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No i meant how are those links notable because from what you are saying they should be deleted also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitwigs (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I suspect that, based on the information given in the article, and which I could find, the subject was not notable enough for Wikipedia. We aren't attacking you, merely sampling consensus to decide whether this topic is notable enough. Also, please remember to sign your comments using ~~~~ and link to other articles using [[article name]] rather than URLs. Stay cool, and let us work out the best way forward. SGGH ping! 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn do not attack me personally and say sorry. Im not looking for "credibility" as I am not the "director" of the film and my income does not depend on it any way. Therefore, I do not believe you are making a valid or constructive point here. You know as well as I do, there are many pages on the wikipedia site that are not "notable". I have emailed user SGGH and explained that the industry screening was held as the academy of contemporary arts in London last Thursday 6th august (and Wikipedia did not make this happen). I do believe however that British films should get more credibility and that there are talented directors out there who are worth talking about and although it may not be of interest to you, it may be interesting to people like myself. I also mentioned that once I do received reviews i will add this to the article. ~~~~

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 22:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M.B.Nirmal[edit]

M.B.Nirmal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-written bio to advertise a non-notable man. The guy is related to Exnora International which is itself a constant target for self-advertisement. Damiens.rf 14:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 15:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know why this would be self-written given the other contributions of the author, and clearly don't understand why he's non-notable. There are 311 gnews hits for his name, a good chunk in depth, and given that he founded Exnora in 1989, a good 11 years before online archives for Indian newspapers, that's a fair bit to show notability. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 15:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have created different biographies and articles and couldn't understand, the motive of the nominator to term "Self-written". Is that mean "I am M. B. Nirmal" and waited more than a year to create my own bio after I have created other articles? A clear witch-hunt is going on for some or other reasons, that's all I can understand.EconomicTiger (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per SpacemanSpiff and think M.B.Nirmal as the head of Exnora is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A "keep" argument based on the availability of sources is only strong if you actually present the sources in the discussion. Some arguments on both sides (e.g. JNN, sold X items, etc.) have been disregarded. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Ridden[edit]

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

Completely non-notable character that originated from a Gundam technical manual, but never in any of the televisions series, films, OVAs, or novels. Only other appearance was in a non-notable video game and a one-shot manga chapter. Has no affect on the series's plot line. Inappropriate to merge. Disputed Prod. Farix (Talk) 02:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 02:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is found in multiple sources, and is a Zeon greatest OYW pilot. He was featured in his own one shot manga Kidou Senshi Gundam MSV Senki Johnny Ridden, and the first chapter of another manga. "ACES IN A YEAR WAR" Episode 1 :: Crimson Lightening - Major Johnny Ridden. He has also been featured in manga dedicated to other pilots. There is a toy based on this character. He was featured prominently in a Gundam video game released for the PS2. Dream Focus 04:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bring in the reliable references Dream Focus. People won't vote keep by just trusting your words --KrebMarkt 06:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sources for what? If you Google for a few seconds, you can find the manga he is in, and places to buy his toys. Dream Focus 14:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sources that demonstrate that the character can passes WP:NOTE. --Farix (Talk) 16:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the subject of this article is notable, then the article needs to reflect that. It does not. It cites no sources, and it is otherwise poorly written. I doubt very much the subject matter is notable, but like I said, even if it is, you'd never know it from anything in this article. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mobile Suit Variations. Although the target article is very poorly written, I can provide sources from sales figures of the series from a primary source(Bandai's sals figures published in 1987) and two other secondary sources about its model success(Dengeki Hobby and Hobby Japan, though this will take some time since MSV is a model series that is quite old and going through the archive takes time.) and a secondary source(Adult's Gundam prefect version by Nikkei Business Publication) claiming its notability.(all of these are talking about the target) Since Johnny Ridden is originally from this model series, merging(and greatly trimming) would be appropriate. If !vote counts my oppinion at no consensus, it is fine to count it as a delete, since I lean towards that side. However, I hope trimming and merging works on my proposal. MythSearchertalk 06:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, we only have one person trying to save the article and did not do so in the pass week or so. Is relisting really necessary? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can not find any reliable references for notability, even if this character is mentioned in manga and such there should be some un-univerisal style info on it which there is not.--Knowledgekid87 (Talk) 14:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Uhmm, I'd just like to make a comment, not only about the article / character in question but most of the character articles in the Universal Century characters template (which can be found at the bottom of the discussed article's page). I have a hard time believing they are all notable. In fact, about 80-90% of the articles don't even have a single source on their page (INCLUDING THE ONE UP FOR DISCUSSION!!!!!). Unless the articles can be proven notable by Wiki standards, and they get some sources, they all should be deleted (or more accurately merged into a single large article). I don't see how people are even arguing to keep an article without a single reference cited in the article itself. It doesn't matter how important you think the article is, you have to prove notability by adding reliable sources or the article gets deleted. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are kept or destroyed by consensus of whoever is around at the time, and the personal opinions of the closing administrator. That's why character articles for vast numbers of G.I. Joe, Transformers, and comic book characters exist, most of which have absolutely no coverage anywhere. They are well defended by fans. Manga and anime just have fewer people participating in the AFDs, and thus even characters featured in multiple fictional works and merchandising like this one, are sometimes deleted. Dream Focus 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it didn't sell well the first time, would they release a second version? [20] Searching the Japanese Amazon for his name in Japan will probably yield more results. Not everything he was in might've been translated yet. Dream Focus 14:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is irrelevant to passing WP:NOTE and doesn't establish notability. --Farix (Talk) 16:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having good sales figure does not necessarily be notable. Trust me, I have way more sources than you can imagine, I live in HK and have most Japanese sources from Gundam Century to Gundam Officials to most recent books like one stating individual weapons and protective gears of MSs. I even got one dedicated to comparing OYW with WWII, one going for psycological analysis of the characters of MS Gundam to Z and ZZ. If I am saying a character cannot meet notability of wikipedia, it is very likely that it is extremely hard for anyone who do not have their own archive of sources to find sources that tell of a character's notability that meets wikipedia's standard. MythSearchertalk 18:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually being a bestseller helps most bestselling novels survive AFD, even without any reviews of them anywhere. But far less people participate in the AFD for manga, so the results are different. Dream Focus 14:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I am stating the model sales figures, not a novel or manga release, so it is actually worse. It is not doing much better than other similar items, which most are selling pretty well at the time. And of course, it sold much less than Char Aznable's MSs and the cannon fodder Zakus. Also, having bestseller figures usually means it will have sources, and the article is likely to improve. If it is not improved in a fairly reasonable amount of time, the same reasoning is not likely to be endorse on the 2nd or 3rd AfD process. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just because a fan exists somewhere doesn't make this character notable or encyclopedic. - Josette (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Completely non-notable. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 07:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither WP:PERNOM nor WP:JNN are valid reasons for deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreeing with the editor who makes the nomination and with what that editor has to say is perfectly justifiable. (I think you have been reminded of this before) - Josette (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not when made by an account whose stated agenda is to remove as many articles as possible and literally just rapid fire copy and pastes "per nom" style of non-arguments across multiple afDs, including multiple ones in under a minute without every actually even reading the nominations. The account in question has NEVER argued to keep, said he never will argue to keep, and said it is his mission to delete as many articles as possible because he thinks having 2 million articles is too many, i.e. just indiscriminately wants to delete in any and every AfD. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see the problem, we have just as many or more editors willing to !vote "keep" for every piece of crap article that comes along. I don't see you attacking their reasoning. - Josette (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • They, like me, at least occasionally argue to delete and actually make edits to the articles in question, discuss specific sources, etc. If we are to have actual adult academic discussions that we need to discuss specifics and consider all options available, not just make drive by comments. And you will not persuade me of anything if you use words like "crap" of "cruft" to describe the work volunteers put into attempting to expand this comprehensive reference guide. In any event, where have you checked for sources for this article and what kind of results did you get? What options for merge locations are there as well? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • You have been warned about disparaging the comments of others before. I very seldom participate in an AFD, so therefore you can bet I have done my homework when I do. Most of my work has been in the actual writing of articles. Have you seen what type of articles I write? I owe you no explanation. - Josette (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • So where have you looked for sources for this article and what have you found? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cornish Rebellion of 1497. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keskerdh Kernow 500[edit]

Keskerdh Kernow 500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not noteworthy, there is no major local or national media coverage of the event. Can find no information on how many attended. This is mentioned on Cornish Rebellion of 1497 in its own section.. there is no reason for an entire article BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cornish Rebellion of 1497. I can't imagine its really encyclopedic at all, but if there is anything which can be salvaged and put to use, then merge is the best way. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please compare the contributions of BritishWatcher and Yorkshirian before considering their contribution agreeing with each other here. DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its true that me and Yorkshirian agree on alot of things, although we have actually strongly disagreed on one matter a few days ago. But userchecks are fine with me. Also im pretty sure people should be focusing on the article in question not the editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. No references indicating notability of this one-off event. Article was created by a single-interest editor who has not edited since 2006. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cornish Rebellion of 1497. It's notable for mention, but not its own article. (Not sure where you were looking BW but there was significant local media coverage, how you came to that conclusion when you don't live locally and most local news from 1997 isn't on the net is beyond me). --Joowwww (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem for me is not so much whether it is notable, but that there is absolutely no evidence in the text of how it is notable - no press references, no mention of number of participants, nothing. If it is to be retained, the notability issue needs to be addressed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Singer[edit]

