Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 29

< 28 December	30 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 redirect to Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human Instrumentality Project[edit]

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

Much of the page contains substantial original research and without it, is reduced to a stub that's fit only for merging InsaneZeroG (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --InsaneZeroG (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. The lack of references is a serious problem for an article that long. Chutznik (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm Consists entirely of excessively detailed plot and original research. Only one reference (which is actually a link) which is an article from an defunct online magazine, and gives the author as "Carl G. Horn". Carl (Gustav) Horn is/was an editor at Viz media who has credits on the english adaption of the Evangelion manga as well as other unrelated series. He has written notes and articles that have been included in the english volumes, and is clearly a reliable source on the subject. That said, I'm not sure we can use someone's userspace as a location for a reliable source, theres no telling how much of the content is the same as what Horn published. At the very least the article needs a complete rewrite, and I'm not convinced that the subject matter can really stand alone when it's essentially plot detail and the examination and interpretation of it (regardless of it being OR or a published writer's article). Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources are found later, looks to be 100% orginal research. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT for the publication of someone's personal opinions and self-research. This is a non-notable fictional concept from the Neon Genesis Evangelion franchise. The one claimed source buried in the article might be usable elsewhere, but there is nothing in this article to salvage for merging or redirecting. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) - as a valid search term, since it is a term used in the anime, and a core plot point. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re-harsh of plot + Original Research. More critical is the complete absence of evidence of notability, why this subject should have an article? In absence of convincing answer this article should be deleted. --KrebMarkt 08:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge if any of the material is needed. No basis for not doing at least a redirect. As plot summaries go, we do not have any firm rules for amount of detail, but this is by my standards considerably excessive. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) or Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary...I would lean toward the latter since the term is used in that article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article contains no sources and could possibly hold original research. tyhe enitre article is written from NGE series' point of view even though it originates from other sources.
Redirect to the glossary article, as there's a section in there which treats the subject of this article. --Malkinann (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, if any non-OR can be found, merge it to the NGE article. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how would we know if most or none of it is OR? what would be the point of moving it if once it is moved, it would still contain OR. we would need to find sources before redirecting.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) or Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary (I'm honestly not sure which is better). The term is very much a valid search term, as it's a major component of the series, and so should not be lost. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Ryan[edit]

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

Bio article written by a new user. Notability anyone? –BuickCentury Driver 23:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is neither asserted nor shown. Edward321 (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no assertion of notability and arguably could have been speedied. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the user who originally tagged for speedy under A7. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Good points made by Kinu. Cirt (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global University Ranking[edit]

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

Brand-new university ranking that fails WP:GNG - no sources really discuss it outside of a passing mention that I've been able to find. Ghit count is misleading; Newsweek (and apparently USNWR according to some sources?) released a ranking with the same name at one point, and many sources also just use the name generically ("people have been trying to create a definitive global university ranking for quite some time"). — DroEsperanto (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

without comment on the rest just yet, I moved the article to the actual title of the project, The New Global Ranking of World Universities -- this will at any rate eliminate the ambiguity. I have left the redirect, but if the article is kept after the AfD, the redirect should be deleted because of the problem mentioned above. The article seems a rough translation, and in this respect and in others, it would need considerable rewording. Does anyone know if there is a corresponding article under any title in the Russian WP, or whether it has by possibly been deleted there? DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are plenty of university rankings why is one with no track record and support fr a reputable publication notable? Furthermore there appears to be quantitative mistakes in the data collection. Astuishin ^(talk) 00:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless WP:RS can be found. I had made a good faith request for such coverage on the talk page and searched for myself as well, but seeing as how nothing has come to fruition yet, this appears to be "just another ranking" without qualification of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Survivor: Marquesas. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neleh Dennis[edit]

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

1st nomination resulted in deletion, 2nd result was "no consensus". Article is an unreferenced BLP. Doesn't appear to be notable outside of the show, except for an approximately 1-year stint as a local radio host. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Nothing notable outside of participation on Survivor. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Survivor: Marquesas -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not sure that the combination of 1 year stint as radio show host plus Survivior runner-up quite qualifies for having an article, but certainly a redirect to Survivor: Marquesas seems more appropriate than deletion. 20:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwladys Street’s Hall of Fame[edit]

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

no assertion of notability. Ironholds (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I believe the name of the article, in and of itself denotes notability. Likewise, a quick Google News search, does verify the existence of the organization, as shown here [1], with enough 3rd party – verifiable – creditable – independent sources to qualify for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A google search shows that the subject has been covered in the Liverpool Echo, The Independent and the Daily Mirror, though mostly in PPV articles, annoyingly, so the extent of some of this coverage is hard to tell. Dancarney (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google search of Gwladys Street Hall of Fame (rather than Gwladys Street's Hall of Fame) also provides numerous 3rd party sources. I can understand Dancarney's query regarding that some of the sources in the search are showing as PPV, but looking at the address in detail, the links appear to be from a third party research unit of some kind which have taken their information from numerous media sources (notably the Liverpool Echo and the Daily Mirror), from which the original articles do appear to be still available on the relevant media websites. There is also a mention in this article in The Times [2] under the entry talking about Duncan Ferguson.Steveflan (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Fenestrae B.V. by Wuahn (non-admin closure by Intelligentsium 23:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Faxination[edit]

