Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 14

< 13 December	15 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A10. Blatant hoax WP:CSD#G3 would have done as well, given that it was copy-pasted from Nail (fastener). JohnCD (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slumgullion nail[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a blatant hoax as such, until you look at the sources cited or try to search for this term. Does not exist. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if not a hoax, it's made up in one day. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have no idea what the author was trying to accomplish here, but most of the text was copy-pasted from Nail (fastener). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion under A10. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icewedge (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose J. Russell[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...but meets general notability guidelines.--kelapstick (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 23:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm seeing a good amount of secondary source coverage. Books, more, News, more, Scholar, more. Cirt (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Cirt. Cs-wolves (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Jovi Album Discography (Extended)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

duplicates information already present in the Bon Jovi discography any other information in unsourced and from WP:BADCHARTS. This article should be deleted and any valuable sourced information be merged into the proper discography. Mister sparky (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useless, info can be found in Bon Jovi discography --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; mostly redundant information. Any reliably-sourced material not already in Bon Jovi discography can be merged there. Gongshow ^Talk 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, mostly redundant information. Langdon (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. - eo (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Bon Jovi discography - it seems that all the information included in the above article could be included in the normal discography, there is no need for an extended version. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 03:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - any important information not included in Bon Jovi discography should be added to that article, and this one should be deleted. I don't see any reason why we need two articles covering essentially the same thing. Cocytus [»talk«] 17:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Canfield[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Non-notable ice hockey player/owner/coach that fails WP:ATHLETE. Biggest claim to fame is being signed as an emergency back-up in the ECHL a couple times, where he sat on the bench. Insufficient third-party coverage to pass WP:GNG. Grsz¹¹ 15:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Grsz¹¹ 15:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Grsz¹¹ 15:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for listing this. Per ATHLETE, does his role as head coach and/or as part owner confer notability, or would it just be if he'd made an actual appearance as a player? --Dweller (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He fails ATHLETE as a player (as the leagues are not "fully professional"). As a owner/head coach he is involved with very minor league and junior teams and I don't feel that there is sufficient coverage to make him notable in that position. Grsz¹¹ 15:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And presumably you'd argue there's insufficient in the references to constitute general notability for the chap? --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's accurate. Take out all the trivial mentions (atleast 10 "Transactions" articles, etc.) and there isn't much left. Grsz¹¹ 15:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played in the SPHL which is a fully professional league. He meets WP:ATHLETE. His time in the ECHL also qualifies him to meet WP:ATHLETE. As long as he was on the bench a goalie is considered to have played. Slightly different than a player who has to touch the ice. And as far as I am aware the MAHL is also a fully professional league. So its a pretty clear cut case of meeting the requirement. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I believe the argument I've heard of what qualifies as fully professional is a sustaining income. I think this article helps eliminate the MAHL from that level. They aren't professional hockey players, just part-time. Grsz¹¹ 22:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah thats is how I usually think of it, however to be technical its any league where a player is paid to play and does not cover part of the expenses themselves. ie not semi-pro. But the line at which you consider not able to make a living is very blurry. I would bet the players in these leagues are making no less than people who are living off mcdonalds wages for example.-DJSasso (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the Internet Hockey Database isn't always reliable, the ECHL keeps online statistical records from 1992 on, and its season-ending stats PDF for the 2007 season registers Canfield as "playing" three games. [1] Ravenswing 18:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete: Bleh, Mkativerata got me, the more so in that I'm the author of that notability criteria. Oops. Ravenswing 22:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have to note that part of our notability standards are written to determine who to write and who not to write an article for. While the guideline is to not write an article for a minor leaguer until they have played 5 seasons, or 100 games, it is not necessarily the final word in notability if the article already exists. The player satisfies WP:ATHLETE by having played at least 1 game in a fully professional league, and that in itself makes him notable. -Pparazorback (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails these criteria for Ice Hockey notability miserably: notability requires 100 matches or 5 seasons in a fully professional minor league. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Persuaded by the arguments above, notably the lack of professionalism at this level. --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEUTRAL: He passes WP:ATHLETE with a couple apparent appearances in the ECHL and SPHL, but just barely. ccwaters (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has played in a fully professional league. Even though the standards have said 5 years or 100 games, we have several players who have survived afd with at least 1 appearance in leagues such as the ECHL. As such, I would endorse keeping this article due to prior precedence. -Pparazorback (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He passes WP:ATHLETE, which to me trumps the projects criteria. Patken4 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails criteria noted above. Wizardman 22:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which criteria might that be? He passes WP:ATHLETE since he played in a fully professional league. -DJSasso (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As much as I find the software interesting, it lacks the coverage for an article. Feel free to recreate if WP:RS are found. ffm is now L Faraone 21:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neo4j[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails the WP:GNG Polarpanda (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Got some conference play: http://en.oreilly.com/oscon2009/public/schedule/detail/8364 --Cybercobra (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Structured storage, where it has an entry in the table. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if "conference play" conferred notability outside the trade, it seems clear that the presentation was made by company staff. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but my guess is they didn't let every Tom, Dick, and Harry give a presentation, some vetting was probably involved. Thought admittedly I didn't look deeply into it to verify that. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if a single presentation at a single conference had something to do with notability it would still be a single source. We want to see multiple sources. The vetting involved in many conferences is often paid sponsorships or just paying to use the conference room. There is no notability presented here. Miami33139 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just updated the page to make it comply better with Wikipedia standards, and at least give some hints regarding notability. The Neo4j team never paid anything to get accepted at conferences, and you can't even apply for presenting at QCon and JAOO, they invite interesting community projects. Neo4j has been presented at more than 10 conferences, also by people that are not part of the team. Nawroth (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep neo4j is notable: http://news.oreilly.com/2008/07/neo4j-a-different-kind-of-data.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.85.173 (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks like a blog to me. Polarpanda (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Conference presentations are not independent of the topic, so if you are using them as a test of notability (which does seem reasonable) you aren't following the GNG. Polarpanda (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no question this is a notable project. It's been under development for many years, is very well known in the NoSQL community. They have just received $2.5M in funding, which is notable in and of itself and which was widely reported (e.g. http://www.techcrunchit.com/2009/10/27/neo-technology-commercializes-next-generation-graph-based-database/). The CEO has also attended and spoken at the invitation-only O'Reilly Foo Camp. Foo Camp is independent of the topic of databases, or any particular technology. To be invited is a high honor and mark of excellence. Tim O'Reilly is an advocate of Neo4j and its founder. Terrycojones (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- VC funding and reporting on it is routine business and isn't notable. This may be approaching notability, but it isn't there now. Miami33139 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't fathom why anyone would consider deleting this reference. Neo4J represents a new and very fascinating alternative to conventional data stores that MUCH better fits the real world. Part of the challenge the technology faces is awareness, and Wikipedia represents a great location for knowledge sharing in the area of graph model database and specific technologies (and their histories/origins/status) that implement these very exciting approaches to a problem that most people do not even know they have, because they follow the herd into RDBMS-land or Hadoop-ville. I can only assume that those desiring to delete these entry have commercial/competitive reasons to do so. Let the world know about Neo4J!!! RickBullotta (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC) — RickBullotta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- WP:VALINFO --Cybercobra (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any commercial/competitive reasons behind the request to delete the page. It's only people trying to ensure high quality for Wikipedia, which is fine with me. I just happen to disagree regarding the notability of Neo4j. Nawroth (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neo4J seems to be a very interesting technology, one of which I intend to recommend to my government clients. They also received some very good publicity at the NoSQLEast Conference in Atlanta GA (https://nosqleast.com/2009/#speaker/eifrem) CScyphers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC). — Cscyphers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep If Graph (data structure) are valid concepts, so should graph databases be, enabling the modeling and usage of graphs in production systems. Neo4j is the most widely known and used real Graph DB with real ACID. It is solving a big number of real-life problems that otherwise just stay in Academics and and research projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerthirst123 (talk • contribs) — Powerthirst123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Just want to add that Neo4j was mentioned in the NoSQL section of the article InfoWorld's top 10 emerging enterprise technologies. Nawroth (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite good, but it still doesn't pass the GNG. Perhaps info on Neo4j can be added to the list at NoSQL. Polarpanda (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's one thing I don't really get regarding the request to delete the Neo4j page. I've looked into the Wikipedia pages of a few other NoSQL projects, and according to Wikipedia standards they all show different problems. Some of them are tagged for one or more deficiencies, while others are not. But not a single one is tagged for deletion, only for improvement. So I'd be happy to know what makes Neo4j stand out among pages like Redis, MongoDB, Mnesia, Cassandra, Chordless, Voldemort, Hypertable, HBase, Db4o and make it considered for deletion and not improvement! Actually the NoSQL page has its issues as well, the coverage that is independent of the topic has to be minimal and there's almost no references. Nawroth (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a volunteer project and somebody saw this one and marked it. That is the way Wikipedia works. Unless someone is on purpose browsing this topic looking for problem articles, the others will remain un-noticed until somebody else sees it and either fixes it or nominates it. You are a volunteer too. You can tag for fixing or nominate these articles when you see them. Miami33139 (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - My point was more about pages getting tagged differently. Sure the Neo4j page needs a lot of work, references need to be put in place etc. But what would make the Neo4j page a hopeless case (per the deletion guidlines) while the others I listed are not? That would be very interesting to know. Nawroth (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; other similar articles have no to little bearing on the deletion of an article. As explained, the nominator just happened to choose to nominate this one particular article; one of the acknowledged shortcomings of Wikipedia is that its policies are not uniformly enforced (again, due to the volunteer nature of the project), hence why they aren't all up for deletion (though they likely don't all deserve deletion). --Cybercobra (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added more material to the external articles page, especially academia stuff. Added more projects to the list of open source projects using Neo4j. Both pages are linked from the Neo4j wikipedia page, and both are work in progress. Nawroth (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think any of those things on the external articles page count as reliable sources? Polarpanda (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd highlight the works by G. Tylissanakis, Y. Cotronis and by Jan-Willem van Dam and Damir Vandic. The first one is a published paper and both assess Neo4j as part of their projects. They are also independent from the Neo4j team: as a matter of fact i just found out about these two yesterday. Regarding the articles by Todd Hoff and Gavin Terrill there are publishing companies behind the web sites, and the articles are written by independent professionals on their teams; but I don't know exactly how to rate them as sources in this context. Among developers both High Scalability and InfoQ (where the articles were published) have a good reputation as sources. Nawroth (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just look at all these smelly WP:SOCKs. Its wonderful that all the fans of this software program have showed up to show their support, but unfortunately significant coverage from reliable third party publications is virtually non-existent, meaning this fails our general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neo4J is a relatively new but still significant project under the NoSQL movement. The article should be kept to offer a rapid guide to the project and its relation to the rest of the NoSQL taxonomy nrs999 (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)— nrs999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Wikipedia does not have a goal to be a webhost for internal documentation to nascent open source movements. You can start your own wiki for that. Miami33139 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. first the project started 3 years ago and it is still active enough today to say tht this is not "yet another open source project that will disapear". Moreover the thematic it address (ie NoSQL database and more generally cloud computing) is significatively importnat now to be a strong argument of keeping this entry. The global scalability issue will be more and more important in the next few months and will stay for years so keeping an entry for a project that adressed this issue in early 2007 seems very important to me. It is important that wikipedia keep a track on the major project and initiative that leverage this major compurter science issue. Neo4J is still a small actor but I guess its role will be highlighted in the future and again being small and not sufficiently covered in the "media" is not a valid argument for deletion. However being a project tackling in early 2007 a problem that will be one of the most important in 2010 or later is sufficient to be kept. G.Dupont (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. I won't speculate how or why you showed up to comment on this. Instead, I will remind you, since you've only made a half dozen edits this year, that we require non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties of a subject in order to substantiate notability and qualify it for inclusion. JBsupreme (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the links are blogs. Yes, this is an interesting (to me) piece of software, but it isn't notable under the guidelines. Wait a couple of years and maybe it will have a good basis for notability, it doesn't now. --Bejnar (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary sources, wikis, and non-RS blogs do not establish notability. Coverage in reliable independent sources is virtually non-existent. The enthusiasm of some of the Keep comments does not make up for their lack of basis in policy and evidence. --RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Although there are quite a few blog-level reports on this software, as well as some industry conference presentations, and even some academic papers mention using it, overall I have trouble finding in-depth coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources to satisfy WP:GNG. I suspect this article will be recreated at some point after better-known secondary sources write about neo4j. The developers that edit here shouldn't take it hard. After all, the 1st google hit is their own site, on which they can make a better presentation of the product that it's currently possible here given the rules. (FYI: the Wikipedia article on neo4j is not even in the top 10 ghits.) Pcap ping 23:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hick Munsell[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable minor league player/manager Alex (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' Sounds like a colorful character, but not sufficiently notable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATH.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BASE/N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY – no sources provided for minor league player/manager other than his statistical record and a self-published wiki that isn't a reliable source. BRMo (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable (failing WP:ATHLETE and the WP:GNG). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the latter two references seem to be to another Wiki, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no one but the nominator supporting immediate deletion, I don't think there's a need to relist this. Closing as a keep for now. Discussion about expansion or merging can continue on the article talk page. Mgm|^(talk) 12:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of 1.03 million yen and 1.30 million yen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable in Japan; certainly not notable outside Japan. armagebedar (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. There is POV issue because it's called controversial without added proof. Also, the title is a monster. But if someone can verify this as true, it might be suitable to merge the bare numbers elsewhere. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is only a some minor tax-related issue in Japan. But it's still an issue. The Google search returns 345,000 hits for "103万円・130万円の壁". I would say that's enough to establish notability. (Of course, the current state of the article is pathetic, but that cannot be a ground for deletion.) -- Taku (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My first thought was "delete" since this is nothing more than a dispute over a section of one nation's tax code, and it will last only until the code is amended to have a different set of numbers for a marital deduction. However, we have no article called Taxation in Japan, and I'd welcome someone translating the ja.wikipedia.org articles, if nothing else. Mandsford (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest a Taxation in Japan article be created, and this be merged into it. The hard thing is to find someone knowledgeable and dedicated enough to make that article. Maybe one of can help translating from the Japanese Wikipedia, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Spongefrog This looks like a paragraph out of a larger article on Taxation in Japan. Mangoe (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the content. Whether the article should be renamed or its scope broadened can be discussed on the talk page, but, even in English, there are plenty of sources that discuss the subject such as [2][3][4][5][6]. I would add that our notability guidelines have no geographical bias, so notability in Japan counts for just as much as notability anywhere else. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The only good criteria for when an article should be deleted is whether there are enough reliable sources to support it's information. Phil Bridger has clearly shown there are and the sources show that the ceiling affects social and business practices. By the way Phil, please copy those sources to the talk page or if you have a chance, use them to fix the article up. Thanks for finding them. Cleanup can happen later and is unrelated to whether an article merits coverage based on the quality of sources that cover the topic. - Taxman ^Talk 15:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wuwang Club fire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this article fails both the depth and duration requirements set out in WP:EVENT. It also has had no discernible lasting effect on anything else, from what I gather. Yes, I know it probably passes the GNG, but WP:EVENT is more stringent than that. From Google, the only news sources I can find date to September 2008, failing the duration requirement. Of those sources, they appear to be superficial reporting, without a serious analysis, which fails the depth requirement. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