Arthur Singer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, other than the one song. Fails Google completely. Gosox5555 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article creator: If there's only one substantial source for this songwriter left, it's
McGee, Mark Thomas (1990). The Rock and Roll Movie Encyclopedia of the 1950s. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 97. [21]
Too bad even that lone snippet view on Google Books won't help matters for anyone (unless I soon happen to obtain a copy from my state's library system and rewrite/expand the page). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness! --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, per Dylanfromthenorth. I42 (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn concerns addressed. Gosox5555 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Aldogan[edit]

Mehmet Aldogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Can be recreated when he makes an appearance. Compare with Bentem - Spiderone (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's a comparison with another ongoing AfD got to do with this AfD / article? --Jimbo[online] 12:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just saying that if one fails then the other surely fails too since they both play for the same team and neither player has made an appearance. Spiderone (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That AfD is still ongoing and hasn't been deemed non-notable yet. --Jimbo[online] 12:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Recreate when/if he meets either of these guidelines in the future. GiantSnowman 14:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Snowman, recreate when/if he makes his debut. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 09:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. consensus to delete, as most 'not deletes' were of questionable intentions with no strong policy arguments Nja247 10:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor's ITSM Process Assessment[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tudor's ITSM Process Assessment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable particular assessment methodology. This page appears to exist in order to promote http://www.tudor.lu . Based on the information available from their site, this method is an "international commercialisation of AIDA, an ISO/IEC15504 compliant process assessment of IT Service Management, under the trademark TIPA (Tudor’s ITSM Process Assessment)" and so is a non-notable commercial product. Ash (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not delete After reading the Wikipedia's Deletion Policy I found no reason why this article should be deleted as it doesn't fall in any of the "Reasons for deletion" mentioned there. As for the methodology itself being a "non-notable particular assessment methodology" I'd say it is a NEW methodology rather than "non relevant". We should give it some time to establish and be tested before labeling it as "non relevant". Finally as for being a "commercial product", is it different from many other articles that are available in Wikipedia (I could mention a few, but I don't know if I have the right to do so). oivs1976, 15:45 CET 5 August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oivs1976 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not delete First and sole result of a search with the word "TIPA" in French Wikipedia: TIPA. Oivs1976, 17:00 CET, 5 August 2009
  • Please don't reinforce your opinion with multiple recommendations. I would also suggest to visit WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:SOAPBOX for better understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines. Oh, and you can also sign your name automatically with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. — Rankiri (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the same person created the French Wikipedia TIPA page a week before they created this article, it seems like a rather shallow justification.—Ash (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not delete To answer Ash, about the governance, TIPA is still on the responsibility of the CRP Henri Tudor, which organizes training courses and promotes the methodology in conferences. I must precise that CRP is the acronym for Public Research Centre (in French). So, there is no interest to make advertisement for the CRP Henri Tudor, because it has no commercial purpose, except maybe giving training curses on which it obviously do not make profits. Whatever, I have suppressed the link with its website for avoiding any doubts about it.

We are currently finishing and validating the TIPA certification scheme, which aims at ensuring that certified persons will perform TIPA assessments rigorously (thus ensuring that those assessments comply with the ISO/IEC 15504 requirements). Indeed, TIPA is an improvement initiative, not an audit with a process certification. Thus, the creation of a TIPA assessor certification has no link with the scientific value of the methodology on which I focus in the article. I tried to avoid value judgments but I am ready to modify some sentences if anybody finds one.

However, you are right about the word “open methodology”. After discussion, we found that the word was insufficiently clear. We presented TIPA as an open framework to reflect the idea that anyone, previously trained, can use, adapt and modify the TIPA methodology, even for a commercial use. We will correct it shortly.

Concerning the word “commercialization”, it’s a bad word we used to speak about the possibility for assessors to be trained by IT training companies, and not only by the CRP Henri Tudor. Our goal is that the methodology is used by a greater number of companies, because we don’t think a scientific innovation should be abandoned just because the Research Center is Public so we promote it. But we can’t speak of commercialization, maybe of “valorization”.

To answer Rankiri, the name of the methodology is not Tudor but TIPA. Moreover, TIPA is the following of the AIDA research program, this is very important. On Google you will find many more results by writing TIPA ITSM or AIDA ITSM. The same on Google Scholar, you will find many results by searching AIDA "service management" or Tudor’s ITSM Process Assessment.

To answer Smerdis of Tlön, the “best practices” term is not a buzzword, but a quotation of a current expression to speak about ITIL. However, I changed it. TIPA is not a neologism but an acronym for a scientific innovation and it’s exactly why there has to be an article on it on Wikipedia. I would like you to precise what is vague and confusing, the article is just an explanation of the scientific basis of the methodology, based on well-known standards in computer science (ITIL and ISO 15504). However, I modified it to try to answer to the criticisms.

Mlnantes (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC) — Mlnantes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Please see WP:CRYSTAL. If the policies, governance and commercial terms of this methodology or framework or certification scheme are still under debate, then there seems little reason to create a Wikipedia entry that may be factually misleading.—Ash (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Running a simple Google News search test; "TIPA" and "service management" got zero results while in contrast "ITIL" and "service management" got over 7,000 results. On the ITIL community forum, searching for "TIPA" got zero results. On the ITSM International Forum, searching for "TIPA" got zero results. For your comment to have any credibility it may help if we knew which IT service management conference you were talking about, as others could check the conference proceedings and see if TIPA is regularly mentioned. You may find it helpful to check the guidance of WP:SIGNUP before making further comments here as using an anonymous IP or SPA may also affect apparent credibility for comments made; particularly on an AFD discussion where at least two contributors have direct associations with the organizations involved based on their edit histories and statements made.—Ash (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some references to conferences:

Eurospi Conferences

Tutorial : ITIL Service Management or how to deliver Quality T Services S. Prime, Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor, LU ( http://2005.eurospi.net/ )

Assessing IT Service Management Processes with AIDA - Experience Feedback R. Hilbert, Dimension Data, A. Renault, Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor, LU ( http://2007.eurospi.net/ )

Modeling and Assessment in IT Service Process Improvement B. Barafort, Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor, LU; D. Jezek, S. Stolfa & I. Vondrak, Technical University of Ostrava, CZ; T. Mäkinen & T. Varkoi, Tampere University of Technology, FI ( http://2008.eurospi.net/ )

Sustainable Service Innovation Model: A Standardized IT Service Management Process Assessment Framework B. Barafort & A. Rousseau, Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor, LU ( http://2009.eurospi.net/ )

TIPA to Keep ITIL Going and Going M. St-Jean, Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor, LU ( http://2009.eurospi.net/ )


Spice Conferences

Long Term Utilisation of SPICE in an IT Service Company Juhani Jokela, Fusijsu Finland, FI ( http://www.spice2009.com/ )

How to evaluate benefits of Tudor's ITSM Process Assessment? Marc St-Jean, Anne-Laure Mention , LU ( http://www.spice2009.com/ )

Tutorial : ITIL process assessments Alain Renault, Luxembourg ( http://www.spice2009.com/ )


itSMF Belgique

Assessing the maturity level of the IT processes with AIDA Sylvie Prime, Sogeti ( http://www.itsmf.be/page/116/Conference_Programme_2009/ )


Moreover, I think that the pertinence of a scientific process is much more measurable on its presence on Google scholar than in Google news.