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

Unremarkable product. Borderline advert. Terrible sourcing. Bonewah (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Popular program in Europe, as shown here [3]. Worst case scenario, Merge/Redirect any relevant information to Fenestrae B.V.. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fenestrae B.V., which might just barely scrape by as notable; there's nothing worth merging that's not already there. I don't think [4] and [5] are enough to support a full article, and all the other hits for "faxination" seem to be either independently-coined neologisms, misspellings of "fascination", or (most commonly) reprinted press releases. The article creator's rather blatant conflict of interest (e.g., images uploaded with fair-use rationales consisting solely of "promotional" or "marketing") doesn't help matters a bit. —Korath (Talk) 02:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Korath. Pcap ping 07:31, 30 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 Fenestrae B.V.. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fenestrae Communication Server[edit]

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

Unremarkable product. All the sources for this product are to thefreelibrary.com which does not look like a reliable source to me. Borderline advert. Bonewah (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thefreelibrary.com is a website which collects articles from newspapers and other publications. Some of the references in this article for example, are from Business Wire which looks like a reliable source. I remain neutral on this debate, but just wanted to clarify the sourcing issue :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Business Wire, as stated in the first sentence of its article, is a commercial press-release distribution service. The only independent sources I was able to find are [6] and [7], both of which are passing mentions. Article creator has a severe COI, stating only "promotional" and "marketing" in the fair-use rationales of the images he uploaded to illustrate the parent company's article. —Korath (Talk) 03:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fenestrae B.V., the company article. If all they could scrape as references are press releases, it doesn't deserve an article here per teh rulz. Pcap ping 06:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 30 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Roper (academic)[edit]

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

Not notable person Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find a level of coverage to claim notability, article seems to have been created due to a single event, his controversial resignation, so one event is also an issue imo. Also as the reason for the biography creation, it could have an element of an attack page. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He is notable enough. He has been head of one of the top 100 institutions in the UK. That alone is enough.

Aa42john (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - academic deans and the like are not per se notable under WP:PROF, and there is no evidence he is notable except for the one news item. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Change to Keep per the discussion below and WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Neutral Delete~~. There is a Brian Roper who writes on economic matters of New Zealand. Whether it is the same person I do not know. GS cites are small (h index = 7) so fails WP:Prof #1 anyway. Looks like WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- It appears to be a different person, somebody from the political science department at the University of Otago in New Zealand[8]. Nsk92 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only coverage available seems to be in connection with the financial scandal at London Metropolitan University, so looks like a BLP1E case. Nsk92 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep. There is indeed a significant amount of newscoverage of him for the period 2001-2008, well before the recent financial scandal and resignation, see GNews results[9]. In particular, he seems to have been involved in a number of highly publicized fights with the unions during that time. So looks not to be a BLP1E case and looks to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- with apologies, this is a ridiculous nomination, the man was vice-chancellor of one of the largest universities in the UK. (Vice-chancellor is equivalent to president of an American university.) The nom has apparently failed to satisfy WP:BEFORE, otherwise he would have seen that there is extensive coverage in reliable sources; an AfD is not meant to be mounted against the current state of an article but rather whether there are sufficient sources for the person (etc.) to satisfy WP:N, which this person clearly does (in addition to [[WP:PROF, etc). This is really a waste of time here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the links provided by Nsk92, and reading a few of them, I still fail to find any content that confirms this persons notability, this one for example, all it mentions the subject from a large article is the say his salary, perhaps there is some content in these links that people who think the article is worthy of keeping can add to the article in this week. As the article stands it is an attack, it is made up of only the persons so called controversial resignation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links provided by Nsk92 show nothing more than the Vice-Chancellor doing the job that all Vice-Chancellors do and which their public relations offices are paid to publicise. Nothing notable about this person has yet emerged in terms of previous activities or achievements. Possibly there may be something in his Who's Who entry, but I don't have access to that at present. Nomoskedasticity makes the valid point that the subject technically passes WP:Prof #6 as having been the highest executive officer of London Metropolitan University, a large institution, although one of low prestige: we are not talking about Oxford or Cambridge here. With WP:Prof #6 supporting keep and WP:BLP1E favouring delete the matter seems evenly balanced. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