support I did some searching as well. This primary value of this article seems to be to extend the Nightclub fires category[[7]]. Perhaps the category needs to have an associated list article that could capture non-notable nightclub fire events as list entries - a portion of this article could then be merged into that one. There are certain similarities between this fire and other nightclub fires, which might be relevant to the encyclopedia. --Jaymax (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep Nom states that article "probably passes the GNG". Citing WP:EVENT seems to be a WP:POINT to attempt to justify this proposed guideline. If so, an event in the PRC may not be the best test case for trying to locate ongoing coverage or depth of coverage. Having been corrected, if it passes the WP:GNG, sub-guidelines don't matter. In the same manner that an athlete who passes the WP:GNG does not need to meet WP:ATHLETE, and event doesn't need to pass WP:EVENTS if it meets the general guideline for notability. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 12:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that WP:EVENT is not a proposed guideline, it is a guideline. Your argument is akin to saying "Doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE, but passes GNG, so it should be kept" The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that WP:EVENT is an official guideline, the criteria for a Speedy Keep are not met in this instance. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revised statement, that is more accurate. WP:N does indeed say that anything that meets GNG qualifies. However, this is at odds with some of the specific guidelines, such as WP:FILM and WP:EVENT, which are more strict. I have created a proposal to attempt to clarify how the relationship between the guidelines exists in common practice, but for now the two guidelines are at odds with each other. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The guideline WP:GNG clashes explicitly with the policy WP:NOTNEWS, and the guideline WP:EVENT attempts to resolve this dichotomy by laying out the principles by which we judge whether an event is notable. It did receive some international press at the time, but a burst of news reports is not sufficient to show notability. The bulk of the news reports are immediately after the event, and are as such routine reporting in which the news media rehash wire stories and make no real analysis. I can find a total of two stories from October 2008, then none subsequently, and there is no mention of the event in any books on Google Books. The event had no apparent lasting effect. Fences&Windows 17:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. SnottyWong talk 18:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is this not an event? The reason why this drew attention for deletion is because it was listed on the template:Nightclub fires. It probably should not have been featured that way. This event got more people aware of public place safety standards. Whether media outside China will pick up on it, probably not. Benjwong (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is saying that this isn't an event. What i'm saying is that we have a guideline that discusses the criteria necessary for an event to have its own article. I co-wrote that guideline, and I believe that this article does not meet the requirements. If it can be demonstrated that it increased awareness of safety standards, then please provide this evidence. I have not been able to find it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An obviously important disaster. A nightclub fire with 43 dead is historic enough, wherever in the world it happens. Wikipedia in part resembles an almanac, and almanacs cover such things. If articles on events like this are going to be nominated, we need a substantial revision of NOT NEWS, or at least a rational interpretation of it. The virtue of the GNG was that it would enable us to avoid judging whether something was really truly important or actually historic, because we could simply go by the sources. I'd rather go by judgment in areas where there would be reasonably sound and reproducble judgment--but if judgment is going to be so absurd as this, maybe we do need the GNG as the basic criterion DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If articles on events like this are going to be nominated, we need a substantial revision of NOT NEWS, or at least a rational interpretation of it." Er... try Wikipedia: Notability (events). Fences&Windows 02:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's wrong with saying "doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE, but passes WP:GNG, so should be kept"? Barack Obama clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, but we wouldn't delete his article at AFD because he passes notability in other ways. Nyttend (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just plain applying the wrong subject-specific notability guideline to the article. Obama is not primarily an athlete. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ffm is now L Faraone 22:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OZ : The Wizard[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable future film. No indications via Google search that such a film project exists. IMDB does not show any information either. PROD removed by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Likely hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax or not, it does not appear to be notable enough to warrant an article before its release. Additional references could persuade me to change my mind. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most likely a hoax. Certainly a WP:NFF problem. Warrah (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as others have said, a likely hoax with a distinct lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kibo. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KIBO[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lacks references in reliable 3rd party sources, no indication that this article might ever be expanded beyond a dictionary entry RadioFan (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: an entry of The new hacker's dictionary (Eric S. Raymond), this term is in the print version. There are other print references containing this term riffic (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is also a music album by this name (expanded form) according to freebase. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Comment looks like just a single album by this artist though I'm not finding it mentioned anywhere else. This looks to have similar trouble meeting notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability at all and no RS. NBeale (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nom updated with additional link to ~~WP:NOTDIR~~WP:NOTDICTIONARY