Best regards Mlnantes (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A search on Google scholar for "TIPA" and "service management" returned zero results. This was restricted to business/computing areas and publications dated from 2006 onwards. You will note that presentations by "Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor" will not be considered independent sources for the purposes of notability. I have not searched through the other conferences you list, hopefully someone else will get on to it.—Ash (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I answered Rankiri, searching AIDA "service management" or Tudor's ITSM Process Assessment will provide you results on Google scholar... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlnantes (talk • contribs) 12:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oddly using the terms "Tudor's ITSM Process Assessment" in this Google Scholar search returned zero results. I note that The TIPA methodology was created as a result of the AIDA research project, so finding results for the latter is likely to be off-topic for this article and the notability of AIDA is not the issue for this AFD. I'll not be responding to any further comments here as I have clarified the nomination sufficiently by this point, other editors can take up the case either way.—Ash (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some good faith is necessary in a debate. You voluntarily went on Google scholar UK instead of Google scholar.com to be able to say once again "zero results". And obviously, it was people from the Henri Tudor Public Research Center who presented the methodology in the conferences you asked me to quote because it's them who created it. At last, the name changed from AIDA to TIPA because AIDA was a trademark registered by another company, but it's exactly the same methodology. Mlnantes (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, in order to show I am assuming good faith, I'll answer this one comment more. Google scholar UK does not limit results to UK publications or those only in English. If the only reliable sources that demonstrate notability (IAW wp:ORG) are about AIDA rather than TIPA then I suggest you create an article about AIDA or rename the current article. Now I really will retire from editing this AFD as I have to pack a suitcase.—Ash (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy to see you acknowledge there are sources demonstrating the notability of the methodology. But renaming the article in "AIDA" would be useless because it's the former name of the methodology that nobody uses today. However, I am ready to do some changes on the text of the article if anybody has some remarks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlnantes (talk • contribs) 07:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Terrorism in Australia. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Sydney suicide attack[edit]

2009 Sydney suicide attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article previously proposed for deletion, and there's a little uncertainty about WP:NOT#NEWS. I'll express my own opinions below. Andjam (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep terrorism, even unsuccessful attempts, has a significant impact in Australia. They are the subject of significant ongoing media coverage, from the initial raids to the court cases, something that cannot be covered in a single Wikinews article. Andjam (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these are allegations and whole text of the article is "Three people in Sydney, Australia, have been charged with attempting to launch a suicide attack on an army base." Title is grotesquely misleading. Also, by WP:CRYSTALBALL, articles are not kept because they will become notable someday. Abductive (reasoning) 12:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Suicide bombing" has become a common term as it is less controversial than "terrorist attack". It may be that the person who titled it decided that "Suicide attack" would be a good way to avoid the phrase "terrorist plot" (though they should have phrased it more carefully as the attack didn't happen). I don't see how crystal balling comes into it. The arrests have been made - if it turns out that there wasn't an attack planned, then it changes from a notable attack attempt into an even more notable abuse of power by the government. Andjam (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The title is imaginative, it is not a current event as it never occurred and the allegations haven't been proven yet. Wikipedia shouldn't get involved in the anti-muslim scare campaign that has replaced Cold War rhetoric since 9/11. There was significant media coverage about Molly, the dog lost for 10 years and a school girl's absentee note that was written by Barack Obama, but we don't have articles for those.- Shiftchange (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please try to assume good faith. The title needs fixing, but the body of the article sticks to the facts and cites the BBC, not tabloid media. Andjam (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: They were charged with it. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The individuals charged with the plot are entitled to the presumption of innocence, but notability is ensured regardless of whether an attack was planned or not. Mohamed Haneef, who was wrongfully arrested, has a high quality article with 86 references in it. If this group was innocent, it'll be even more notable than if they were guilty. Andjam (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article has been renamed to 2009 alleged Sydney shooting plot. Andjam (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No content, no context, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:RECENTISM. — Rankiri (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no particular opinion but I have some comments and quotes. This says it was "the result of a seven-month surveillance operation" and that "the mass counter-terrorism operation" was "the second-largest ever in Australia". This says "Australia has suffered few terrorist incidents on its soil, the best known being a 1978 bomb attack outside a Sydney hotel hosting a Commonwealth meeting, which killed two people". It has also been said, according to this, that (if successful) it would be "the most serious terrorist attack on Australian soil". The last bit is opinion but the fact is it has been said all the same even if proven to be false at a later date. That in itself would have consequences. --candle•wicke 15:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS. If information is later released showing this went far enough beyond the talking stage, a less amorphous article can be written. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now that the title has been moved to include the words "alleged" and "plot", this barely even qualifies as news, let alone notability. I'm glad that there was no attack and that this was foiled before it happened, and perhaps it should be mentioned in the article about the police who stopped this from becoming a 2009 Sydney suicide attack. Mandsford (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Terrorism in Australia. --Shuki (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Terrorism in Australia for the present. An article can be developed separately in the future if needed.  florrie  23:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable.yousaf465
  • Merge to Terrorism in Australia Garrie 13:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is now duplicated in Holsworthy Barracks terror plot, which probably should also be merged or deleted.--Grahame (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Terrorism in Australia for now, per above. There are no concrete details yet other than sensationalist speculation by the press, lets wait until we have some details before writing an article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja247 10:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jianpi Wan[edit]

Jianpi Wan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication why this pill is notable. There are countless TCM formulae out there plus countless other alternative medicine formulae. Unless there's something special about this one - and I could find none - it does not deserve a standalone article. Tim Song (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The primary indication why this article is notable is that it has been notable enough to be published in full in a number of reputable sources, including those given in the references, namely:
    1. . State Pharmacopoeia Commission of the PRC (2005). "Pharmacopoeia of The People's Republic of China (Volume I)". Chemical Industry Press. ISBN 7117069821.
    • 2. Zuo Yanfu, Zhu Zhongbao, Huang Yuezhong, Tao Jinweng, Li Zhaoguo. "Science of Prescriptions", Publishing House of Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2002. ISBN 7810106503. page 320.
  • The secondary indication why this article is notable can be obtained when we do a Google search on "Jianpi Wan". Such a search yields thousands of hits.
  • IMHO, an article cannot be proved to be un-notable just because thousands of its kind exist. For example, "dog" and "apple" are notable, even though there are thousands of animals and thousands of fruits. 弟 (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The information is reasonable for an encyclopedia to include, and it is described in appropriate sources, so it meets the general notability guideline. The article could be merged with similar ones, I suppose, but Chinese classic herbal formulas is the only article I can find that would be a reasonable target, and it really is not reasonable to bloat that article with descriptions of each and every formula. In the end, I think that a separate article is the right solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Why the canvassing/campaigning-esque invites by the article creator?: [23], [24]. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the note on canvassing/campaigning-esque. I've written to canvass, not to campaign (in the Wikipedia sense of the term). If you think that is campaigning, i'll shorten the canvassing note to make it acceptable.
    • In addition, the invite serves to notify those who have contributed to the area of alternative medicine, and thus may have an interest in the discussions, given that a number of articles in this area have been deleted. 弟 (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To me, "Now this article makes the formula available in both languages, so that a deeper understanding can be achieved." indicates bias—i.e., implies that the article should be kept. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Point taken. Thank you for pointing it out, as it helps me to set my boundaries. 弟 (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is referenced, and FWIW, referenced concoctions can in the future all have their own articles. We do have articles on aspirin, morphine, and heroin for instance. Ngchen (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we also have articles on the individual herbs used in the concoction. The more apt analogy, IMHO, would be having articles on Tylenol PM (it's now a redirect). I don't think inclusion in a pharmacoepia is sufficient to confer notability. The second source seems to be a textbook on TCM prescriptions. From the ref it seems like a rather brief mention. As such, I think it falls on the relatively trivial side of the line. Tim Song (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When a formula is important enough to be published in a national pharmacopoeia indicates that it is not published in the pharmacopoeia alone. It is published in full in the second reference, and other books, such as "Chinese Herbal Medicine: Formulas & Strategies" by Dan Bensky and Randall Barolet (ISBN 0939616106), and "Formulas of Traditional Chinese Medicine" (方剂学 fāngjì xué) by Long Zhixian (General Chief Editor), Li Qingye (Chief Editor of Chinese), Liu Zhanwen (Chief Editor of English), Academy Press (学苑出版社 xuéyuàn chūbǎnshè), Beijing University of Traditional Medicine. 2005. ISBN 7507712702. 弟 (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jianpi Wan is a "Licensed Natural Health Product" in Canada, and can be found in the database of Health Canada, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ 弟 (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think many of the formulas on Chinese classic herbal formula are noteworthy enough to have their own pages. I agree with WhatamIdoing , having separate pages for the formulas is probably the best idea. I think if the formula was borrowed by Japan as a kampo formula, then it most likely is guaranteed to be noteworthy enough. Jianpi Wan isn't a Japanese kampo formula. So then I'd look to where it was first published. It was published in the Standards of Diagnosis and Treatment (證治準繩 Zhèngzhì Zhǔnshéng) by Wáng Kěntáng (王肯堂) in 1602. That text is on some lists as a Classical Medical Text. I figure if it was first used in 1602 and is still in use, then it's noteworthy enough. Dreamingclouds (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any medicine of even the weakest effect should be notable. Benjwong (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja247 10:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Hollywood[edit]