Did you mean "dictionary" or "directory"? JIP | Talk 06:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it would be preferable to transwiki to wiktionary then. riffic (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are right, WP:NOTDICTIONARY, copy to Wikitionary seems appropriate. Does it meet guidelines there?--RadioFan (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article does claim to be sourced from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing. Don't know what that is or its reliability. --Pink Bull 23:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete. No evidence of expandability per nom Polarpanda (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kibo, since it's just an alternative capitalization of that term, which is already a disambiguation page. If the term meets Wiktionary's criteria, then no objection to the transwiki. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to Kibo. this page has nothing worth saving. all case variations should redirect to one dab page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Redirect to Kibo and categorize the redirect as "Redirects from alternative capitalizations". A transwiki should be fine as well. Airplaneman ^talk 02:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Phantasy Star#Common elements. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algol (Phantasy Star)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I really don't think any of this article is notable. Entirely plot summary with no references. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject is a fictional planetary system used in multiple popular games. The level of detail is likely a bit excessive, but the proper amount of detail would still be too much to comfortably merge. As such this is a valid sub-article, in my opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lack of reliable third party references (not fan pages), for this or the main article, point to it not being notable enough OUTSIDE the hardcore fan community for it to have this detail. if a setting or character had been adopted in mainstream culture, if a movie had been made, even a reference to the game within a movie, that would help. for me, and i believe for WP, the justification for details about a fictional world is the significance of that fictional world in the real world. shakespeares plays and the star wars movies provide strong examples of fictional characters and settings affecting the real world. of course, we dont even need the whole world affected. if it was a cliche in the mmorpg community to say "oh, thats so phantasy star" or "feels like algol" and everyone knew what it meant that hadnt even played the game, ok. i still have not heard a good reason for excessive details of fictional worlds on WP. yes, they "exist" in the games, and the details are notable within the game. but not to 99.9% of humanity, which is the target audience for WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phantasy Star#Common elements, to which I've given a small paragraph about Algol surveying the two key points (Palma destroyed in PS2, colony ship = PS3). Otherwise, the series plays relatively fast and loose with the continuity, and so there isn't a lot to say other than "Here's how X planet was in PS1, PS2, and PS4". The various satellites and Rykros are all one-shot locations, not really within WP:VGSCOPE. Nifboy (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Phantasy Star, either to the "Common elements" section or as its own section. MuZemike 17:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WAF and WP:N. Such fictional details should be briefly included in the plot synopsis of the game articles. Marasmusine (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as relevant to the universe of multiple games and their stories. But bolster with appropriate references. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge per Nifboy. Contra Gilgamesh, no "appropriate references" seem available to make this into a proper article. cab (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is "appropriate references" in quotes? I was being serious. References can be links to online maps, scripts, etc., with excerpts put in reference list for relevance. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nifboy, has been dealt with appropriately considering it's way outside of WP:VGSCOPE. Someone another 23:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Nifboy's suggestion seems the most sensible, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James McGeehan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league manager. Alex (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most google hits for other people, fails WP:GNG.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BASE/N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY – no sources provided for minor league manager other than his statistical record. BRMo (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Kreuger[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league manager Alex (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BASE/N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY – no sources provided for minor league manager other than his statistical record and a self-published wiki that is not a reliable source. BRMo (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ffm is now L Faraone 22:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OsseoLink[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spammy article about a dental implant system. Do any of the external links demonstrate the notability of this product? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - To answer the nominator's question, "No." Most of the links have nothing to do with this product. Several Internet searches reveal nothing that shows notability of this. There are exactly ZERO news ghits and ZERO Google scholar ghits about it. Spam. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Bearian. Joe Chill (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, the language makes it a pretty clear spam case. Hairhorn (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a spam and we are working towards editing this article. Not having it on Google search does not mean it is a spam. Please check the news links. Your tips are much appreciated. Kindly suggest what changes need to be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.249.56 (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the News Link and saw nothing. What deep search engine are you using? Bearian (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a relevant link to demonstrate notability of this product. The end user of this product is the general public even though it is made by clinicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.249.56 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously per the arguments above. I would also suggest to the editor from IP address 70.147.249.56 that continuing to try to defend this spam after being found out can only possibly reflect badly on his or her employer. Remember that even after the article is deleted this deletion discussion will still be found by search engines, and people will form their opinion of the company producing this product on its basis. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are calling this article a spam! Would appreciate tips and recommendations to amend this posting to keep it in Wikipedia. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.249.56 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We only have to read the first four words of the article to see that its purpose is promotional rather than encyclopedic. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly spam masquerading as an article. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Ashurst Gooch[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails wp:prof. notability has not been established Theserialcomma (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ weak keep -- with a name like that it's not hard to know where we stand in terms of coverage: ~~minimal~~ David Eppstein's search makes it clear I did mine the wrong way, his shows that she more or less passes PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No impact yet. Weak keep as above. Article created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per failing WP:PROF after WP:GNG, BLP. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. --Glenfarclas (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks to be an h-index of about 3, according to GS – not surprising for a very-early-career professor. Concur: another textbook case of an article too soon. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- My GS searches gave an h-index of 9, with over 100 citations for the most heavily cited work. Still, I think that's a little below threshold for WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to GS, she has four publications with over 100 citations each (four of the top five results from that search; the other one is someone else). Despite the modest h-index (12 or 13) I think that's enough for a weak keep. The reason I didn't put "weak" in my comment is that I ran the search the other way, looking for "non-photorealistic", and her name came out in the top two hits. So I think she's (with her coauthor Bruce Gooch) the leading expert in an important subtopic of computer graphics. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of exercise terms[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, although labeled as a glossary, seems more like a very random collection of elementary-level dictionary definitions. A double Prod tag that raised WP:DICDEF concerns was removed the article's creator. Warrah (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response from the article creator. This weekend I stumbled across the inactive Health and Fitness project, which I decided I'd get going again. This article was in the "to do" box as a requested article, so I started it. I tagged the page {{newpage}} (which I see has been removed) as I was unfamiliar with the glossary MoS. The short entries were so I could build the page, and I removed the hasty DICDEF tag because I felt that the newpage tag made it quite clear that I was working on the article and was familiar with the appropriate guidelines. The addition of short "B" entries was so I could see how {{TOC}} worked. Ordinarily I would have started this in user space but I was hoping that the reactivation of the portal would encourage other users to take a look and start helping. I stronly disagree with this AfD and that this article is in anyway inappropriate, but I will cease further work until an outcome as I don't want to waste my time Thedarxide (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inappropriate article for Wikipedia, basically an attempt at a dictionary (from A to B?). --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete As per above. Meaningful Username (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. Including glossaries would be a mess in WP. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 01:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the following need to go - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/List_of_glossaries Thedarxide (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: looking through the list here, I can see we've had a lot of AfD discussions on "glossary" articles, and there seem to be comparable amounts of keep, delete, and no consensus outcomes. I had seconded the PROD on this one, but would now say I'm neutral leaning toward delete if only because this does not seem like a particularly useful glossary. But if WikiProject Health and Fitness thinks it is, then who am I to argue. --Glenfarclas (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well a general decision would be nice, because Glossary of nutrition terms & Glossary of public health terms are on there too. Personally, I think the one under debate and nutrition would be useful, but public health terms leaves me stumped. I don't know whether that's an American term? Thedarxide (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 02:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hideki Ishima[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Search doesn't turn up significant coverage or content fulfilling criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Prod was declined with "there are lots of japanese language sources", but I don't see reliable sources on the Japanese Wiki and the statement doesn't absolve from providing reliable sources Hekerui (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you look for sources in the Japanese wikipedia rather than Google and what is wrong with the existing ones? If you dont find sources reliable, providing a reason is particularly helpful to steer things to a productive discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched via the Google News archive and nothing turned up - my browser must have worked incorrectly. Don't get artificially upset. - With "current ones" I hope you mean the ones provided here and not in the article. Those are bad. Hekerui (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see no notability. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 20:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Aisha9152 (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per articles in The Japan Times and Rolling Stone. I'm sure there are others as those were found after only a minute searching. He has also apparently invented a new instrument, the sitarla. A large chunk of the Japan Times article discusses this instrument. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- With the Rolling Stone mention I'd say this article is worth keeping. Rockgenre (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Japan Times and Rolling Stones coverage above is already enough to demonstrate notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per criterion 1. --Epeefleche (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by Nihonjoe. Edward321 (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ffm is now L Faraone 22:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trongs[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a prime example of commercial spam, it was created by a SPA account and is maintained by two others. Additionally, it had an interwiki page that was deleted as spam. Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found this Chicago Tribune article. If the Chicago Tribune things Trongs are worth writing about, then they're notable. – Eastmain (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - after a look into this, the Trib link is not to an article but a photo gallery of items found at a food products convention. The article isn't about the product, but the convention. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article links to two Chicago Tribune articles, at least one of which is specifically about trongs, as well as a PRI interview on the subject. Sounds like notability to me. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Comment - Again, the provided sources are not about the product, they are not valid sources. They do not meet the standards of WP:Note.
Keep It has coverage in at least two notable publications. Official website also has links that might cover them in combination with H1N1. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't do it.If it's deleted,should the chinese version also be deleted?--俠刀行 (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not for documenting every wacky garage invention. nn, even with the provided sources. SchmuckyTheCat (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. ffm is now L Faraone 22:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watercoolerization[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable neologism WuhWuzDat 19:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One lonely Google hit shows this not to be a notable term. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as something made up. Polarpanda (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Coined by Jesper Engsted at the beginning of the millennium." Yeah, and people stopped "gathering around the water cooler" long before the beginning of the millennium. If Jesper is ever deemed notable enough for his own article, this word can get mentioned in his bio. Mandsford (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, or redirect to scuttlebut. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO. Warrah (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. You know, a redirect to Scuttlebutt might not be a bad idea, given the origins of that term. But it's a minor thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Activision. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sledgehammer Games[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability as of yet. In my prod (just removed), I suggested merging into Activision's page until more information is known. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thejadefalcon - please advise on the criteria for notability. Apologies for removing your prod. I would like the page to remain so I may add further details, including a logo, which maybe you could help upload? --SledgeEdit (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)— SledgeEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: As I said in the prod and this nomination (and again so I can direct a Sledgehammer employee (whose e-mail I just recieved) here), the company exists, I'm not disputing that. However, as of this moment, there is next to no information on it. They have no current games and no information exists about what games they will make. In a few months, when there is more information about them and what makes them notable, then I fully support recreating this article. However, right now there is simply not enough information for them to have their own article. Information about them can be added to Activision's page until such time that it has enough information to warrant splitting off into a separate page. I hope that answers your question satisfactorily. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the article was first proposed for deletion the amount of information has increased and merging it no longer seems practical. --SledgeEdit (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)— SledgeEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oh great, looks like creating an account for the purpose of maintaining a page is called 'sock puppeting' - apologies again. --SledgeEdit (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC) — SledgeEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: In this case, it's more worry about a potential conflict of interest than a fear of sockpuppets. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. No notability established. Delete per WP:ORG. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Polarpanda (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I'd have tagged it db-inc. No notability established. They may be industry veterans, but are they notable? And more important, is a company established in 2009 with no listed achievement to date. No prejudice as to re-creation when they've actually done something more than found the company. Peridon (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please delay deletion; company logo and more company details to be added shortly. Thejadefalcon stated that little is known about this company. This article is the place to give details about this new game studio.--SledgeEdit (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)— SledgeEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The issue is not that the company themselves can expand the page, it's that there are no, reliable, third party sources to back it up. --Teancum (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be plenty of coverage in the press. Kotaku, Kotaku, Edge Online, Joystiq, GameSpot, GameSpy, Gamasutra, gamesindustry.biz, Destructoid, GameGuru.in, USA Today, IGN. I swear no one even bothered to look! SharkD Talk 22:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe it's in a ton of sources (a few of which I saw in my search), but none of them actually say what's notable about them. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To understand why there is so much press coverage (and why it is so notable), consider the context: the world's largest video game publisher starts a new development studio, taking leadership personnel from its arch rival - and locates it in rival's backyard. Though, admittedly, none of the sources explain it like this. --SledgeEdit (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)— SledgeEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, judging from the amount of coverage quite a lot is known about it so merging is not necessary. Polarpanda (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I quote from the kotaku reference: "While there's not much meat to it yet—no game announcements buried within—job listings offer some clues to what Sledgehammer is working on. It's most likely going to be a shooter with online multiplayer—hey, just like Dead Space 2!—if you can possibly wrap your brain around that concept. Open job listings are looking for level designers with a "serious passion for shooters, console or PC" and online/multiplayer designers to do... online multiplayer design type stuff." (Dec 8th) How can they be notable when they're still hiring and no-one knows what they're doing? There's plenty of ghits saying that the company exists - but where's the ones saying they're notable? The founders may be -I'm not saying they ARE - but that doesn't necessarily make the company notable. "Plenty of coverage" is not the same as "plenty of reliable coverage". I get the feeling that a viral campaign is running to whet people's appetites, but that isn't what Wikipedia is for. If two people started a business that was still hiring, had no products and hadn't even announced what the heck they WERE going to produce, what would the article on them get? Peridon (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please consider WP:ORG: ( "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." ... "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." " ) -- Which of the sources given by SharkD above do you consider unreliable? --76.14.51.208 (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now Neutral: I've been re-reading WP:ORG myself. Since, to my knowledge, I can't withdraw my nomination once someone else votes delete, I'll simply remain neutral now and not vote either way. I have, however, spruced up the article a bit. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. I'm not convinced anything compells notability out of the sources. Shadowjams (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Activision. Once the company released one title. It can have its own article. Until then merge would be a good idea not deletion. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will agree that there are quite a few references out there. But, so far as I can see, all they attest to is the existence of the company and the fact that no-one (outside the company - presumably those inside do) knows what they are doing or going to do. Existence is not notability. Merge it with the parent company if you will. All it's here for is advance publicity. In advance of what? Don't ask me... Peridon (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ffm is now L Faraone 22:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deluxe Marina FC[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was unable to find any evidence that this club exists from a Google search. I tried including the manager's name (Joleon O'Connor) - still nothing. If you can't find any supporting information at all, the article may not stay. Chutznik (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. Polarpanda (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also can't find evidence for this team existing; even if it does, it has not played at a high enough level to be considered notable in footballing terms. Giant Snowman 22:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much like GiantSnowman and the nom, I can't find any evidence of this team existing. I don't know what the notability level for the Channel Islands is (since we don't have Football in Guernsey, Football in Jersey or Football in the Channel Islands - I'm assuming that they're referring to the ones in the English Channel), but I doubt this team meets it. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too smell a hoax, and that goes for the Channel Islands Premier League, which this team has supposedly won in the past - I can't find any evidence of that league existing nor any of its teams. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a league spanning the whole of the Channel Islands, just separate leagues for Jersey and Guernsey. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and prod that league article. Bettia (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential hoaxes need eyes to confirm them. With prodding the amount of checks is minimal. I would prefer it if the other article is included in this nomination instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As probable hoax Spiderone 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax, alot of effort but still a hoax.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armour of God (Chennai band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Canniba loki 17:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : promotional article for non notable local band--Sodabottle (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources I found did not prove they won any competitions as opposed to the band Blacklisted in the same area and I also haven't found evidence it meets WP:MUSIC in another way. The sources themselves have mentioned the band in passing, thus not qualifying them for WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguably A7, but even if you argue that it escapes A7, it's definitely blustery here. Enigma^msg 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESwiki[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable website with Alexa ranking of 5.7million. I attempted searching for references on the name ESwiki only shows references to the Spanish Wikipedia. I am attempting searching for the domain name shows zero sources on google news, books, scholar. This should qualify for speedy deletion as A7 web content. Miami33139 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't propose an article for speedy deletion just because you couldn't get your own way by putting incorrect tags all over the article. I'm sure you would have proposed for a deletion FIRST. -- Jordan "Eck" Samuel (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. --Izno (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I exist. Do you think that there should be an article about me? Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No arguing with that, I suppose. But, Nothing Else Matters? --Izno (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That song was going through my head as I typed that, in fact. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability and the fact that it was created by the owner of the site, creating a huge conflict of interest. --Golbez (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is irrelevant; while a conflict of interest is relevant, that's no reason to delete the article; just alter or remove any inappropriate content so it's no longer problematic. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is relevant because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability is irrelevant because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not merely a pocket reference. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, lack of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. The article only proves the website exists, not why it is important. To Kurt Weber: While people may disagree about when something is notable, considering absolutely anything notable is counter productive, epsecially when it's about a topic we've already got very clear guidelines about. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who's considering "absolutely anything" notable? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, you've misunderstood Kurt's position. It's not that anything is notable; it's that anything is worthy of conclusion, regardless of notability. --Golbez (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, I don't see any source for this website, not even in the usual places like the Taringa! website. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources? doesn't need any. -- Jordan "Eck" Samuel (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does. Joe Chill (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well Wikipedia isn't edited by one person, If people find that it needs sources. why not add them in? -- Jordan "Eck" Samuel (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no sources that make it pass WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete- website with no claim of notability. I could find no reliable sources to make it notable. i see snow in the near future 16x9 (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. How did it survive so long? I don't know. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 01:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- People should read the site and see how important it is instead of denying it because of no rank, or whatever that is. Every site had a low rank at one point in its life, Considering it's the only encyclopedia with a purpose to only host information related to IRC, all in the one place. i think it should be given a chance.-- Jordan "Eck" Samuel (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And on its first day, Yahoo.com would have been denied an article as well. Being unique does not make it notable. --Golbez (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Loh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and GNEWS. Article lacks references. Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. ttonyb (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find any independent coverage for his person. Gongshow ^Talk 17:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but do not salt. This Christopher Loh is not notable - there is no way to verify his notability even after making several Internet searches. He badly fails both academic and musical notability standards: "Christopher had participated in many local singing competitions and emerged as the winner in a few of them. .... currently studying Diploma in Business Admin ...."(emphasis added). In fact, there is a medical doctor with a similar name, Christopher T. Loh, who might be notable. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC) (P.S., See this search on Christopher T. Loh.) Bearian (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability and verifiable references as described above. --Glenfarclas (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as blatant advertising. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X-plane 777 tutorial[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Proposed for deletion per WP:NOTHOWTO. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Richmond (American football)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Collegiate American football player who has not competed at the fully professional level, failing WP:ATHLETE. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is one of the most prolific receivers in SJSU history, on the bengals draft page http://www.bengals.com/team/roster/david-richmond/4d566eee-7f16-4c51-83c1-697b181972cd/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kookface (talk • contribs) 14 December 2009

Is this a vote? The individual leaving the comment should clarify whether this is intended a vote to Keep or Delete or not a vote at all.Cbl62 (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATH as he hasn't played professionally.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to keep per sources found by Cbl62.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As his professional career is non-existent, he fails WP:ATH. Grsz¹¹ 22:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One cannot fail WP:ATH. One can be subject to the exemption for not passing the GNG, but as the Additional criteria says (to which ATH is a part of) "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." I.e., you can't "fail" it. And did anyone (especially the nominator as the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion instructs) check for sources to see if this person passes WP:BIO in general? A fairly narrow search comes up with 71 news hits, and at least this article (going by the free preview) seems to provide some decent coverage. Changing the search term to eliminate San Jose would likely yield more results from his JC and HS days. Maybe not enough, but if no one searches then it is hard to justify deletion via the deletion policy of either "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" or "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". (emphasis mine to underscore that we only delete topics/subjects due to those topics failing the guideline and not articles, just because the articles fail to properly demonstrate their notability). Aboutmovies (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though he hasn't played in the NFL, a college player article is OK if general notability is established by non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. (As noted by Aboutmovies, ATH is an inclusionary standard, not an exclusionary guideline.) Richmond appears to meet the general notability standard. A google news search for "david richmond" and "san jose" turns up many articles discussing his role as a key player for SJSU. Granted, many of those are game coverage, but the articles have more than passing reference to Richmond. In addition, I found the following articles focusing on him as the main subject of the article: (1) "Spartans' Richmond ready to build upon breakthrough: SJSU looks to receiver after breakout game," Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, September 29, 2007; (2) "Richmond Catching Up With His Reviews," San Jose Mercury News, September 29, 2007; (3) "SJSU's Richmond a raw find at WR," Times-Herald (Vallejo, CA), September 29, 2007; and (4) "Richmond has breakout game at receiver," Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, September 23, 2007. Further indicia of notability include (a) his 127 receptions rank fourth on the all-time list at San Jose State (a Divisions 1 FBS program), (b) his 1684 receiving yards rank sixth on the all time list at San Jose State, (c) he is one of only two players in school history to post back-to-back 800-yard receiving seasons, and (d) he was also selected as a second-team All-WAC honors.[8][9] The evidence is not overwhelming on this one, but it's enough to tip me into a "Keep" vote. Cbl62 (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough sources above to meet WP:BIO. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KU-IDeA[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined A7 nominee. Appears to fail WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a non-notable student club or organization of some sort, which is why I had speedy-tagged it; I can find a Facebook page and nothing else. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources that suggest that this organization is notable. While it's possible that collaboration between two universities spanning the globe is interesting, there would be some media coverage if it were truly notable. There are significant tone issues, as well. The usual caveat applies - it's a new organization (2007), so it's possible that it may become notable down the line, in which case an article may be appropriate. We're not there yet, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nexcore Felix[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined A7. Asserted to be non-notable software project. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. 0 Google hits except for Wikipedia. Haakon (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I had speedy tagged it -- maybe it wasn't eligible because it's not web content? I can't tell, but non-notable either way. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an odd one. SK Group is an enormous company, and it's hard to imagine any of their products getting absolutely no Google hits. Come to think of it, it's hard to imagine any genuinely released commercial software getting zero Google hits. Anyway, unverifiable, possibly non-existant. Recommend the decision of this AfD be applied to the related (and also unverifiable) Nexcore Mobile Platform as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we now have Nexcore Framework as well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all product articles without mainstream third-party sources. SchmuckyTheCat (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verducianism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional religion supposedly appearing on a television show, presumably on one or two episodes. I originally prodded (prod was removed one hour after it was placed) because of a complete lack of reliable sources; with so few sources, I seriously doubt that this is a likely redirect target. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to series show or, if it exists, episode article. --EEMIV (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a plausible search term. --EEMIV (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Delete. I don't see any sourcing that merits inclusion in the shows article. If between now and close someone finds something some variation of redirect or merge might work, but if not delete.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the TV show's main article, on the basis that this term might be searched and it would be helpful to do a simple redirect rather than have no information available at all. Lithorien (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and absolutely no redirect. It was a joke as part of (surprise) last Thursday's episode of 30 Rock. Some of the shows writers were telling a gullible co-worker that they couldn't participate in the Secret Santa gift-giving, and they said that it was "verducianism". I don't see it as a search term for Wikipedia. If people want to look up the word, there's this thing called "Google" that will direct them to a 30 Rock website. Mandsford (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things that were made up one day. It doesn't matter that this was made up in a fictional universe. The religion has no actual practioners and doesn't extend past the single episode it appeared it. A redirect would give it undue weight. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ged UK 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wind in the Willows (TBA Film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At best an upcoming film that fails WP:NFF, at worst a complete WP:HOAX. KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. All the mentions I found where for the original animation. No computers involved, and nothing upcoming mentioned anywhere either. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard WP:NFF case. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious hoax. Why this "page" is here escapes me... Doc9871 (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, and the obvious. :) --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 18:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently unsourcable speculation. Impossible to verify at this time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As hoax. Warrah (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analog (program)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This apparently non-notable software has no references to back it up. It is difficult to try and find sources because there is other software called Analog that get hits. This is why article authors need to put sources in when they write the article. Miami33139 (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @249 · 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. It is not actually all that hard to look for sources: search for "Stephen Turner" analog, and "web log analysis" analog, and so on. I have tried a few such searches and have not found anything that could remotely be called significant independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this open-source software was one of the original log analysis engines and remains available. That it is in a category that isn't covered by mainstream media (because it's boring, behind-the-scenes stuff) does not mean it is not notable; anyone who works with web analysis will be familiar with this program as it is extremely fast and highly configurable. I would add that "lack of references" is not a reason by itself to delete an article; if references can be found, that's usually the step to take before deletion. There are references; I've added two to the article. In addition, although I don't see a way (yet) to add these to the article, there are these hits: (from 2001), and [10]. There are more; I'll continue to work on the article. Frank | talk 13:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Log analysis software is available at www.analog.cx" Is that what counts as notable coverage now? Miami33139 (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I don't see that quote anywhere in the article. I do see three independent sources, though. Frank | talk 23:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the entirety of buzzle.com you just posted as a reference. Miami33139 (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. This is a discussion. Links here in this discussion are to support points being made here. I am not asserting that any link in this discussion should be construed as a full-blown reference in the article itself. There are three top-quality references there already. In addition, context is very important. The buzzle link shows Analog on a top-10 list of all cool things for web site designers and maintainers in 2001. Sure, the web was a smaller place back then, but combine its presence on a top-10 list with the fact that it's still around today and you have instant notability. Still - I'm not even relying on that to assert that this program is notable; I'm using it as support to show its longevity. That reference doesn't appear in the article. Frank | talk 23:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Software is still used behind the scenes on assorted web hosts. Sure, it hasn't been updated in a while but the webserver log format hasn't changed either. References to various features are referenced - the software website has documentation for all to read. 125.0.82.119 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. References supplied are all IT-related, and show neither general interest sources, nor claims of any particular technical or historical importance. Very simply, there's no reason anyone would have heard of this unless they're a website administrator, and Wikipedia is not a directory of every behind the scenes admin utility that might exist. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do we follow essays over policies and guidelines? And, an essay under discussion and development, no less? Frank | talk 17:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And for what reasons exactly do "IT-related references" are not acceptable? That's like saying we can't use theoretical physics journals to reference theoretical physics article. That's just doesn't make any sense. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - The essay referenced doesn't contradict the general notability guideline, which this article fails. Miami33139 (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you demonstrate how something can "fail" the WP:GNG? That guideline simply enumerates a series of ways an article is presumed to be notable rather than listing ways in which an article fails to be notable. This article is about a topic that will never be a generally notable program, but it does have historic notability as one of the earliest and longest-used of its genre, and for being noted in its field over the last decade (at least). There are already references dating back to 2000 in the article, more exist, including this one from 1998. It's been followed in MacWeek, CNET, Linux Journal, and similar industry magazines. Frank | talk 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The essay linked above (Wikipedia:Notability (software)) has been almost entirely written by Miami33139 (history diff), the AfD nom here. That essay in its current form is not anywhere close to the original software notability guideline proposal. If that essay is to remain in its current form, needs to be renamed as it is not one of the notability guidelines. Some of the changes have removed long standing criteria which have always been accepted for software articles, and its text now even conflicts with WP:SELFPUB, which is a section of the verifiability policy. Other changes, such as the explicit wording that multiple sources are always required, conflicts with the WP:GNG section of the notability guideline itself, which states: "Multiple sources are generally preferred.". While not an issue here due to the multiple sources which are readily available and easily located, there is a huge difference between preferred in the GNG, and wording in the linked essay which indicates required. In addition to the other problems with the the software notability essay, many of the recent changes seem quite biased to me and appear to run afoul of the neutral point of view policy. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I drafted a good bit of the text of that essay. It is, also, different from the original proposal. It is also meant to set a higher bar to entry than the GNG does, the same way that some other current guidelines do.

My main concern is the volume of spam we're getting from minor tech businesses. What I wrote is meant to address the claim that sources with tiny audiences can confer notability on minor software. That's why it creates a two tiered standard: one, for consumer products that the general public might recognize, the other for tech sources, and the latter must show more than mere existence, some kind of technical or historical importance

To return to this software, it does seem that the age and depth of use of this particular product do support a claim of that kind of significance, and I'm therefore changing to keep. On the other hand, it seems to me that so far the essay is "working as intended". And I'd be happy to have further input on the essay itself as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sourcing done by Frank. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references, in my mind, show significant, independent coverage. While they are in technical journals, etc., it's still quite relevant for indicating notability. --Shirik (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Frank - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frank & Tothwolf. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Analog is a wildly used free website stats analyzer. It is, among other things, included in the very popular Cpanel website manager suite. Moreover, Analog is one of the few analyzer suitable for very large scale deployment requiring very little resources in comparison with other analyzers that would need dedicated servers for stats analysis. See the AWstats benchmark page for a statement supporting this. BlanchardJ (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC) — BlanchardJ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - well known and important tool, GPL'd rather than commercial and hence not so easy to find from an armchair search. That doesn't mean it isn't noteable.--Brunnian (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh of Clifton, Clifton, Virginia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable residential subdivision. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a Delete, Delete A 21-home subdivision built in the 1980s? In a town that has 185 people? Egad. Mandsford (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @250 · 04:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My street has far more than 21 houses in it, but I would not dream of suggesting it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Unless someone can come up with remarkable special reasons for notability this is an obvious deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there were some controversy about the development of the subdivision (land-use issues, notable litigation, scandal), then an article about that event would be appropriate - in which case this would be merged over. A mention on the town's article might not be a bad idea, since this is over 10% of their population (probably more). But, otherwise, this article doesn't meet notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Luminosity. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luminocity[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @250 · 04:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant sources. Miami33139 (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luminosity as a plausible misspelling. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A T.I.M.E.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This apparently worthy organization has not gotten any significant coverage in reliable sources. The reliable sources that have mentioned it appear to have done so only in passing. It has been tagged for references and notability for a sufficient amount of time so that expansion and/or further referencing appears unlikely. ^Bongo_matic 03:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @250 · 04:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @251 · 05:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I have a bias because I created this article, I feel it is noteworthy. (My informal test is that if Tefillin Barbie has an article, ATIME should as well.) As to the quality of the article, I took it as far as I could with my knowledge and would much appriciate if someone (maybe s/o in the USA where they are better known) could improve it. Joe407 (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nomination is not based on the quality of the article as it is, but rather on the seeming non-existence on significant third-party coverage of the organization. The articles currently cited are on other, related topics and mention the organization only in passing. Article quality can be improved, but absent significant third-party coverage, the article does not merit inclusion. ^Bongo_matic 13:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. While I'm sure that most of Jewish America has heard of the org, for whatever reason they do not get alot of press. Therefore Bongo is correct and according to WP:V, the article should go. It seems that the best case to be made for a keep is WP:NOTLAW. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage is not the only factor in establishing notability. If you do a Google search correctly you come up with some 15,000 results of websites linking to ATIME and making note of their services, and some are very prominent organizations as I point out below. Shlomke (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable organization, and it has received press coverage as referenced in the article. Articles about them frequently appear in The Jewish Press family section for example. Shlomke (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide examples. ^Bongo_matic 14:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A TIME To Celebrate, A Personal Story from A TIME's Shaarei Tikah - Shlomke (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these is news coverage, nor provides significant coverage at all. One is a letter to the organization, not coverage. The second contains passing mention of the organization only. ^Bongo_matic 08:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends how you define "news coverage". In any case, these (and the other) links do show that the org. is notable IMO. Doing a Google search for ATIME + fertility brings some 15,000 results. I've gone through the first hundred and nearly all are websites linking to this org. for fertility advice and services (or awards received from them). Among them are some very prominent ones: NYU [11], PBS [12]], Hebrew Union College [13], Mount Sinai Medical Center [[14]] and Yeshiva University [15]. Shlomke (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable organization. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFF as Joe407 says. If Tefillin Barbie can withstand deletion, then so can this. I've never heard of this organization. 15 000ghits is not really that significant these days, perhaps one would expect much more for a multinatinal organization. Similar 'industry' Puah Institute is much larger and widely know. I'm not sure about ATIME. --Shuki (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shuki, in the USA A TIME has become very well known, so it's not Israeli based.