Texas Hollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article makes absolutely no sense. Speedy declined because "bad translation does not equal gibberish". Maybe not, but do we really need an article of this standard in wikipedia? No. Article fails WP:GNG and any basic standard of quality control that should be in place. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Texas Hollywood truly is a place, but it is more particularly a movie set in Spain, where “spaghetti westerns” were (and perhaps still are) filmed. While received Wikipedia dogma is that even such places as minor neighborhoods, if named and noted in guides or registries, are sufficiently notable for their own articles, I'm not sure that a movie set is automatically notable, nor am I sure that this movie set is significantly more notable than the typical movie set. —SlamDiego←T 12:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. After some investigation, this site seems sufficiently notable. And the clean-up by REVUpminster (and some by me) has moved this article to the point that it could no longer support a defense of temporary insanity if an editor responded to it with a killing rampage. —SlamDiego←T 04:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Texas Hollywood is well known in spaghetti western circles, with which it should be linked, just as much as Universal Studios. It has just been written by a someone with a poor grasp of English. It just needs editing. It is still used as a film set (Commercials, Music Videos etc.) and tourists could often watch the filming.REVUpminster (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, then tidy the article up. I have no knowledge of the subject, so without a shed load of research I am not able to do much with it. But in its present state it should be deleted. Just because the topic may be notable does not mean that a shockingly poor article on that subject should remain. Have we no standards? Nouse4aname (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed we have standards, according to which the article should probably stand if the only problem is that that it is badly written, and according to which the {{cleanup}} tag should have been applied (as indeed was done by REVUpminster) until it is sufficiently improved. There are various WikiProject groups to whose attention this article can be brought, to speed it towards a state better than nails on a chalk-board. —SlamDiego←T 10:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah yes, because the article would have been swiftly improved if I had stuck a clean up tag on it. Don't kid yourself, clean up tags do nothing. Articles in this state should be deleted until somebody can be bothered to actually make a half decent article. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you'll reread my comment, you'll see that I suggested more than just slapping a clean-up tag on this monster. Anyway, if you want to argue for a different approach to bad articles, you need to make your case at the Village Pump or somesuch. We should not and shall not apply peculiar standards to this particular article. —SlamDiego←T 11:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the best info on Texas Hollywood is on Anthony Delongis website[25] when he was swordmaster and stunt coordinator on Queen of Swords which was filmed there utilising both towns although the American town was used only for the jail and the interiors as sound stages.REVUpminster (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urgh: Mini Hollywood. —SlamDiego←T 04:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not know what the above means but Tibo has the same article on Spanishwikipedia and Frenchwikipedia. I did not go any further as my language base is non-existant but now that the article makes more sense it should be keptREVUpminster (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable location with respects and thanks to those who have been improving to address the original concerns of the nominator. Tag it for sources and let's move on. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 of [26] SoWhy 10:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Grenot[edit]

Thierry Grenot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a possibly self created mini-bio intended to support other Ipanema Technology advert articles. Trivial and non-notable. Ash (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as copyvio of [27]. Original CSD tag removed by creator. Retagged. Tim Song (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Nja247 10:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Nadadur Janardhan[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. Article re-created by WP:SPA following userfy of WP:AUTOBIO, and then re-created by new WP:SPA following A3 speedy deletion. Per Ardua (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems he has held significant positions and received awards, so he clearly is notable. Offliner (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn; too many socks presently  Chzz  ►  18:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I took the time to work through all the references. They show that he worked for the UN for some years as a regional advisor on e-commerce. In this capacity, he sat on various committees and working groups, and spoke at several conferences. He contributed to a UN publication on e-commerce. He has founded a company that provides software and consulting on e-commerce, and continues to speak at conferences. None of this seems enough to establish notability according to WP:BIO guidelines. There is no strong evidence of significant work, honors or even wide respect by his peers. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aymatth, As far as I know Dr Nadadur Janardhan has written books on eCommerce but his company is not providing either consultancy or software for e-commerce. It focuses only on eGovernance and Governance aspects. Moreover, before joining the UN he has done significant work focused on execution of good governance for literacy, womens' empowerment, supply for potable drinking water in highly inaccessable rural areas and ensuring peace and security in districts such as Ramanathapuram (a coastal district in Tamilnadu facing Srilanka) when the activities of LTTE were at its peak. I am certain that for this significant contribution made to people he was called by the UN to work as Regional Advisor. --Melquirrajan (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is established by references. We need some evidence of notable work (e.g. some new theory or approach or important book), or some major honors or achievements, that are discussed by reliable independent sources: some evidence that he is a notable individual in the Wikipedia sense. The references do not show this. Most are just meeting agendas or conference notes showing that he attended or spoke. It is possible to do much valuable work and to be highly successful and respected in one's field without meeting this criterion, and it is possible to achieve notability from a single book or theorem. I don't see evidence of notability in this case. If I saw some articles discussing his work or achievements by independent sources (not his UN employers or conference organizers) I would change my mind. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. plenty of time to discuss, with no prevailing consensus Nja247 10:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of music videos with censored explicit content[edit]

List of music videos with censored explicit content (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list with no coherent inclusion criteria. Often unsupported by or contradicted by the main articles on listed items, almost never supported by sourced/referenced content. Much of the described, supposedly controversial, content isn't "explicit". Appears to focus mainly on MTV/VH1, some references to the BBC in linked articles. So we've got a poorly constructed, generally unsourced list of videos MTV supposedly edited before broadcasting (or in some cases didn't run in daylight hours. That's not encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Watching the videos is enough to tell if it is explicit or not. I myself have seen quite a few of these videos and agree with the article for censored videos. Str8cash (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list would have been clearer years before, but now with the fading deemphasis of music videos on music networks and the declining influence of keeping a video in one time period when it can be watched online anytime of day, this list is unwieldy and unable to be sourced well except for the most obvious controversial videos of the 80's and 90's. Nate • (chatter) 08:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The scope of this piece has always been quite open ended, and it is hard to imagine the list ever becoming exhaustive in nature. It would, however, be salvageable if converted to a prose-heavy piece discussing commonalities. Hard to imagine that sources wouldn't exist for such a discussion. Could always move to Censorship of music videos, however, and cut the cruft. MrZaiustalk 15:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz Bites[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM. Was speedied deleted previously as spam. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes there are a few sources, but they are relatively trivial mentions for the most part. I wouldn't object to a redirect to an 'Energy Candy' article as that is what the sources are about. Quantpole (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sources are trivial. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per my origional nom. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja247 10:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Torvalds[edit]

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

There is a dispute as to whether this individual is notable as a journalist or not. I am leaning towards the side of not notable, either as a journalist or by relation to other members of the Torvalds family. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (as implied by my nomination) due to not meeting general WP:BIO guidelines, lacking substantial coverage from reliable third party publications. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--article contains a nice little love story, sure, but this isn't encyclopedic material since there is no notability for this person. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only to disambig from the radical Nils Torvalds who declared “we may have to execute some-one” (unless they're the same person, in which case prepare for an epic shitstorm) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as central committee member of a decently large political party. Bearian (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, there is no encyclopedic material published about this person to substantiate a biography. JBsupreme (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Significant political figure in Finland. —SlamDiego←T 12:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Torvalds is notable both as a journalist and as a political figure. This is one of many good sources available in Finnish. Prolog (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to take it on faith that a Finnish language source confirms his notability, but if he's notable in Finnish he's notable here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real person with real career. Peltimikko (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • REMINDER This is not a vote people please explain the rationale for your motion to keep, based upon Wiki policy. Being a real person or taking someone elses word in good faith is not an acceptable reason for inclusion. JBsupreme (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Query: So if this discussion filled with Finns, directing our attention to articles in Finnish, the closer would him- or herself have to read Finnish? or could the closer just discount all those comments and delete? —SlamDiego←T 10:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Updated Torvalds is author of two books, television journalist from 1982, vice-chairperson of polical party, member of city council and candidate for European Parliament election. These merits should be enough. Peltimikko (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on apparent notability in Finland. Bradybd (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. R. Carrington[edit]

J. R. Carrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject does not appear to meet any of the WP:Pornbio criteria, nor otherwise achieve notability. The article has had a Notability tag affixed to it since September of 2008. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete This article has zero citations. The subject has apparently won no awards, and there is nothing to otherwise indicate any degree of even slight notability. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've already laid out why you feel it needs to be deleted, no need to repeat your rationale. Tabercil (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is not a accurate characterization of (some) of my recent activities. I am not attempting to "disrupt Wikipedia," nor am I attempting to "make a point." Rather, I am attempting to IMPROVE Wikipedia by getting worthless porn fandom spam articles properly deleted; that is not some abstract "point" I am attempting to "prove," but rather an action I am undertaking. And there's certainly no reason it should constitute a disruption. Regardless, the article's Nomination for Deletion should be judged on its own merits, and not judged on what people may or may not think about yours truly. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That article should probably be deleted as well, but I will leave that matter in the hands of those who are fluent in the language (Swedish?) in which it was written. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that Wikipedia can have generous criticism for notability for actors. They usually have great common interest and Wikipedia isn't limited space. They are usually easy to verify with imbd for example. Obelix (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point about fewer limitations in a paperless encyclopedia, however we must still retain some standards as to what is covered, and what is not. And not everyone in IMDB is notable, as I'm sure you'd agree. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we cannot have all actors on Wikipedia. But if you check imdb Carrington has acted in 74 movies and is then no small actor who has just acted one single role. If you have had such a big career as Carrington has had then he is absolutely worth to be seen as a famous actor by my means. Obelix (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing direct-to-video porn releases to "real movies" isn't very apt, in terms of demonstrating notability. None of those films are remotely notable, most are probably quite obscure, and all are undoubtedly out-of-print, and effectively unobtainable for many years. Comparing direct-to-video porn flicks to "real movies" is like comparing advertising circulars left on your automobile windshield to published novels. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As fails WP:PORNBIO and it has been tagged since Sept 2008 to provide better sourcing and none has been added to the article. It have been given more than enough time to demonstrate any notability. Quantpole (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails all recent iterations of WP:PORNBIO, no other indication of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has not been established that it meets the requirements ofWP:PORNBIO. Most porn stars make a large quantity of films, but that does not indicate quality or significance in the industry. She is not widely written about, for example, there are few biographical books or mainstream media interviews. Her legacy in the business is small [removed per BLP]. Her impact on the industry is non-existant. Lattefever (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever.[reply]
  • Delete does not present intersections of reliable independent secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:PORNBIO. 86.164.58.117 (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Every Country Is The United States[edit]

Not Every Country Is The United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research. The article has currently five sources, none of which mention the subject of the article (ie. the expression "Not every country is the United States"). The expression gets three Google hits, one of which is a Wikipedia mirror,[29] plus two more for "not every country is the US".[30] Nothing in News, Scholar and Books searches. If there are reliable sources that discuss this expression in detail, I sure don't know how to find them. Jafeluv (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and G7. This is more of a little essay and joke I wrote, and does not belong in mainspace. As the author of the article I support its removal. SimonTrew (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW it is in Bill Bryson's "Notes From A Big Country" (UK)/ "I'm A Stranger Here Myself" (US). But it is still, I think, inappropriate for article space. SimonTrew (talk)
  • Neutral. Having re-read the article, it seems not too badly written and the sources ARE valid (for passports etc). I was probably in too much of a hurry to say, yeah, delete. I am still not sure it belongs in article space but perhaps better to move it to a WP essay or something instead of just deleting? I can ref the Bryson book (I only have US version here but no doubt amazon search will get me the UK version) but since it was wikilinked and quite clearly stated the source of the quote I did not see the need for a separate ref for it, you only have to click the link. I know others think each article should stand on its own feet (and I had a big hand in writing the essay at WP:OWNFEET so can hardly complain) but also I worry sometimes that overlinking references on multiple articles makes it harder to maintain. SimonTrew (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially a violation of WP:OR. —SlamDiego←T 12:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with nomination. If I'm elected, every country will be. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable phrase. Contributions to Americocentrism cheerfully accepted, preferably in American dollars. No Euros or Canadian/Australian/British "dollars" please, kindly convert these at your national bank. Thank you. Mandsford (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable phrase, and some WP:OR. This could also invite a hundred other articles deriding the beliefs by inhabitants of other countries that the way they hold a knife and fork, or their pronunciations, or the way they treat women, or the way they worship or don't worship a god, are the correct or at least the best ones. Each country's beer, barbecue or baklava is far better than the poor imitations from other countries. Edison (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete foolish junk; neologism. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly an essay -- move to essay space or userspace. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh just let it go SPEEDY. It is not my neologism! At least User:Edison's comment was sensible. To me, the others simply reinforce the very point the article was trying to make. It does not belong in article namespace I perfectly agree with that, but it doesn't mean that it should die for not being sourced. I found sources for UK passport ownership (I hope you accept the formal record of the UK government is a reliable source?) for Canada and US passport ownership. There is some OR in there in the phrasing but nothing that cannot be worked on to scrub it up. I referenced the book and the quote, the proposer kindly wrote on my talk page to ask what and initially I said yeah I support it. I changed my mind and said neutral, hoping maybe it should move to essay space or whatever. But if the mood of others is to delete it, then let it go quickly. SimonTrew (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Read WP:SYNTH (a subsection of WP:OR). Your claim that others are somehow proving your point shows a decided failure to understand others on your part. —SlamDiego←T 23:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to essay space. This would make a fine Wikipedia essay, in keeping with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, but not an article. The phrase "Not every country is America" gets nearly a quarter of a million hits in Google, but only one in a book, and none in News or Scholar. Fences&Windows 23:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to essay space. What worries me about this article is that the author created it as a joke and as "a gentle nudge to some people who write US-centric articles". You're an editor with around six and a half thousand edits, and yet you created this article in the mainspace? Anyone who has done so many edits I would have thought would want to improve Wikipedia's reputation and not just add crap like this to it. Alan16 (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Perhaps this is a manifestation of the evident belief of some editors that the ordinary principles do not apply when one wishes to complain about Americans. —SlamDiego←T 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Comment I lived and worked in the US for two years and found everyone I met nothing but charming, helpfull and friendly. I also work for a US-based company, based in San Diego, and have to write in US English (as best I can). When I said I wrote it as a joke I did not mean entirely that, but that it was meant light-heartedly not to whack americans on the head. I can't believe this is causing this much fuss when the proposer politely asked in my user talk, I supported him, then changed my mind to neutral thinking perhaps it should move to essay space. SimonTrew (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: It doesn't belong in essay space either. America is not a peculiarly ignorant or insular nation, and thus not in peculiar need for reminder not to act in an insular or ignorant manner. Unless there are going to be about 140 other essays, for the other nations, this essay belongs where sun does not shine. What we really need is an essay that says No nation or nationality is fair game. —SlamDiego←T 03:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that rather weakens the point. The fact is that I checked up on the statistics for the proportions of North Americans against the UK whow own passports. Yes I could add other English-speaking countries if relevant. The phrase is there, I referenced the book. Your tone seems somewhat unnecessarily hostile, to me, as if you think I am an anti-american. While I agree with you that it should be "every country has its own views" or whatever that would water it down to be just stating the bleeding obvious. The point is that I have given stats that show that fewer than one in five Americans have ever had a passport. Either dispute that fact or accept it. The other comments in this room I can quite happily take at face value but I am feeling you just have a personal grudge now. Did I ever say all americans are ignorant? The closes I came is to say that they may not be aware of other cultures. That is not the same thing. SimonTrew (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To qualify, I have not referenced the book in the article. I have the reference ready to put in the article but did not want to touch the article while this discussion is going on, that is not fair on anyone. SimonTrew (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anyone asked that this be kept? All I see is delete !votes and one neutral, including a frank admission that this was a light-hearted essay of some sort. I get it, we all need to be more open-minded, let's close the discussion. Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge: Possible destinations for merging are: Americentrism and American exceptionalism Seb az86556 (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. We're not allowed to delete and merge content - mergers should always leave a redirect behind that preserves the edit history of the merged content. Jafeluv (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless of the exact route, I think the best thing is to delete it but before it is done I move it to my user space and then see if there is any useful content of the article I can add into one of other of those. Thanks for being constructive. SimonTrew (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Speedy delete. Hoax page billinghurst (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hoogz[edit]

Nick Hoogz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First, the article is a total violation of the BLP guidelines. It seems to be the subject of mostly undetected vandalism but even the original article has serious problems. Second, notability: I can find a facebook entry about a Nick Hoogz but that's about it. (Originally this article was about a man, but about a month ago it was changed to being about a women.) Sophitessa (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja247 10:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Kidd[edit]

DJ Kidd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication it meets the criteria for musicians. Speedy removed by a likely sockpuppet and PROD removed by article creator. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • hey, I'm just a fan... I really do not think this page should be deleted. A lot of fans from facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/DJ-Kidd/55124384977?ref=ts would be glad to help edit this page and get it on context. Some details are a bit off track, but can be easily edited, right? DJ kidd, that is, Ryan Kidd, has deserved an honor as such! He makes brilliant music. Note, the youtube channel linked on that article is the new channel. His previous channel was deleted by himself. He still has many views. Please reconsider the deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachael1980 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep The nominator seems not to know what they're doing. I advise those asking for deletion that fixing the article at this point might be better than deleting when there isn't any consensus to delete. Nate • (chatter) 06:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Rachel1980's edit the first in the history then? I was going by the assumption that she was the nominator and there was some kind of conflict that somehow spilled out onto AfD. This nomination should be closed and a clear AfD for this article with proper reasoning should be created. Nate • (chatter) 08:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rachel1980 (talk · contribs) created this AfD at 05:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC). This was 10 minutes after 98.248.32.178 (talk · contribs) placed an AfD tag on the article at 05:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (leaving a red-link to this AfD) and added a rationale to Talk:DJ Kidd at 05:16, 5 August 2009. Rachel1980 created this page after seeing the red link on DJ Kidd. This then enabled 98.248.32.178 to add a nomination statement to this AfD.[reply]