To the best of my knowledge, ATIME is not an international organization. They are based in NYC and offer services in major Jewish centers in the USA. In terms of international operations and visibility, they at most may offer services in Canada. Joe407 (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable organization in the American Jewish Orthodox community. IZAK (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK - The challenge is demonstrating WP:V. Joe407 (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Tsilias[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is an apparent hoax and all of the information is unverifiable. Any person who had these accomplishments would be reported on by football sites such as RSSSF or BDFutbol and this person has no entries there. The article was created by a single user who also appears to have vandalized the Real Sociedad article to add a hoax about this person. PROD was removed with no explanation by anon. Jogurney (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @250 · 05:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD G3 - blatant hoax. A player who played for Real Sociedad for over five seasons would get more than a handful of Google hits. --Jimbo^[online] 12:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G3, a blatant hoax. Giant Snowman 22:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion here indicates that the person is either not notable enough or at best barely notable enough for inclusion. From the discussion, it seems that consensus leans more to the former, and so I shall delete the article. NW (Talk) 03:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Koch[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A brief profile of an assiatant professor. No notability proved via independent sources. Twri (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. Abductive (reasoning) 03:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Unless there's something that could be added to this stub, this person badly fails WP:PROF: assistant professor, and no books published. However, he might pass if someone can find something here. I can't find anything specific that raises him to notability. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, he does seem to have one book, Open Source Software-Entwicklung: Analyse und Aufwandsschätzung an einem Beispiel, Peter Lang Verlag, 2002, ISBN 9783631385128, as well as one edited volume. But the book is "Volume 2831 of Europäische Hochschulschriften" so I imagine this is just his thesis, from a system that requires that theses be published as books. In any case I don't think this is a subject that measures productivity in books. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, weak keep, per WP:BARE, but we need a bit more convincing. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The citation numbers I'm seeing in Google scholar are 133, 84, 72, 59, 38, ... Not at all bad for someone at his level of seniority, but not enough to convince me of a clear pass of WP:PROF #1. And there seems to be nothing else to go on. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal. GS cites give h index = 10. Still a bit marginal for WP:Prof #1 so WP:BARE. Notability may improve in a few years. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete - passing WP:PROF seems suspect at best. I am unconvinced that the burden has been met by the creator. Cocytus [»talk«] 17:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4: identical to article previously deleted via AfD. — Gwalla | Talk 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Mirkk[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I'm concerned, this is a straight-forward G4 speedy delete candidate, but G4 has been declined twice, the first time because the AFD link was hard to find, the second time for reasons that are obscure to me. The previous AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel W. Gonzales, a copy of the deleted article is here (you'll note that it is substantially identical to the current version, as G4 requires). See also the AFC which was declined. The AFD was only a week ago, I don't know why this article has lasted more than a minute. Hairhorn (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I can't really say any more than I did when IM declined the AfC. Same article, new title- take it to DRV, instead of recreating with a new title. (Full disclosure- since I declined the AfC, and nominated the last AfD, the admin closing this one should feel free to ignore my comments). Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A perfectly straightforward G4: "It was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." What more needs to be said? I am puzzled by the reason given for declining the 2nd speedy deletion proposal: "Not valid candidate for speedy delete. Subject seems to meet Wikipedia eligibility standards. Bring up for AfD if wish." That might be a reasonable answer for a {{db-person}}, but not for a {{g4}}. Was it perhaps done in haste by an administrator who had not read the speedy deletion notice carefully enough? Joel W Gonzales has been deleted 7 times, Joel William Gonzales 5 times, and Joel W. Gonzales once. This article is the same except for the name, including having the same biographical details, a photograph of the same person, several links to sites with the name "Joel William Gonzales" (not "Lil Mirkk"), etc etc. There are also abdundant sorces indicating that "Lil Mirkk" is another name used by Joel Gonzales, for example here, here, etc etc. As clear a speedy delete as I ever saw. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as unremarkable MySpace band. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyster Scalpel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Clearly fails WP:BAND. Created by User:Cyst, which could be a conflict of interest. SnottyWong talk 02:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Looks like A7 to me. smithers - talk - sign! 05:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding in-depth coverage for this band; appears to fail WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 06:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encina Street[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Supposed "famous" former residents do not appear notable and are not cited. Despite the "See also", the street is not on the US National Register of Historic Places. Gallery of homes hardly appropriate could arguably be a BLP-type issue since they appear to be random images of random residences with the exact address given, and I'm not certain if the names listed are current residents. Even if all to be believed, no sources or references given. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. See National Register of Historic Places listings in Tulare County, California — there aren't any Register-listed historic districts in Visalia except for an airport, and there aren't any Register-listed buildings in the city on this street. Perhaps a local historic district, but those don't always get enough coverage that they're necessarily notable, and notability isn't proven here. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although there is some coverage, it appears to be insufficient to meet notability requirements set forth in WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Angels- Baptism of Blood[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I deprodded as another editor had added the 'rescue' tag, but after a search I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this video, only some one liners copied off All Movie Guide. I think we need to consign this article to the bargain bin of history. Fences&Windows 02:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (films). Nikki♥311 02:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to expand the article when it was posted at WP:ARS but found nothing. P.S. love the metaphor Fences and windows. J04n(talk page) 02:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am looking into this. Seems it might just meet WP:NF [16] [17] [18]. Will see what can be done and report back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF clearly on four of the five main points, and on the fifth the three links Schmidt provided don't quite make the grade IMO. If there was a category under speedy for films under "articles fails to indicate it's importance" I'd be using it with this. !! Justa Punk !! 12:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Hurtado[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A resume of a professor. Not a hint of notability. No third-party sources. Twri (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. Abductive (reasoning) 04:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minimal GS cites. Article created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. There's no evidence presented within the article that he passes any of the criteria of WP:PROF or WP:GNG and I wasn't able to turn up any such evidence by searching Google scholar and Google news. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- using "publish or perish", I came up with an h-index of 11 (with no highly cited papers). This isn't terribly impressive for someone at associate level, and there's nothing else to go on that I can find. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows 20 peer-reviewed papers, but the citations are pretty low: 7, 6, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2... for an h-index of 4. These numbers are not characteristic of a notable associate professor. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - nothing to indicate he passes WP:PROF. Cocytus [»talk«] 17:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Story (accordionist)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. According to [19], her real name is Sam Wight. No indication that this person satisfies WP:BAND: [20], [21], [22], [23]. Tim Song (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Autobio with no real evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete No notability plesented and seems nobody cares. 02:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete Comprehensively fails Notability (music). No evidence of touring (despite the article's claims) apart from an appearance at the Accordion Noir Festival in Vancouver (no significant coverage of the festival either), no recording career, no significant media coverage. I've tried searches on several permutations of her various names, with no results apart from various myspace pages and a brief review of her self-released EP in The Coast, a free weekly paper circulated in Halifax. Note also that the entire "Biography" section of the article is a copypaste from http://www.myspace.com/storysong with "she" substituted for "I". Voceditenore (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BlockHosts[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant covereage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Two relists and nobody tried to make article better hence really nonnotable. I would suggest to delete after the first relist, if an article/topic is bad and nobody cares. Twri (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomoradio[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources given, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Two relists and nobody tried to make article better hence really nonnotable. Twri (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slashdotting, though suggestive of notability, is not definitive. Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources to prove notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Twri and Cybercobra Polargeo (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix (music producer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. There are several claims made in the article, but sourced to a blog. Significant third party reliable sources are lacking. ~YellowFives 07:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Count this a keep from User:TSKREO, the primary author of the article. TSKREO left me this message at my talk page, and I am relaying it here because it may be informative to other editors:

"I will make adjustments to this page. However the champ magazine site is not only a blog, but also a radio show in Toronto, Canada. The interview was a transcribed on the site. I will delete the material referencing Champ magazine. However the youtube account and link are official and the material on that account are distributed by rapper 50 cent. Also the wikipedia page for 50 cent's album Before I Self Destruct overtly credits Phoenix as the producer of the track Flight 187. The material regarding Phoenix and his linkage as the producer of that song is supported and has valid sources, right?"

This was the version of the article that had the Champ Magazine references he is talking about. My reply to him: "I will offer my opinion that if you can show which radio station runs the Champ blog, then the Champ blog may be a good source to keep in the article." ~YellowFives 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no independent verificaztion of natobality. Twri (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nesic[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ENT. no significant roles or recognition. most of the third party coverage is passing mentions. [24]. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per search showing meeting WP:ENT and WP:GNG [25]. I'd call positive reception [26] for his starring role in Sleeper Cell as significant. Lacking proper inline citations is a surmountable problem that calls for cleanup and not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - just squeeks by the requirements of WP:ENT in that he has had significant roles in multiple films/television series, most specifically "Sleeper cell" where he played a significant and well covered role in the Grammy nominated series. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 22:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy the requirements of WP:ENT, though not by too much. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Between Good and Evil[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NALBUMS lacks notability as an album with it's own article. would be better just merged into artist article as the artist is very notable Alan - talk 00:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - this time I somewhat agree with the proposal. The album appears to be one of those quickies put out by a record company with no promotion or input from the artist. I can find little commentary on this compilation, even on sites dedicated to Santana. Also, the article has a fairly lengthy edit history but nobody could come up with anything more than what we see now. I vote "Weak Delete" perhaps to encourage expansion by Santana historians. But otherwise, a redlink in the artist discography might be all this compilation deserves. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and no need to merge, a "budget-priced compilation" "intended for the casual fan of Santana" "a highlights sampler rather than a hits or even a best-of collection, useful for the music fan who just wants a smattering of Santana, as long as it doesn't cost much", the preceding from this Allmusic review]. An insult to Santana to keep this article. J04n(talk page) 02:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this phrase is widely used, and not to refer to the album of the article. [27] 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Magazin. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Da si ti ja[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

barely makes it as WP:STUB, lacks notability as an album having it's own article WP:NALBUMS Alan - talk 00:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - the article needs to be expanded badly. Otherwise, a search reveals a fair number of possible sources but most appear to be non-English. Not sure if that should count against the album itself, but there is reason to question notability for English Wikipedia. A redlink in the band's discography is likely to be sufficient unless anyone can come up with more notable information for this album. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NALBUMS as an officially released album by a notable artist. A lack of English sources in no way invalidates notability for English Wikipedia if there are adequate non-English sources. Rlendog (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the band's main article or discography. 1) The help pages about referencing state that sources do not need to be in English. 2) There is too little information for a separate article. 3) If the band is notable, their work needs to be covered. Merging offers the best of both world; no stubs, but complete coverage. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Maltby[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amateur racing driver and thus fails WP:ATHLETE as well as the standards of WikiProject Motorsport. Drdisque (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as an amateur fails WP:ATHLETE; plus no substantial results from a news archive search to suggest he meets the general notability guideline on other counts. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as far as I can tell based on the article and a Google News search, just an amateur/weekend driver. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ATHLETE notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, but it does highlight the distinct lack of coverage for his fathers generation in speedcars in [South] Australia. e.g. Peter Maltby c.f [28]; Bill Wigzell c.f. [29]; let alone sprint cars.
Delete: per nom DigitalC (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:ATHLETE. Even if his father is notable, we all know that notability is not inherited. Cocytus [»talk«] 17:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RAAF Pilot[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is basically a job ad attempting to recruit pilots for the Royal Australian Air Force. The article is a description of what a person would do in this job, a list of what kind of aircraft they could fly, and details of the training process a successful candidate undergoes. The article falls under the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy, specifically "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion...Wikipedia is not Australian Defence Force Recruiting.

The article is very similar in construction and intent to Royal Australian Air Force Pilot, which was previously deleted via Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (prod).

I am also nominating:

... a recreation of Royal Australian Air Force Armament Technician deleted by prod, for the same reasons. -- saberwyn 00:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 00:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 00:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless copy-and-paste from [30], and other primary sources. Andrea105 (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC) This post was made by a banned user. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as advert and copyvio Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 02:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the second nomination directs here as well, it needs its own nomination page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclear Lunch Detected (talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been set up as a group nomination, the articles are very similar in theme, style, content, and problems, and I think that the results of one deletion discussion would be identical to the other. That said, I may not have made this as clear in the nomination, and shuffled the formatting a little to make the dual nomination more obvious. -- saberwyn 02:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination - theses articles appear to have been copied and pasted from somewhere, and aren't encyclopedic Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete ~~under G12~~ - blatant copyright infringement. I am going to go through and mark them. --Shirik (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all of the content appears to be a copy-paste. The first half of it appears to be, and the second half appears to be WP:OR. I retain my delete but it's not eligible for G12. --Shirik (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (both RAAF Pilot and RAAF Aircraft Armament Technician) as per above, not encyclopedic and possibly a copyright violation. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both, Wikipedia is not a jobs board. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Fashion District (compilation)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable club mix CD. Prod removed because "released worldwide and is currently on the shelf in stores throughout Europ" [sic]; neither is a criterion for notability detailed at WP:NALBUMS. The album hasn't charted and while it is available at many online stores I couldn't find any reviews or media coverage of substance (even unsubstantial) from any reliable sources (or unreliable ones, for that matter). The CD exists, is available for sale, and includes some notable artists, but none of that makes the CD meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found for this compilation album. Gongshow ^Talk 18:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Andrea105 (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)This post was made by a banned user. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd IFMCA Awards[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of several pages of non-notable awards given by this non-notable organization. Unable to find further sources beyond Wikipedia. otherl left 13:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, I cannot find significant coverage for this organization or its awards. Delete all articles about the awards and the organization itself. Angryapathy (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete People, people. Are you seriously doubting the validity of the IFMCA and its members? I cannot understand the lack of any arguments whatsoever and put your comments in a logical and mature context no matter how hard i tried. If you are in any way actually involved with the film music area, you'd be already very well familar with the websites, magazines, webzines, blogs and organizations we represent such as: BSO Spirit (directly attached and responsible for the UBEDA film festivals, the highly successful and highly popular event amidst the circle of film music composers and professionals who also attend each year), Music From the Movies which is one of the oldest, boldest and still leading film music publications and sources, Soundtrack Net and ScoringSessions.com, possibly the most popular film music website after filmtracks, speaking of which - filmtracks itself, the most well-known film music destination for years, scoremagacine (head and organization committee of the highly popular and CD-released SONCINEMAD Madrid International Film Music festivals that took place in 2006 and 2007 with Trevor Jones and Alan Silvestri in concerts respectively, still continuing with future plans), TrackSounds one of the most active and varicolored major film music destinations to date and also one of the oldest and still strong and the same applies to scorereviews - maintitles.net, the bold Movie Music UK and of course the no.1 film music related website / releasing label and institution in the world, FSM (Film Score Monthly (USA), Ryan Keaveney's Cinemusic, easily one of the 'classics' in the film music modern history, more labels likeBSX, one of the leads in the film music releasing industry and of course the MovieScore Media that does a fantastic job promoting and releasing new and notable film music from upcoming bright talents in the genre, Southall's moviewave, filmmusicmag.com and other major film music websites, radios, and 'zines / publications of all kinds involving extremely well-knon professionals of the industry from the ENTIRE WORLD. I won't tire you with more copy-pastes, you can find it all here (http://filmmusiccritics.org/members/ - IFMCA's about page). THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED ABOVE ARE UNFORTUNATELY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNPROFESSIONAL. MOST IMPORTANTLY THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNCALLED FOR IN A WEBSITE LIKE WIKIPEDIA WHICH GATHERS AND LISTS INFORMATIVE DATA FROM THE ENTIRE WORLD. I really hope this matter will be taken into account and be taken care of the soonest possible as it's an insult to the organization and their members, who constitute a significant percentage of the film music population.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) 08:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC) — Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Also, yelling is a great way to lose an argument and any respect. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 02:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom. Lithorien (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Film_Music_Critics_Association - the discussion going on there directly affects these articles; if that article is deleted, th these will too (they should have been bundled). --JonBroxton (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1st IFMCA Awards[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of several pages of non-notable awards given by this non-notable organization. Like all the others, the primary editor for this page has a stated conflict of interest, and I'm unable to find reliable third-party sources. otherl left 13:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, I cannot find significant coverage for this organization or its awards. Delete all articles about the awards and the organization itself. Angryapathy (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No 3rd-party coverage to support notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete People, people. Are you seriously doubting the validity of the IFMCA and its members? I cannot understand the lack of any arguments whatsoever and put your comments in a logical and mature context no matter how hard i tried. If you are in any way actually involved with the film music area, you'd be already very well familar with the websites, magazines, webzines, blogs and organizations we represent such as: BSO Spirit (directly attached and responsible for the UBEDA film festivals, the highly successful and highly popular event amidst the circle of film music composers and professionals who also attend each year), Music From the Movies which is one of the oldest, boldest and still leading film music publications and sources, Soundtrack Net and ScoringSessions.com, possibly the most popular film music website after filmtracks, speaking of which - filmtracks itself, the most well-known film music destination for years, scoremagacine (head and organization committee of the highly popular and CD-released SONCINEMAD Madrid International Film Music festivals that took place in 2006 and 2007 with Trevor Jones and Alan Silvestri in concerts respectively, still continuing with future plans), TrackSounds one of the most active and varicolored major film music destinations to date and also one of the oldest and still strong and the same applies to scorereviews - maintitles.net, the bold Movie Music UK and of course the no.1 film music related website / releasing label and institution in the world, FSM (Film Score Monthly (USA), Ryan Keaveney's Cinemusic, easily one of the 'classics' in the film music modern history, more labels likeBSX, one of the leads in the film music releasing industry and of course the MovieScore Media that does a fantastic job promoting and releasing new and notable film music from upcoming bright talents in the genre, Southall's moviewave, filmmusicmag.com and other major film music websites, radios, and 'zines / publications of all kinds involving extremely well-knon professionals of the industry from the ENTIRE WORLD. I won't tire you with more copy-pastes, you can find it all here (http://filmmusiccritics.org/members/ - IFMCA's about page). THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED ABOVE ARE UNFORTUNATELY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNPROFESSIONAL. MOST IMPORTANTLY THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNCALLED FOR IN A WEBSITE LIKE WIKIPEDIA WHICH GATHERS AND LISTS INFORMATIVE DATA FROM THE ENTIRE WORLD. I really hope this matter will be taken into account and be taken care of the soonest possible as it's an insult to the organization and their members, who constitute a significant percentage of the film music population.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) 08:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC) — Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If you would like to present third party coverage from independant, reliable sources, (instead of naming them) then I'd be more than happy to change my opinion. However, as it stands, this organization fails Wikipedia's notability standards. This makes no comment on the overall notability, but only applies to whether or not it merits inclusion here. Angryapathy (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another editor left the following message on the AfD article for the main International Film Music Critics Association page:
  - I am not sure how to take part in this discussion, but I suppose this is the place? Who decides whether or not an organization is "non-notable" or its members "totally unknown"? There are numerous independent sources online to verify the validity of the Wikipedia article: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. -- Moviescore (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Also, yelling is a great way to lose an argument and any respect. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 02:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Film_Music_Critics_Association - the discussion going on there directly affects these articles; if that article is deleted, th these will too (they should have been bundled). --JonBroxton (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rd IFMCA Awards[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of several pages of non-notable awards given by this non-notable organization. otherl left 13:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, I cannot find significant coverage for this organization or its awards. Delete all articles about the awards and the organization itself. Angryapathy (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete People, people. Are you seriously doubting the validity of the IFMCA and its members? I cannot understand the lack of any arguments whatsoever and put your comments in a logical and mature context no matter how hard i tried. If you are in any way actually involved with the film music area, you'd be already very well familar with the websites, magazines, webzines, blogs and organizations we represent such as: BSO Spirit (directly attached and responsible for the UBEDA film festivals, the highly successful and highly popular event amidst the circle of film music composers and professionals who also attend each year), Music From the Movies which is one of the oldest, boldest and still leading film music publications and sources, Soundtrack Net and ScoringSessions.com, possibly the most popular film music website after filmtracks, speaking of which - filmtracks itself, the most well-known film music destination for years, scoremagacine (head and organization committee of the highly popular and CD-released SONCINEMAD Madrid International Film Music festivals that took place in 2006 and 2007 with Trevor Jones and Alan Silvestri in concerts respectively, still continuing with future plans), TrackSounds one of the most active and varicolored major film music destinations to date and also one of the oldest and still strong and the same applies to scorereviews - maintitles.net, the bold Movie Music UK and of course the no.1 film music related website / releasing label and institution in the world, FSM (Film Score Monthly (USA), Ryan Keaveney's Cinemusic, easily one of the 'classics' in the film music modern history, more labels likeBSX, one of the leads in the film music releasing industry and of course the MovieScore Media that does a fantastic job promoting and releasing new and notable film music from upcoming bright talents in the genre, Southall's moviewave, filmmusicmag.com and other major film music websites, radios, and 'zines / publications of all kinds involving extremely well-knon professionals of the industry from the ENTIRE WORLD. I won't tire you with more copy-pastes, you can find it all here (http://filmmusiccritics.org/members/ - IFMCA's about page). THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED ABOVE ARE UNFORTUNATELY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNPROFESSIONAL. MOST IMPORTANTLY THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNCALLED FOR IN A WEBSITE LIKE WIKIPEDIA WHICH GATHERS AND LISTS INFORMATIVE DATA FROM THE ENTIRE WORLD. I really hope this matter will be taken into account and be taken care of the soonest possible as it's an insult to the organization and their members, who constitute a significant percentage of the film music population.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) 08:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC) — Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Also, yelling is a great way to lose an argument and any respect. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 02:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Film_Music_Critics_Association - the discussion going on there directly affects these articles; if that article is deleted, th these will too (they should have been bundled). --JonBroxton (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4th IFMCA Awards[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of several pages of non-notable awards given by this non-notable organization. This one doesn't even have the a press release or two as references like the other years do. otherl left 13:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, I cannot find significant coverage for this organization or its awards. Delete all articles about the awards and the organization itself. Angryapathy (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete People, people. Are you seriously doubting the validity of the IFMCA and its members? I cannot understand the lack of any arguments whatsoever and put your comments in a logical and mature context no matter how hard i tried. If you are in any way actually involved with the film music area, you'd be already very well familar with the websites, magazines, webzines, blogs and organizations we represent such as: BSO Spirit (directly attached and responsible for the UBEDA film festivals, the highly successful and highly popular event amidst the circle of film music composers and professionals who also attend each year), Music From the Movies which is one of the oldest, boldest and still leading film music publications and sources, Soundtrack Net and ScoringSessions.com, possibly the most popular film music website after filmtracks, speaking of which - filmtracks itself, the most well-known film music destination for years, scoremagacine (head and organization committee of the highly popular and CD-released SONCINEMAD Madrid International Film Music festivals that took place in 2006 and 2007 with Trevor Jones and Alan Silvestri in concerts respectively, still continuing with future plans), TrackSounds one of the most active and varicolored major film music destinations to date and also one of the oldest and still strong and the same applies to scorereviews - maintitles.net, the bold Movie Music UK and of course the no.1 film music related website / releasing label and institution in the world, FSM (Film Score Monthly (USA), Ryan Keaveney's Cinemusic, easily one of the 'classics' in the film music modern history, more labels likeBSX, one of the leads in the film music releasing industry and of course the MovieScore Media that does a fantastic job promoting and releasing new and notable film music from upcoming bright talents in the genre, Southall's moviewave, filmmusicmag.com and other major film music websites, radios, and 'zines / publications of all kinds involving extremely well-knon professionals of the industry from the ENTIRE WORLD. I won't tire you with more copy-pastes, you can find it all here (http://filmmusiccritics.org/members/ - IFMCA's about page). THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED ABOVE ARE UNFORTUNATELY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNPROFESSIONAL. MOST IMPORTANTLY THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNCALLED FOR IN A WEBSITE LIKE WIKIPEDIA WHICH GATHERS AND LISTS INFORMATIVE DATA FROM THE ENTIRE WORLD. I really hope this matter will be taken into account and be taken care of the soonest possible as it's an insult to the organization and their members, who constitute a significant percentage of the film music population.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) 08:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC) — Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Also cut the useless yelling. No one likes seeing all caps. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 02:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Film_Music_Critics_Association - the discussion going on there directly affects these articles; if that article is deleted, th these will too (they should have been bundled). --JonBroxton (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5th IFMCA Awards[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable awards given by non-notable organization. otherl left 13:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, I cannot find significant coverage for this organization or its awards. Delete all articles about the awards and the organization itself. Angryapathy (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Obviously, just like the Academy Awards, the only coverage you're going to see is when nominees and winners are announced. Before writing the organization and the awards off as non-notable, I need more information. I'm not an expert in the field, but if any of the people listed as members in the main article are truly experts that just happen to not have a link WP article, then this can be notable (similarly to the famous member clause for bands). Besides, those awards aren't given out by random people, they're experts in the field. Could do with more independent sources, but the nom apparently never tried to find those. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for assuming good faith on my diligence - there are six related articles, and I did try to find reliable sources. I would have added them had I found them.--otherl left 16:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete People, people. Are you seriously doubting the validity of the IFMCA and its members? I cannot understand the lack of any arguments whatsoever and put your comments in a logical and mature context no matter how hard i tried. If you are in any way actually involved with the film music area, you'd be already very well familar with the websites, magazines, webzines, blogs and organizations we represent such as: BSO Spirit (directly attached and responsible for the UBEDA film festivals, the highly successful and highly popular event amidst the circle of film music composers and professionals who also attend each year), Music From the Movies which is one of the oldest, boldest and still leading film music publications and sources, Soundtrack Net and ScoringSessions.com, possibly the most popular film music website after filmtracks, speaking of which - filmtracks itself, the most well-known film music destination for years, scoremagacine (head and organization committee of the highly popular and CD-released SONCINEMAD Madrid International Film Music festivals that took place in 2006 and 2007 with Trevor Jones and Alan Silvestri in concerts respectively, still continuing with future plans), TrackSounds one of the most active and varicolored major film music destinations to date and also one of the oldest and still strong and the same applies to scorereviews - maintitles.net, the bold Movie Music UK and of course the no.1 film music related website / releasing label and institution in the world, FSM (Film Score Monthly (USA), Ryan Keaveney's Cinemusic, easily one of the 'classics' in the film music modern history, more labels likeBSX, one of the leads in the film music releasing industry and of course the MovieScore Media that does a fantastic job promoting and releasing new and notable film music from upcoming bright talents in the genre, Southall's moviewave, filmmusicmag.com and other major film music websites, radios, and 'zines / publications of all kinds involving extremely well-knon professionals of the industry from the ENTIRE WORLD. I won't tire you with more copy-pastes, you can find it all here (http://filmmusiccritics.org/members/ - IFMCA's about page). THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED ABOVE ARE UNFORTUNATELY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNPROFESSIONAL. MOST IMPORTANTLY THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNCALLED FOR IN A WEBSITE LIKE WIKIPEDIA WHICH GATHERS AND LISTS INFORMATIVE DATA FROM THE ENTIRE WORLD. I really hope this matter will be taken into account and be taken care of the soonest possible as it's an insult to the organization and their members, who constitute a significant percentage of the film music population.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) 08:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC) — Christodoulidesd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: Christodoulidesd has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Also cut the useless yelling. No one likes seeing all caps. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 02:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Film_Music_Critics_Association - the discussion going on there directly affects these articles; if that article is deleted, th these will too (they should have been bundled). --JonBroxton (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete laundry list of this crop of awards, for which sourcing is excessively light Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Vanderby[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although he's been a session musician on what seems to be a number of albums, I can find no references to Vanderby outside of his own publicity and various databases. He doesn't seem to be notable per WP:MUSIC. The only radio play mentioned is the rather peacocky "some of which achieved major commercial FM radio airplay nationally". The only award win is a songwriting competition. A search for that yields more about Vanderby than the competition itself. Dismas|^(talk) 08:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, insufficient evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can find no evidence of individual notability online, other than credits and self-published material.