    A new AfD should not be started the nomination statement by 98.248.32.178 is valid, and I fully endorse it. Cunard (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank You I would like help in trying to edit this page and fix it. Maybe contact can be made to Kidd? thank you. --Musiclovers00 (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just spoke to the author, and she had no clue what she did. She thought it was an alert for you to talk to you. And I think I removed the speedy, I was told I am able to as I was a fan. All fans have been notified of page on wiki.. that being near 900. Can you enlighten more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachael1980 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - A7 Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. A Google News Archive search returns results about unrelated individuals. The subject of this article was born in 1991, while a number of the articles in Google News were published before that date. The article asserts no notability, so it should be speedy deleted under A7. Cunard (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep I have search google, as well as other places, even references, and yes, there is little/no notability of this individual. But I did pass onto the facebook page, and there is a notable gathering of fans to this figure. The youtube channel noted in the article is also valid with music under copyyright. Also, I took it up as just curiousity to learn news in his cliamed nationality. The country of Trinidad honours him as a top music producer and assistant to artist. I've learnt that there are written public articles in presses, and concerts have been held by him in clubs. The article written here is very poor, and I believe we should so more investigating to find more on the individual. There seeems to be a good bit to write on him than is written, and facts should be taken in. I opt we keep, but request more information and editing by the viewers. --Lionelisbest (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional Again, I have reason to believe that news of that country is scarcely ever placed on a large scale as the US and UK. Though, fame in Trinidad and Tobago is not known to the US and UK and Europe, it is known is bits of states and the Caribbean. My belief is, due to the lack of being a 1st world nation, this individual will suffer notice when it comes to searching google news, if I'm not mistaken. The debate of this page should also keep in mind, that though not an international superstar, he may be a national megastar? I think we ought to keep this page based on this: the benifit of the country itself. This may serve to lift news from there later on. The people on Trinidad and Tobago may want to learn more on him, and, my belief again, isn't wiki all on learning? We may learn big, but would not want to know, right? But they however, they would want to know more on him. It should either be kept, or debted further. And I do hope no one spams this... even the author. The template aboves states it is not majority. It is a factual debate. So please, do not try to ask people to help. Thank you. --Lionelisbest (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Can you provide reliable sources for any articles written about him? Facebook, myspace, youtube etc are not reliable sources. They need to be independent third party sources - bear in mind they do not have to be internet sources, but should be verifiable. Thanks Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • ResponseYes there is a number of articles on the figure, however, not sourced by google. I have been to Trinidad (it being part of my acestory) and I do have contacts. After viewing the article and AfD, I request a friend to find out more in Trinidad. THe local magazines do source on the DJ/Musician, however, most articles carry his previous name, Ryan Tilluck. I have request a few digital copies. There are articles also in weekly, not daily, but weekly newspapers. Also, I am still yet to find the fact on it, but local television programs and news air his music for theme, but I am yet to get the truth, as i said. I will try to source more and obtain digital copies. I believe this DJ is also a big name in Trinidad Carnival, if you know what that is? He has been known to head and found a number of bands for the event. I will try to obtain more reliable sources, and hope the admins will permit me the time to do so? You can comment back if you do seek more. --Lionelisbest (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. I am from Trinidad and I'm pretty sure I've never heard of him. I consider myself very knowledgeable in the Trinidad Music/Carnival Scene; this guy is not notable in those arenas. The article itself has nothing encyclopedic (which doesn't matter for an Afd but just saying). For example information about his SEA (Secondary Entrance Assessment Examination) results do not belong on Wikipedia; that exam is the equivalent of the SATs in the US at the middle school level. All the content is a stretch to bypass a speedy delete. The article doesn't even have real notability claims that warrant much further investigation. I'm a inclusionist but this really is a simple delete. --  R45  talk! 07:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that is odd. I'm 50-50 trini, and I have heard of this individual. Also, based on WP:MUSIC, it is said only to require ONE of the criterias, and he seems to cover just a few, and in my opinion as an editor, a few that can stand through the AfD. I am not sure of your sources, but I am of mine, all of whom, (with the exception of one chutney loving local), are aware of this individual, and he is known as a Space La Nouba, Hi RPM and Sting DJ at times (local clubs). He also has been noted as one of few suppliers for personal beats required for carshow soundoff events. He does as sufficient notability to keep. My opinion and view has not changed as yet, and I doubt it shall. --Lionelisbest (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. good discussion, but no prevailing consensus Nja247 10:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local channel availability on Dish Network and DirecTV[edit]

Local channel availability on Dish Network and DirecTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a violation of CSD G11, but I'm not sure enough for it to go to CSD, so I'm bringing it here for conversation. Looks like blatant advertsing for Dish Network and DirecTV but I could be wrong. Frmatt (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This will be a side-by-side comparison of high definition and standard definition local channel availability on Dish Network and DirecTV. It will take a very long time to complete because there are 210 media markets in the United States and there are many different sources to gather the information. It may not appear that there are sources on the article, but I can assure everyone that at some point there will be lots of sources, but it will take some time. There is no "magic" source of all local channel availability on Dish and Direct, so I am posting the new link on the Dish Network and DirecTV article and I'm asking people to expand on it with as much knowledge as possible. Kingofdawild166 (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2009

  • Keep that it will take a long time to finish is not a reason against starting. We normally consider lists of stations in a network encyclopedic ,and this is just a slight extension of that. We have List of DirecTV channels, for example. It will need updating frequently, but so do many media articles. A TV guide is a list of programs in detail for specific days. DGG (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Having considered Kingofdawild and DGG's comments, I'm actually hoping that I can withdraw this nomination as I wasn't fully aware that we had lists like this. If there is an admin who could tell me if this is possible (and if so, how to do it) then I'd greatly appreciate it! Frmatt (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SuperPower[edit]

SuperPower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete- Fails WP:N and WP:V. Only sources are a fansite and a page that links to eBay and Amazon. Essentially a fancruft article about an obscure computer game. Worldruler20 (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Romeo Miller#Music career. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The College Boy[edit]

The College Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL; only source comes form a YouTube video but no other sources (ex. label, third-party); redirect until further information is released Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 02:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. overall consensus to delete as cited policy and/or guidelines by those opposed to deletion did not hold up to scrutiny Nja247 10:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Roger Currie[edit]

Alan Roger Currie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable subject with only trivial third party coverage. it reads more like advertising than a biography. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article, Currie, is the one who created it. Not to mention that this person is not notable. This article should be deleted.--Davidwiz (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Davidwiz is expressing speculation and opinions as fact, which makes his assertions invalid. Same with Theserialcomma. Alan Roger Currie is a popular and well-respected book author and dating & relationships expert. He has been interviewed in a number of newspapers and on various radio shows. He has been quoted in Essence magazine and will soon be featured in Black Enterprise magazine, and these are both noteworthy publications. Currie should remain included in Wikipedia without question or debate.--Chicago Smooth (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alan should not be deleted because he is famous among many places and people who are not as familiar with him can come on this page and find out more interesting information about him. He is not a minor person because lots of people know him and he also hosts his own talkshow --thekezz (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to delete Alan's page then why not Neil Strauss, David DeAngelo, or Zan Perrion? Alan fits in right well with these guys—just with a far different philosophy, I bet you guys didn't even know Alan interviewed Zan Perrion. What sets him apart from almost every "guru" out there is that he advocates complete honesty and straightforward communication. Now, don't you think for the average internet user who types in Alan Roger Currie and/or Mode One would want to get a nutshell of who and what he does? Better yet, have his philosophy connected with the rest of the (mostly) dishonest seduction community. In my book, he is notable. Maybe you guys haven't noticed it yet, he is by far one of the most legit dating and relationship authors out there. And another thing, what defines "notable" too? Just because you haven't heard about him doesn't mean you should delete him off while plenty of people from around the world (not just the US) are hearing and learning from him. By the way, last time I checked, Mr. Currie's name has been rising pretty fast. Did you even see him on The Morning Show with Mike & Juliet? YouTube that up, you'll see. Who knows where his name will be next year, all I know for sure is, it will be more around than before. Let him be, just let him be. --Entirelybe (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to delete Alan's page then why not Neil Strauss, David DeAngelo, or Zan Perrion? Fine idea! When can we start? --Calton | Talk 03:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Roger Currie, the author of the book Mode One - Let the women know what your REALLY thinking has been a great benefit to my interactions with the opposite sex ( as he has done with plenty of other men ). His book is well known and the author deserves this credit. As much as other famous authors of dating books do. point. --arvindautar (talk) 0:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - this AFD needs more SPAs and COIs. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:AUTHOR criteria 1. Anyone who is familiar with the Attraction & Seduction Community or the Dating and Relationships genre of book authors and experts knows who Alan Roger Currie is; criteria 2. This is probably Currie's most valid criteria; He is well-known internationally for creating "The Four Modes of Verbal Communication"; Most of the dating experts and seduction gurus featured on Wikipedia promote tactics which are misleading or manipulative; Currie was probably the first dating expert and seduction guru to promote the idea of upfront, straightforward honesty with women [[31]]; Currie's Wikipedia page has existed now for probably two or three years. Currie has done nothing but gain even more credibility since the page was originally created. If you delete Currie's Wiki page, then you might as well delete the pages of Tariq Nasheed, Zan Perrion, David DeAngelo, and just about any other 'expert' or 'guru' in the dating and relationships field. If editing is what needs to be done, then that is what should be done. But there is no valid reason for deletion. Chicago Smooth (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS and WP:N before assuming the criteria has been met. i can't speak about the other articles mentioned because i haven't read them, but if they don't pass wikipedia's notability guidelines listed at WP:N, then they could be deleted also. also, please read WP:COI and explain why you claim to be a "close friend" of the article subject, and told another editor to email you at the article subject's "public relations" email address [[32]] Theserialcomma (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, you cannot have all of these guys on Wikipedia from the infamous Seduction Community and not have Alan Roger Currie on here to provide balance and contrast to these men. Currie is most notable for being against the deceptive, misleading and manipulative tactics that most Seduction Community guys teach and promote. This is why his presence on here is so important and relevant. If the Seduction Community guys weren't on here so prominently, then I wouldn't defend Currie's presence on here maybe as much. Currie's "Mode One" book is revolutionary in the field of approaching, attracting and seducing women. Currie is known as the "Anti-Manipulation" guy among his fans and loyal followers. I've followed every editing suggestion that has been recommended to me. I don't see why this is even still an issue. Chicago Smooth (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, no, and no. You cannot use the word 'notable' in the common usage sense and think that is in any way compatible with wikipedia's usage of the word. They don't mean the same thing at all, and WP:N explains wikipedia's use of it. Per wikipedia's definition of notable, it is irrelevant what other articles have or don't have (we don't judge keep or delete one article based on other articles), and it's also irrelevant how the article's subject feels about deception, manipulation, approaching, or attracting (this is not relevant to WP:N, the criterion for an article's inclusion in WP.) This is not a question of whether Currie is good at what he does -- I am sure he is -- but it is a question of WP:N and WP:RS, two strict policies of Wikipedia. Please read them again and then add some responses that address the fact that he is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Remember, Wikipedia's definition of Notability is a criterion of whether an article should be included or deleted, not about someone's fame, skills, or anything like that. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than sufficient evidence in Alan Roger Currie's credentials and background that validly warrants him the title of "notable"; He is the author of two books; He has been featured in newspapers and magazines; He has been on three or four television talk shows; If you Google his name, he has probably 20+ pages of hits; He has a popular talk radio show where he interviews numerous dating experts and book authors; I mean, the real question is, what about his article and page is NOT notable. He more than meets the Wikipedia criteria for a notable and relevant entry. Chicago Smooth (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
did you read WP:N? the fact that you mentioned his credentials and background tells me that you haven't read it. it's very important for you to understand that for him to be notable (by WP's standards, not the normal definition of 'notable'), he must have third party coverage per wp:RS. this is non-negotiable and not relevant to his credentials, background, or google hits. See WP:RS and feel free to add the reliable sources to the article. if you add third party, reliable sources to the article, then his notability will be shown. nothing else will work Theserialcomma (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Roger Currie is an expert on dating and relationships who has appeared on various radios and Tv Networks. His book ModeOne has become a best seller in the field and has been quoted by many other known figures in this genre. Furthermore, Alan has his own famous radio shows where he hosts interviews with known and very respected authors, therapists, actors, other dating experts. On the contrary, I believe that Alan Roger Currie's wiki page should be more elaborate and updated on a regular basis as he is a very productive personality in his endeavours and projects.--nohadra (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - hard not to be distracted by the SPAs and possible socks, but this one fails on the actual notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I hunted around for references outside of press releases in reliable sources, and found none. Most of the first ten or so Google results pages are listings for his books for sale, mentions of podcasts, and things; nothing there establishes notability. To the new editors who are arriving to debate this nomination: please recognize that your personal testimony regarding the effectiveness of the author's methods mean nothing to Wikipedia; we need reliable sources to affirm that the subject meets our notability guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage (listed in the article), is 4 newspaper and magazine articles, which aren't novels, but neither are they single-paragraph blurbs. That meets Wikipedia:Notability. --GRuban (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment they are trivial mentions, as far as i can tell. i don't think that qualifies as significant. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment this mention in Guatemala's Prensa Libre is by no means trivial [[33]] Chicago Smooth (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
response -- actually, yes it is trivial; the guy's quoted for one whole paragraph. You don't seem to understand the concept of "substantial coverage" here. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability doesn't do a very good job of defining "trivial" (it just says a 1-sentence mention is trivial and a 360 page book isn't), but in my experience at AFD, "trivial" usually means a few sentences, a paragraph, a directory listing. These articles are dedicated to the guy and his books. The Post-Tribune articles aren't on the newspaper's site any more, but here are archives from Highbeam. [34] [35] Here are two articles from the San Francisco Examiner that are still online. [36] [37] The newspapers are reliable sources and the articles are not trivial mentions. --GRuban (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
would you consider a few mentions to be substantial coverage? no one is doubting he exists, and has been mentioned. but substantial coverage? most of it is trivial, and beyond that, i don't see any that's substantial. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is the most influential expert on direct game.Assanova (talk) 28:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-published books, not much media coverage, no reviews of the books in mainstream media. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I make no vote because I'm not the best judge of a source being reliable, but I would urge voting editors to examine the sources honestly rather than react to the "crime" of someone writing their own wikipedia article. Doing so is not forbidden by WP:COI, despite the common belief that it is. I would also strongly urge User:Chicago Smooth to come clean on being Alan Roger Currie, and to familiarize himself with wikipedia's policy on Conflicts of Interest. McJEFF (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
response - I am not Alan Roger Currie, but I have had e-mail exchanges with the author and we've interacted on various blogs and message boards. I've already acknowledged that I am a fan of his and own both of his books. He is aware of my activities on Wikipedia and he is very much aware of this issue and debate regarding the validity of his page. --Chicago Smooth Talk 20:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm not seeing COI being used as a deletion reason, that "warning" seems pretty pointless; indeed, it seems counterproductive in attributing motivation where none is evident. --Calton | Talk 03:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-published books, little media coverage other than self-promotion, etc. WP exists to document notability, not promote it. If the members of the so-called Seduction Community need the advice, let them rent their own webhost and high-five each other there. --Calton | Talk 03:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obvious hoaxes are vandalism. It strikes me as quite implausible that a video game that made the claims made in this article would be unknown to Google, but there you have it. The image seems to have been made as part of a joke on the Something Awful forums. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible Grizzly Bears[edit]

Incomprehensible Grizzly Bears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a blatant hoax page. See http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3180919&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post364072214 and http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3181662 Madlobster (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G7) by R'n'B at 17:20, 5 August 2009. (NAC) Greg Tyler (t • c) 16:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PowerShow[edit]

PowerShow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing unfinished nom that nobody could be arsed to fix. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What was the point of completing this when the AfD template was added by an anon IP who didn't actually write a nomination? There's nothing to discuss. For what it's worth, I'd say this looks like a pretty clear A7 Speedy Delete anyway. --LP talk 05:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to CrystalGraphics. This may just be promotional junk, it may not, but one way to make sure a good article is never written is to keep slamming a new user with tags beginning one minute after she begins writing an article. WP:BITE issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This IP completed as much of the nom as they were able and requested that somebody else create this particular page after the SPEEDY tag was removed, without comment, by a likely sock/meatpuppet. All of which is now moot, as the creator has blanked the page. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Wingrove[edit]

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

Unremarkable lighting designer per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CREATIVE, unreferenced, can find nothing online establishing notability. Per Ardua (talk) 22:53, 29 July 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) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. JJL (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources - Whpq (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion King: Six New Adventures[edit]

The Lion King: Six New Adventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable book set. Fails WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, no reviews, no awards, nothing. Article is nothing but a list of the books, an OR-laden lead, no sources, and excessive non-free images. At best, a 1-2 sentence in The Lion King noting several book adaptations were released. Disney releases dozens, of these story style books for their films. It isn't a new or unique thing and unlikely to ever receive significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 19:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazon and other online booksellers are enough to meet WP:V, and the books are clearly part of a notable franchise, so the best I can see is a merge per WP:NNC. However, since a merge is an editorial decision, Keep is the logical result. I note that no redirect or merging was attempted before nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs) 15:06, July 30, 2009
Its existence isn't a reason to keep it, and really, I see no need to merge or redirect it. As noted, "at best" a mention in the film article might be useful, but generally most of the Disney film articles don't mention all these little books. Its being worthy of mention in the actual film article is an editorial decision, and as it is a good article, but doesn't mention it, it seems no one at the main felt it notable or relevant enough to mention beyond some see also links which have since been removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:23, 30 July 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) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely no reliable sources, despite Jclemens' very unconvincing "but, but, but it exists! surely it must be notable" argument. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm usually an inclusionist, but I've done some pretty thorough searching for sources and there don't seem to be any to be found. The closest I can find are press releases about the book release, which is certainly nothing that indicates notability... — Hunter Kahn (c) 13:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I join TenPoundHammer's comment in its entirety.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was '. merged by AlisonW Nja247 10:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subcontrabass guitar[edit]