—DMCer™ 01:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Street Pharmacy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article seems to be very promotional, contains detailed information that doesn't appear to be within references and doesn't appear to be notable (No major press, no major recognition apart from a few local nominations and very limited album sales stated). The article is also heavily tended by only 1 user who doesn't appear to contribute elsewhere. Nomination for deletion is based on notability and potential that article is created for advertising purposes Clovis Sangrail (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article suggests that this group meets WP:BAND. The band has only released independent albums; the media coverage is the very definition of "trivial"; its awards are nowhere near "major"; and the appearance on a reality television show does not go any way to establishing notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is being compiled by non-band member with no motive to advertise. More than willing to remove seemingly promotional links. User is also new to wikipedia entry creation, thus page is frequently being updated to ensure proper formatting (and thus heavily tended to). Band has international recognition, and is currently starring on the leading music network in Canada, therefore notability is relative. It is agreed that references need to be solidified and specified, and this will be improved upon. Kv05ko (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In what respect does the band have "international recognition"? --Mkativerata (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Band has toured, received airplay, and produced music for albums in Canada, the United States, and Cuba. Kv05ko (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Rather than being "international", the significant attention appears to be Ontario based. Their notability in Ontario is unquestioned, but are their notability outside is more questionable (Is recognition in Ontario enough?). Have any singles / albums charted in Canada or outside? Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment While their notability as an "international" success is questionable, their recognition in Ontario is certainly enough to be considered noteworthy in the Canadian music industry. The band has been popularized by the nation's leading music channel, and have gained the interest of major agents and labels. They are in the process of choosing a high-profile agent, and signing a major distribution deal (both of which will be chronicled on national television). Given the degree of band information and press reception alone, I think that having a Wikipedia article about the band is more than justified.Kv05ko (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Comment "have gained the interest of major agents and labels" is not a strong statement for outside recognition (thought they may be picked up in the future) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kv05ko's reasoning. Strong notability in one area should lend this band enough notability to stay on Wikipedia, even if they're not notable on the international scene. Lithorien (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete average local rock band. nn SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Comment I've noticed that the main author of the article is uploading photos sourced to one of the band members (potential conflict of interest?) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I added a {{COI}} tag to the article. ttonyb (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong forum. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pied (pattern)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect created week ago solely to be placed on a disambig page, but there appears to be no need for it, as relevant articles are already lined there. See discussion at Talk:Pied Montanabw^(talk) 05:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~Opening comment~~: The article piebald already exists. Pied, a synonym, goes, apporpropriately to a disambiguation page. Why the above redirect was created seems unneeded and illogical, plus potentially creates confusion in searching for piebald article. Montanabw^(talk) 05:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As has already been stated on Talk:Pied, linking to this redirect on the disambiguation page rather than directly to Piebald is not a potential source of confusion; rather, it would be a source of confusion to link directly to Piebald. The direct link would be confusing to users because it suggests that Pied and Piebald are not synonyms but rather terms that may be mistaken for one another. While WP:MOSDAB states that linking to a redirect on a disambiguation page is normally not the best option, the guidelines are clear that linking to Pied (pattern) on the Pied disambiguation page is preferable to linking directly to Piebald; this is demonstrated by the James Cary example. Neelix (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: No dispute that the disambiguation page is appropriate and needs to be kept. At issue are the redirects only. Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The two discussions are inextricable. The reason these redirects exist is for their use on the disambiguation page. Neelix (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which is why I feel like we have a "blind men and the elephant" discussion here. LOL! It seems wholly illogical to create redirects only so they can be used on a disambiguation page. And I think MOS backs me on this, but therein lies the rub. Good folks can differ, so this is why we are here. Anyone out there want to weigh in? Hello?Montanabw^(talk) 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum - not an article, should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. But, for what it's worth, it's harmless if pointless, and is probably unlikely to be deleted there. Warofdreams talk 02:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have the disambiguation page Pied, so people can already search for that word. We don't need the modifiers in the title. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because this is the wrong forum, as Warofdreams mentions above, is it possible to move it to the list of rfd's? Users more familiar with rfd's might have more comments to include. Neelix (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to move it to RFD, I don't care, but I think that deletion can occur via either forum. Montanabw^(talk) 00:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced of that. WP:MOSDAB is pretty clear. Neelix (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Here, we are not talking about the dab, we are talking about the redirects created solely to make piped links in the dab. Can someone other than Neelix and I weigh in on this? We two are never going to agree on this issue, and we'd like to keep some good faith going here. Help!! Montanabw^(talk) 05:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong forum. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pied (act)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect created week ago solely to be placed on a disambig page, but there appears to be no need for it, as relevant articles are already lined there. See discussion at Talk:Pied Montanabw^(talk) 05:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comment: The article pieing already exists. Pied, a synonym, goes, appropriately to a disambiguation page. Why the above redirect was created seems unneeded and illogical, plus potentially creates confusion in searching for the correct title for the actual article. Montanabw^(talk) 05:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails naming conventions, and has an added unneeded modifier. No one will look for this. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As has already been stated on Talk:Pied, linking to this redirect on the disambiguation page rather than directly to Pieing is not a potential source of confusion; rather, it would be a source of confusion to link directly to Pieing. The direct link would be confusing to users because it suggests that Pied and Pieing are not different forms of the same verb but rather terms that may be mistaken for one another. While WP:MOSDAB states that linking to a redirect on a disambiguation page is normally not the best option, the guidelines are clear that linking to Pied (act) on the Pied disambiguation page is preferable to linking directly to Pieing; this is demonstrated by the James Cary example. Neelix (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: I am fine keeping the disambiguation page, it's these redirects (this and Pied (pattern) that I find confusing. The disambiguation page as it currently exists seems to work just fine. Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Working just fine is not sufficient. There are reasons we have guidelines, and this redirect is required in order for them to be met for the disambiguation page. Neelix (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAgain, there is no need to create a totally useless redirect just so each definition can begin with the word "Pied," when in fact the MOS also states that redirects and piped links are normally discouraged. But good folks can disagree, and that's why we are here. Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Neelix: I don't agree that "The direct link would be confusing to users because it suggests that Pied and Pieing are not different forms of the same verb but rather terms that may be mistaken for one another." It simply enforces the idea that when you look for a verb, you need to enter the present tense. If you still think a redirect is necessary, then put it at Pied without the modifiers. It's the whole modifier thing that's bugging me. If people want to look up pied, they can do so without the added modifier in the page title. They're simply not needed. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if I understand your statement that "If people want to look up pied, they can do so without the added modifier in the page title." People look up concepts, but they must type titles into the search bar; someone looking for an article about throwing pies at people could type "Pied" into the search bar just like someone who is looking for an article about a particular animal spotting pattern. I'm not suggesting that the article titles be switched to include the modifiers; I'm arguing that WP:MOSDAB requires the use of redirects with these modifiers. Am I understanding your objection? Neelix (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this discussion be at WP:RFD instead of here? Propaniac (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to move it to RFD, I don't care, but I think that deletion can occur via either forum. Montanabw^(talk) 00:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced of that. WP:MOSDAB is pretty clear. Neelix (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P-17 (Dubai)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed building in Dubai that has no reliable sources for notability. Given the economic climate in Dubai, this building will never get built. Deprodded. Glittering Pillars (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a couple of reliable sources to the article. "...will never get built" is not a reason to delete an article. Astronaut (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one examines the sources, one finds that they all use the same text, as does this; http://www.worldarab.net/content/p-17. This means that there is only one source, and that the copy was written by the developers. Let me be blunt; even if built, this building does not have adequate sourcing to remain on Wikipedia. Even if one accepts this one source, it is a just a description of a proposed building. Glittering Pillars (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The issue regarding sources has been resolved. The idea that it won't be built because of the economy is pure speculation. We've got an economic crisis here in the Netherlands and, they literally can't stop building. I see building sites and construction workers wherever I go. I don't see why Dubai would be any different. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the fact that we are arguing over a non-existent building, it's that there are not enough independent sources attesting to the notability. Glittering Pillars (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one spam news release does not merit a wikipedia article. SchmuckyTheCat (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. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Ninjism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If it's significant ( I can't find anything ), it should get a spot on the freerunning article. Seems like this is OR based on youtube videos. Pirate^Argh!!1! 04:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with freerunning. References are awful. Bonewah (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Big J Show[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Upon review of this article, I cannot find any significant third-party coverage to satisfy WP:RS, and in point of fact a Google search only turns up 7 hits after weeding out unreliable sites, so I believe this article fails WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor mentions in references, insufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obsession (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Michael Vescera (its lead singer) may be notable, but this band isn't. I couldn't find any references, but it is hard search for. Pirate^Argh!!1! 04:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching for the band name plus an album title.Pwrong (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources and two sources aren't good enough for me. MusicMight is just a biography. Joe Chill (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can merge Obsession (band) into Michael Vescera.--Canniba loki 00:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yaaruku Yaaro[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been deleted under a different name previously twice, here and here. To me it looks different enough to the previous revisions that speedy deletion may not be appropriate. The article itself mentions that the movie was never reviewed by newspapers or entertainment websites and the references consist of links to YouTube, a gallery of photos and a brief video interview with an actor on Metacafe. There is a brief mention of the movie here but it doesn't look like significant coverage. This seems to fail the Film notability criteria as well as the wider notability policy. Camw (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 00:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 00:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A genuine viral phenomenon (probably the first tamil viral film?) getting the chop as the Tamil MSM is too slow to catch up with the web :-(. There was a similar AFD discussion for the film's lead and producer "Sam Anderson" a few weeks back [43]. It was decided to keep Yarukku Yaro and redirect sam anderson to it. The film has huge coverage in Tamil blogosphere (both Tamil and English blogs) and youtube as a viral phenomenon. After it became viral it was picked up by a mainstream TV Channel for broadcast (with an interview with sam anderson, which in turn has gone viral). Tamil Wikipedia has an entry for the film. Apart from the hindu article mentioned by the nominator, it has had some coverage in Tamil media like [44], [45] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodabottle (talk • contribs) 05:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment : It was broadcast in Zee Tamil on 11 July 2009. The promo was uploaded by Zee tamil marketing team in youtube. --Sodabottle (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, trusting Sodabottle's statement that it's been televised and received media coverage in Tamil. Polarpanda (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Is a legitimate Tamil movie, which is growing to become a huge internet meme. If something like a paragraph on Benny Lava can be kept on Wikipedia, this should be kept as well. I am still upset that the article on Sam Anderson was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.50.255 (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Edwards (musician)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable besides being associated with Beto Cuevas Pirate^Argh!!1! 03:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beto Cuevas doesn't mention him. I recall doing a literature search for Ben, and got a lot of hits to the effect of "and on bass, Ben Edwards!" Josh Parris 04:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Construction Company Inc.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unremarkable, searches only provided business directories and its official website, no external coverage Pirate^Argh!!1! 02:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also unambiguous advertising: Founded in 2005 by a partnership of seasoned construction personnel, United set up office in the West end of Edmonton at 204-17872-106 Avenue. By Early 2006 United had doubled its staff and projects underway. Street names in Edmonton must be weird. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ness Wood Studios[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear notable HJMitchell You rang? 03:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, no apparent notability Smokizzy (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 24 Google hits, can barely be verified. Abductive (reasoning) 04:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Gerardo Hernandez[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject's books are self-published through iUniverse and Lulu.com. There's no shame in using such self-publishing services, but notable authors usually manage to get better deals from conventional publishers. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Bontogon-Guererro[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. nothing in gnews [46]. fails WP:POLITICIAN , simply being a local politician does not guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PhpCMS[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all products without third party coverage SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oil phase-out in Sweden[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The "phase out" is a (non-notable) example of valfläsk. Specifically, the article describes the unimplemented suggestions of a single commission. Gabbe (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Early proposal to address climate change, and notable topic with many additional sources to draw upon, such as [47], [48], [49]. Johnfos (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnfos. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources are adequate to establish notability. Andrea105 (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC) This post was made by a banned user. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suggest moving the current name from Making Sweden an OIL-FREE Society to Oil phase-out in Sweden seems pretty informal for encyclopedia namespace parameters. --75.154.186.99 (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainers who performed for American troops in Vietnam[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An endless, indiscriminate list. This would be fine as a category, but not a list article. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United Service Organizations#Vietnam War, which already lists the most important entertainers. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does anyone know around how many entertainers performed in Vietnam? If the list would be sprawling and indiscriminate than it should be redirected to the main USO article, where the notable achievements can be evaluated. If there were only a limited amount of entertainers, than I think a list of all of them would be reasonable. Them From Space 21:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The USO article says more than 5,000. --Explodicle (T/C) 23:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Thats performances, not entertainers. Them From Space 23:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary and not encyclopedic lists. Someidiot (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: The header of this AfD was malformed and has been fixed. Please consider this the first week of discussion for relisting purposes. Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unsourced, indiscriminate list with no context. Since there's a section in the USO article, and this adds zero to that, no reason for this list to exist. Mandsford (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect. There's nothing indiscriminate about it. It is a limited list of people with clear inclusion guidelines for something that is an important part of American culture and history. That said, a whole bunch of artists is already verified and covered elsewhere. If someone can confirm the other names and expand it in some sort of table with dates, rather than just a couple of names, I can totally see a list surviving. Until then, I support a redirect. I was totally unaware of USO before I read the comments, and you can't expect anyone looking for artists who performed in Vietnam to find the existing information without a redirect with a more logical name. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mgm. A chronology would certainly be more useful, but if the article is suppressed with a redirect, then whence the editors to improve it? A link from United_Service_Organizations#Vietnam_War rather than to it makes more sense. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please comment on the topic, not on the person. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Yakoub al-Amir Mahmoud[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. User:Twhanna placed the AFD header on the article but did not create the AFD discussion page. On this page the user gave the reason as “This is clearly an article for the defence of the accused person. As an editorial of defence it does not make a ligitimite biography.” Abstain. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if it were true that the page were just a "defence" then the page would need to be improved, not deleted. The subject, as a wrongly accused Sudanese terrorist who served years in the world's worst prison, seems notable. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hundreds of prisoners have passed through Gitmo and we don't have an article for every one except the most infamous. I see nothing particularly notable about this one.--Ptolion (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- During the 20th Century, and this first decade of the 21st Century probably something like 100,000,000 individuals have been held in extrajudicial detention. 99,999,221 of these individuals held by totalitarian dictatorships, such as Nazi Germany's concentration camps, the gulags of the old Soviet Union, its equivalent in Red China. And 779 were held in Guantanamo by the USA. Democratic countries holding individuals without charge in secret camps was unknown before the USA opened Guantanamo. Does this mean we should have an article about each Guantanamo captive? No, I don't think so -- only those for whom we can write policy compliant articles based on verifiable, reliable sources. Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you admit that you created this article to promote a political agenda ("policy complaint article"). I'm sure that every single person who has been imprisoned at Gitmo has a fascinating story behind them, but this does not necessarily make them notable. They're more notable than you or I, but not notable enough for Wikipedia.--Ptolion (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he said policy compliant article, not complaint. Big difference. Cocytus [»talk«] 17:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I agree with Sherurcij here. I believe that our nominator's concerns should have been raised on the talk page, and are not grounds for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, so a clear delete according to our policy. I see a lot of references in the article, but these are either primary sources (which cannot be used to establish notability) or sources that mention Mahmoud in passing (hence also not establishing notability). Pantherskin (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, User:Iqinn, who was chastised for the same thing on the last terrorism-related AFD (Amjad Mohammed Khan, kept after user was warned to stop removing footnotes and facts from an article he wanted deleted) has gone through the article removing the section detailing Mahmoud's own account of his life as gleaned from his tribunal proceedings...consequently leaving an incomplete version of the article for people to vote on. I have reverted it for now, but please be certain the actual article is the one, not the one that has facts removed in the middle of an AFD, we debate while we determine if we know enough facts to establish notability. For example I notice the "Delete" vote above this comment was cast during the period that information had been removed from the page (though I am not suggesting the user would necessarily have voted otherwise). Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot of untrue facts and accusations against me. What can we do? I have friendly ask the user to strike his comment. And i have tried to calm him down and to stop further escalation. Instead he had choosen to intensity his behavior by extending this comment here with more bad faith accusations and false facts. So what can we do? I guess nothing. So bear with me for the needed explanation. I try to limit myself to the part that has at least a little bit to do with this article and this Afd. (there are other places for the other stuff)