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

Does this even exist? Searching Google, I mostly only find Wikipedia mirrors. ANDROS1337 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A google search for ""subcontrabass guitar" -wiki -wikipedia" lead mostly to dictionary sites saying more or less the same thing that's in the article. However, I did find one possibly reliable source. [38]. It is third party, appears to be reliable, and it has a picture of a man holding a subcontrabass guitar in it, which at least verifies that it exists. McJEFF (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into bass guitar. Subcontrabass guitars certainly exist, but aren't a standardized instrument. They are generally one-offs done by custom shops. I can't find much in the way of reliable sourcing either.—Kww(talk) 17:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merged into Bass guitar tuning. 'Subcontrabass' isn't a particular type of guitar, just of tuning (per article), so added to the more appropriate article. --AlisonW (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Curran[edit]

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

Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at fully-professional level of football. Lack of non-trivial significant third-party sources means he also fails the general notability guidelines at WP:GNG. Also fails WP:N. --Leagueofireland (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be a full time professional per [39]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is a notable player competing for one of the top clubs in the notable Northern Irish League Eldumpo (talk) 20:53, 31 July 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) 00:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, a full-time pro Delete Keep Spiderone (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being a full-time pro isn't enough - WP:ATHLETE dictates that you have to play in a full-time pro league, which this player does not! GiantSnowman 12:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a source that he has played in a professional European comp? GiantSnowman 09:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He came on as a substitute in the away match. He also played in both games of a CL qualifier against Elfsborg two years ago.[40] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case I'll change my vote to keep. GiantSnowman 10:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. hat notes are there on each of those pages JForget 01:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Padsha Wazir (disambiguation)[edit]

Padsha Wazir (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominate for deletion This article contains the primary page, Padsha Wazir, and only one other entry, which is transliterated differently. Whether they are transliterated the same or similar, this would still be an unnecessary dab as there is a hatnote on each directly to the other - this dab is therefore of no benefit. The reasons given for the prod removal were because I had not written my reasons for the prod well, so it was removed because it may have been based on the misconception that these two were unrelated names. This isn't the case - if they were transliterated the same on here, this would still have been nominated for deletion. Boleyn3 (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand, you want to delete a DISAMBIG page because there's already a "To see the..." template at the top of each page? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A valid disambiguation page should have at least three entries to disambiguate among. When there are only two, the preferred method is to have hatnotes on both articles pointing to the other. WP:DAB. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A valid dab with a primary topic should have at least three entries. A valid dab with no primary topic only needs two entries. It doesn't change the outcome of this AfD (there is a primary topic, Padsha Wazir). -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:51, 5 August 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) 00:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with the improvements made even though some areas are a little bit messy JForget 23:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate covered potato chips[edit]

Chocolate covered potato chips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Non-notable treat. The one reference in the article is actually an unwanted spam link to one company that makes this. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. — Sdub34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  2. — Kewingk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  3. — Bodj2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  4. — Saberhr1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  5. — Gr8launch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No references exist for this page. This item is more notable than many of the more obscure items listed on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdub34 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom, no references. Triplestop x3 01:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No refs. Poorly written. Not notable? (Unrelated:chocolate covered potato chips sound disgusting IMHO) TheWeakWilled 02:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously there are those who are clearly ignorant to certain foods or products, therefore from their ignorance make opinions or claims, which based on their ignorance, should be discounted in this discussion. Making opinions as to notability based on your opinion is not grounds for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdub34 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of available sources is grounds for deletion, however. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. WP ha no criteria for foods wether they are appealing to a certian user or not. I was just showing my support for the article being deleted. TheWeakWilled 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad article is here, because I wanted to know if they were made of actual potatoes, and I learned they were. Isn't learning the objective here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewingk (talk • contribs) 03:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes; however, the question you were asking is already answered in Potato chip. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I wanted to know about chocolate covered potato chips, that's what I typed, not just potato chip. That's like saying to find out about candy corn, one would type in just corn...no they would start with candy corn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewingk (talk • contribs) 04:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless citations are going to be added. Possibly better as a sub-section of potato chip. Doniago (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that there is even enough notability for that. Everything on google shows recipies or where to buy it. Nothing about history or anything like that TheWeakWilled 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Not many sources referring to the target of the article. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 03:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kewingk and Bodj2 are possible sockpuppets of the user who created the article, for their first edit was this page. Just warning everyone. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 04:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey now, this just happened to be the first one listed when I visited the articles for deletion page. I had to wiki 'sockpuppet' to figure out what it was. Can't speak for the other person, but I am simply disagreeing with the deletion arguments. But I'm not sure this was appropriate for you to make an public accusation like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewingk (talk • contribs) 05:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThat's the beauty of Wikipedia is you can find out about a lot of things you can't in an encyclopedia, and the reasons above seem to want Wikipedia to be just another 'incomplete' resource. In addition, I'm guessing many of the admins here are males, thus are not familiar with gourmet cooking clubs, where certain items like chocolate covered potato chips are a cult favorite. — Bodj2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced and bordering on spam. --DAJF (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Keep now that article is compliant. --DAJF (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep..for now. I don't see spam here, no link and no advertising going on. Does have one source cited in text, so maybe ask author to repeat citation in reference section, and also to remove extra space before last paragraph.Saberhr1 (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic, fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepUnique food product with many fans, especially chocolate fans. Chocolate chip cookie is listed, this should be too.Gr8launch (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. For this argument to be valid, you have to credibly show that the total worldwide sales of chocolate-covered potato chips is at least on the same level as those of chocolate-chip cookies in terms of weight. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This appears to be a unique treat, has some fans, has over 12,000 Ghits, and sounds downright delicious, but it does not seem to be notable enough for its own article, unlike coffee beans, bacon, raisins, or peanuts, or even marshmallow treats. I also found about a dozen News ghits, so it can be verified with reliable sources, but some were duplicates. I'll take a crack at rescue. If deleted, perhaps it can be merged into Confectionary. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up - I have added cites, quote, and information. I think this can be rescued. It might need to be moved to Chocolate-covered potato chips. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User Bearian has completely updated the article. Please reset the discssion from this new baseline. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (boggles) Color me impressed. I'll change my vote for that. Doniago (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Keep per changes made by Bearian, but given the number of outstanding Deletes, I will not withdraw my nomination. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep lots of soruces, etc. Looks good to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Changing my vote from delete to KEEP, for th article shows some notability. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep now that it has been improved. TheWeakWilled 20:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many reliable sources. Good to see the article rescued. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 09:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references now there meet all requirements for an article in the suggested guidelines. Dream Focus 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - I tip my hat to the article rescue squad for this one. Article is now substantially improved over how it was at the time of nomination, as such I think this AfD no longer apply's since it is essentially a different article -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 20:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears that every mentioned problem has been fixed. The reference/citation problem is gone, the readability is up to par, and notability...well that's just subjective. --Scouto2 (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Re-written article is a great example of why pages should be tagged for rescue before they're AfDed. These tasty treats are clearly notable per the rewritten article. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the chippers weren't notable before, they now seem to be. The article can use some more work, but it should survive AfD. Geoff T C 20:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not encyclopedic.--camr nag 20:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical exploration[edit]

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

Reads like an original synthesis. Delete or stubify.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, personal essay. JIP | Talk 04:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify, impossible to tell what it's actually saying; a stub might actually say something
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SVTC Technologies[edit]

SVTC Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:ORG. It fails WP:CORP. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, obvious advertising: The company business model focuses on novel process development and offers services in Commercialization, Analytical Services, Wafer Services and Solar Services, operating under the slogan, “Concept to Commercialization.” - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: spam, unclear notability. Hairhorn (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of WP:N. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rathole tunnel[edit]

Rathole tunnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no evidence that this term is used in this way. Any uses I can find seem to be simply a metaphor for a cramped tunnel, not one that specifically gets filled with locomotive fumes. NE2 00:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as a gsearch indicates the term was indeed used in this way, and it may be a notable concept [41], [42], [43]. JJL (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your first link is about a road tunnel. The second just uses it as a metaphor for a tunnel, with no indication that it's one of the tunnels described by our article. The third similarly describes a line with a lot of tunnels, but there's no evidence of it having fume problems. --NE2 01:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Andrew Duffell (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just appears to be a made up article, more convinced if it had references to each of the tunnels being commonly refered to as Rathole tunnels rather than WP:OR. MilborneOne (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term appears genuine but could easily be covered in the article on tunnels. The list is just another unencyclopaedic list of examples. Everything's unsourced. Maybe make it a category, instead? Dricherby (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." 81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the term may appear to be valid, it is not clear from many of the examples what it describes. Lacking reliable sources for the meaning of the term, the article needs to go as WP:OR. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_5&oldid=1142645562"