The delete above had been done before i started editing the article at (06:37, 14 December 2009)

It is common practice to work on articles during AfD's.

I have made six edits to improve and clarify the article.

I have done the same edits to a lot of similar articles of Guantanamo detainees in recent days and weeks.

In five of the edits i clarified witch parts are quotes by using the {quotation} template and i removed the links inside the quotes. You may also compare these versions before and after. User Sherurcij now more or less accepts these changes. As everybody else so far on the other articles where i did the same. It is imported to show clearly what is a quote and what is not.

That leaves us just with one edit where there is disagreement. This one and you can see i did not removed footnotes. I haven't removed any footnotes from the article at all. That's wrong. Did i remove facts? That's also wrong. Let me explain this in detail. The part i have removed belongs to the 18 pages of CSRT and ART documents. But there is a very big difference here: The part i removed is not a quote as the other parts in the article. The one that i removed is a summary and interpretation created by an WP editor. Quotations from these articles are fine but any summary or interpretation is of topic for WP editors. The removed part is not a fact. It is simply the personnel interpretation of the WP editor. The interpretation of such documents is not up to us and this part needs to be removed. It may be possible to put more quotes on the article instead. In fact you would need to copy all 18 pages into the article. I have started a discussion about that on the articles talk page at the time i did these six edits.

To wrap it up: The one edit that is in question now has been reverted to the version that user Sherurcij favors. And I suggest the AfD should just calmly go on and just concentrate on the topic surrounding the article and the Afd. IQinn (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient sources as it is. My personal view is that we will eventually be restoring all the individual pages on gitmo prisoners--to regard them as not being historically notable will seem a near-sighted blunder. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure I could agree with that, DGG. Are you saying that every one of those hundreds of prisoners who have been held at Guantanamo is a noteworthy person? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 05:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biographical POV only falls under the criteria for deletion if it is insurmountable which the nom has not even attempted to demonstrate. If you have a problem with the tone or perceived bias in an article then attempt to fix it. The article is a mess but its subject matter and scope is not inherently biased. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if one of the main concerns was content, not the subject of the article, then it probably should have been addressed on the talk page (WP:BEFORE, etc.). While the article needs some work, it is my opinion that the topic itself merits inclusion, as I feel the threshold for significance has been crossed. Cocytus [»talk«] 17:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gert Lotter[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the site that's listed as a source, this player didn't actually play during the game he was in (http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/442/442782/442782.html). I believe that means he's non-notable according to the rules for sportspeople. Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure he didn't do any fielding? Polarpanda (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be sure since I wasn't actually there. But if he did, we need the source in the article to actually back it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he played in the match, even though he neither batted nor bowled. It is an unusual case, as looking at the match scorecard it was played as a 12 a side fixture, but with only 11 to bat and field. We can't know whether he actually fielded or not, but he probably did as otherwise why name him in the starting 12? JH (talk page) 18:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - irrelevant what his contribution or lack of contributions were in the game, according to the WP:Cricket notability guidelines, he is notable as he has played in a List A game.The-Pope (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per CRIN. Chances are that there will be other List A cricket appearances too, given his age. Johnlp (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRIN and Johnlp. Harrias (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRIN. He played and that is enough, never mind that his contribution wasn't significant. Unless people want to overturn WP:CRIN, this article should stay, and this probably isn't the place to discuss the guideline. On another note, it looks likely that he's played youth rugby for Namibia [50]. Nev1 (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he played. Some soccer players from terrible teams, eg, American Samoa, who lost 31-0 to Australia, probably played, but never touched the ball.... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 House (game). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhatukali (game)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is basic an Indian variation of playing "house". It's also unreferenced. Unless a game originated specifically in a particular country or is widely known by that name, I don't believe including this would satisfy the naming criteria for articles. Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No sources whatsoever indicating notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Maybe a mention of the Marathi title could be made here House (game)--Sodabottle (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to House (game). Page 253 on this source (Oxford Univ Press) provides significant detail about the game, page 60, v. 21, 1991 of this magazine provides some info on the history, this magazine article provides some info on the components of the game, page 99, v 80-81 of Zeitschrift für Ethnologie provides contextual info. There are some Marathi sources too, but my Marathi is terrible, so I can't do much with that. -SpacemanSpiff 16:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by SpacemanSpiff. Edward321 (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The references only prove that my initial idea about the game was correct. There is no difference between this and "playing house" which is the proper name according to naming conventions. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with those recommending keeping or merging the content to the existing article on this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to House (game). I disagree that this is completely the same as the western version of the game, but it is a stub with not much notability. It would best serve as a section of House (game), which I think should show any variations of the game from around the world. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:24, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visible (magazine)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For some reason, this page is on my watchlist. I haven't checked for the existence of decent sources but I'd like to point out that, at the very least, the article has to be rewritten. Currently it reads as advertisement, not so much for the magazine itself but for its publisher and editor. (By the way, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Malone may be relevant to this debate). Pichpich (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd also like to note that none of the external links are working properly. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This is from the article "The first issue was scheduled for December 2005 but due to delays in funding the magazine has not been published yet. Although an electronic version was planned through a dedicated website, the official website domain the website points to the website of Design for Diversity"

We can't have a wikipedia entry on a "magazine" that does not and has never existed. Essentially this article is on an idea a group of people had to make something, but was never made. If/when they finally do publish it, then they should create an article on it. I would also like to concur with Pichpich that this seems like it was written as an ad for "the team", tony malone and nicholas chinardet.

As noted previously, none of the external links are working.

Brunk500 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, article even says that the magazine does not exist. wp:crystal Bonewah (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telesciences[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this page for deletion since notability has not been asserted. I did a Google News Archive search and saw several press releases. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be significant coverage from independent sources. I see that there are three potential references at the bottom of the page but cannot verify them as they are formatted. I would not mind withdrawing this if sources are provided. Unfortunately, it has been tagged since 2007 without being fixed. Cptnono (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. While the Google News hits are mostly dross about contracts announced and other routine business page reporting, I did find some general interest sources.[51] [52] They seem to go back to 1967, which is unusual for a firm of this type. The article has fairly obvious COI issues but the subject seems worthy. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Merge 279 Google News hits, 597 Google Books hits and 63 Google Scholar hits. Can the nominator show that not even one of these are significant? Abductive (reasoning) 04:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can. Most of them are press releases or solicited stories in Google News. Double check the articles and not just the result numbers. I actually did not see the scholar ones so will have to look into it.Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up:

Google Books appear to be mainly directory listings. Many are on a single page so I assume they would not be sufficient to create an article off of and might be considered "trivial" or at least not significant coverage for the sake of the notability guidelines.
Many scholar hits are for "Telescience, a term that originated at NASA" and not the company. Please double check the results a little closer in the future.

I am not against the article if the company does meet the notability guidelines with the couple of good news hits (I assume there is more somewhere) and if the coverage in Books is considered significant. However, it should be reduced to a stub since it appears that there are not the sources needed to verify the bulk of it.Cptnono (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Telesciences was bought by Securicor in 1998. I don't know if it was spun back out, but how about merging it there? The article says it was bought by EDB Business Partner, so that could be another merge target. Also, Telesciences used to be Telematic, and Securicor Telesciences may have changed its name to Axiom, Inc. at some point. Its webpage claims it is now Ventraq when it put itself together with ACE*COMM and 10e Solutions. Abductive (reasoning) 05:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ventraq was speedy deleted since it was just promotion. Telesciences appears to be a similar promotional/about us page. ACE*COMM is no good either. I would be shocked if the most recent company didn't meet WP:CORP but am not sure if there is significant coverage or not (haven't looked too hard). I don't mind a stub for them all but I am concerned about what appears to be a series of about us pages. A couple lines in a new article with the above company's redirected might work if we are looking at it in a purely inclusionist fashion. It could also all go until it meets at least some quality standard. Cptnono (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One has to consider the notability of all the companies that preceded the current one. What about moving ACE*COMM to Ventraq, rewriting that article as a stub, and redirecting all the old names there? Abductive (reasoning) 07:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound like a bad idea but I am having a hard time finding significant coverage on the companies. Ventraq in Google News shows press releases which are not a secondary source so should not be the basis for the article. When coupled with the Book searches, note number 5 at Wikipedia:Notability#notes might apply:

" ... directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources."

and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria's

"...Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people..." are not considered secondary.

We need significant coverage from secondary sources regarding these companies. If we get a handful of headlines I'm sure we can write at least a single line. So far I question if there is significant coverage but someone up above provided two sources and I have not gone through all of the other possible sources.

From the articles listed above, Telematics is redirected to an article about the term not a company. Securicor has a couple primarily about BT/Cable & Wireless. ACE*COMM has 0. EDB Business Partner is all about a single event (Jonas Bergling contraversey?). There isn't much coverage on any ofthese companies and it is a mess trying to tie it together. There might be an argument to remove them all even. If there is something out there covering it I am not against merging it together.Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles describing the merges are enough. Merges are big news. Also, I saw a couple of solid refs decribing the line of business the company is in, plus its location in Laurel, MD. That should be enough for a stub for Ventraq. Abductive (reasoning) 07:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the sources for Ventraq? I'm not trying to be dense I just haven't seen secondary coverage mentioning Ventraq. Telesciences has a couple but it isn't signifigant. Mergers and aquasitions can be a big deal (if at least one is already big or they become big form it) but the coverage of any of them seems pretty weak. If we can't find secondary sources detailing the merger. I think that shows how notable it is (I'll of course strike that if it is my bad). It might be if they are all combined but I'm still not seeing it for a)Telesciences or b)Ventraq (with or without Telesciences mentioned).Cptnono (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Comm Companies Form Ventraq Brand. Abductive (reasoning) 08:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristallnacht (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:BAND. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. They don't have multiple releases on notable labels; in fact, their only release on a label with an article is on Grievantee Productions, which is a probable deletion candidate itself. There's no significant coverage in independent, third party sources... Google Books reveals a couple of senetences here, but the mention is trivial. There are also another few trivial mentions as demonstrated here, but nothing to demonstrate notability. A more general Google search reveals nothing that passes WP:RS, mostly being webzines (Spirit of Metal, Metal Archives and the like), blogs or mail order sites. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also now nominated for deletion, by the way. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Song Kexi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Removed Speedy. Procedural nom. I am neutral in this debate. Aditya Ex Machina 15:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is one in a series created by User:Moon Gallery about artists listed at www.moongallery.org. All the other articles so created have been Speedily Deleted from Wikipedia (see User talk:Moon Gallery). I doubt the notability of this artist; a Google search reveals only a few auction sales and one short article from hk-magazine.com, which itself links back to Moon Gallery. As far as I can see, he fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. I say delete the article, and if he's notable enough (perhaps in due course), then a user without a Conflict of Interest will create an article about him. Shem (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Meyer (Actor/Producer/Director)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Lacking GHits of substance. GNEWS all point to being the manager of Hollywood actor's husband that is involved in legal battle with actor. Was deleted in 2006 as a result of AfD. ttonyb (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited. Even IMdB does not have a complete listing for him. None of his acting parts have been notable. His only achievements have been to catch Jay Lo at the altar, and to act as a glorified assistant producer on a few TV episodes. All the news Ghits are tangentially about him, and mostly about Lopez or Noa. Bearian (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mordekye Layman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, online coverage in one local paper but no significant coverage in regional or national media. MuffledThud (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of even remote notability. NBeale (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mnawi Basha Hotel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no assertion of notabilty. Ironholds (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Neutral I added a reference, but I wish that I had been able to find more. Perhaps better sources are available in Arabic, but there's no article on the hotel in the Arabic Wikipedia. -- Eastmain (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I applaud the effort to rescue the article, but we're talking about a single hotel, and hotels are not inherently notable. Chutznik (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipedia is not a Travel guide, "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides". Grim²³ ★ 18:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grievantee Productions[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP owing to lack of coverage in any independent sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cassia Riley[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant independent coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:PORNBIO, negligible career in industry and not the slightest indication of any other potential basis for notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Hullaballoo. Tabercil (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Amalthea 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corazón Partío[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

can't find much notability for this song, article is a total mess, little context, poor grammer, no refs or cites, article states the song was a promo. Alan - talk 20:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Candidate for cleanup, not deletion. The song reached multiple Billboard charts [53], peaked at number one in Spain [54], won at the BMI Latin Awards [55] and Premios Ondas [56], is credited as his breakthrough single [57][58], and has been "covered by numerous artists, including Julio Iglesias" (see the last source). All things considered, this appears to meet virtually all the criteria of WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did some cleaning up to the article while incorporating the above sources. Gongshow ^Talk 11:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User: Gongshow, who has established the song's notability. --Pink Bull 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the refs found. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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