For WP:N and WP:BIO one does not need to do anything notable to be considered notable; it is the existence of significant coverage that makes one notable. The fact that in this case significant coverage is not limited to the recent financial scandal shows that this is not a BLP1E case. And for what it is worth, at his post as the vice-chancellor he seems to have been more vocal and visible than is typical for academic administrators, often taking controversial positions. E.g. here is an article "Go private, London Met boss tells Oxbridge" [10] illustrating this point (here is another story about this[11], and another one called "One cheer for Brian Roper"[12]). He is characterized as "combative"[13], "gung-ho"[14] His battles with the unions while a vice-chancellor of the London Met also received considerable coverage, e.g. here [15], here "Unions may face legal action over running of no-confidence poll in v-c"[16], here[17], here[18], etc. He was also discussed in protests against high pay for academic administrators[19][20][21]. He also received substantial coverage (although less than later) at his previous post as the v.-c. of the North London University. E.g. here is a link to a book that has a couple of pages dealing with his battles with unions there[22]. A story from the late 90s related to a controversy about student tuition[23]. A short story about his appointment as a v.-c. at London Met[24]. These are just examples and there is a lot more. The point is, there is plenty of nontrivial coverage of him predating the resignation scandal, which is sufficient for passing WP:BIO. To quote from WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". We certainly have such coverage here. Nsk92 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look through a few of these later, but the reality is that right now if additional detail from these links you have added here is not added to the article then it is imo still an attack page, my opinion is strengthened by the reality that no additional content is being added. Right now as it stands the article is a BLP violation, imo.Off2riorob (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps instead of wasting our time with pointless AfDs you could use the material that is clearly available and write some content. As I said above, you have clearly not complied with WP:BEFORE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is far from pointless, thank you. As I have clearly said, imo he isn't notable enough for anyone to want to write a decent biography about and the article has been started for the single purpose of the recentism situation of his so called controversial resignation. Off2riorob (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this person is simply not very notable and there is never going to be any kind of decent biography of him, what about a redirect to the article that this is actually all about the funding crisis at the London Met article and where Roper is mentioned. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having started this AfD, you will now have to live with its outcome, once it is closed in the normal way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not a problem to me at all, keep or delete or redirect it is correct then I am fine with any, but it is totally ok as the discussion develops to offer other solutions to the situation, and I have offered the possibility of a redirect, that is not a problem or out of process. It is not a battle with a winner and a loser, the end result should be the best thing for the subject of the biography and for the wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is properly sourced (and shows some minimal level of notability per WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF). Although the article in its current state seems to fit WP:BIO1E (justifying Off2riorob's redirect suggestion) the sources provided by Nsk92 indicate that the article can be expanded and not be solely about his part in the financial crisis. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep VC's are the head of their university and therefore presumed notable by WP:PROF, DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the british general level of notability of vice chancellors of universities, the citation I linked to from the gardian named Michael Driscoll (economist) at Middlesex .. Geoffrey Copland at Westminster ... John Tarrant at Huddersfield .. Sir Brian Follett, a fellow of the Royal Society and Vice-chancellor of Warwick .. Brian Roper at North London and £119,000 to Frank Gould at UEL. People in similar positions with a biography. Sir Brian Follett is much more notable for many reasons. Driscol is the only one comparable that has a biography and that bio if you could call it a bio, has taken six years to get to that level of content.Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is currently a bad article, but he meets the notability guidelines and WP:PROF. The fact that we do not have articles for other VCs is simply a reflection that this is an area where WP is inadequate. I have been surprised many times to find that a particular VC does not have an article and have written one as a result. VCs are notable as they have an important position that means they are certain to be noted. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has now been expanded, with a bunch of extra info and sources added. I think it is now in a better shape in terms of balance. Nsk92 (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot better. As nominator I would after the vast improvement, move to Keep and see if this could be snow closed. Off2riorob (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the improvements I agree. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MSNP-Sharp[edit]

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

Delete. I searched Google Books. [25] I searched Google News archives, all dates. [26] I get zero matches when I attempt to locate non-trivial coverage from third party publications for this article. I realize that sometimes there are other places to search so I'm bringing this forward to the community in case I've overlooked something. JBsupreme (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found some mentions in dot net blogs and stackoverflow.com, but nothing substantial. Pcap ping 06:05, 30 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jitbit Help Desk[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable software product; given sources are either self-published or unreliable, and I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage of this company. Haakon (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of WP:RS. Sarah182 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found nothing beyond inclusion in various download sites and Wikipedia isn't one of them. Pcap ping 06:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this software was listed in the Wikipedia article Comparison of issue tracking systems for several years (here's a revision from 2007 for example) but was removed because it has no Wikipedia entry. It appears to be a well-known product (411asp directory, Joel's discussion board) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.107.93.83 (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC) — 78.107.93.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- None of those are useful keep reasons. There needs to be references complying with WP:GNG to indicate notability. Haakon (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added another link to a news-story about the software. Also this software is being mentioned here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzycat (talk • contribs) 13:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC) — Jazzycat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply (to both keepers): None of those amount to reliable secondary sources. Forums, (other language) Wikipedia, and more press releases. Pcap ping 13:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep L'article merite d'etre conserve, afin que d'autres mai trouver ce programme. we are happy with this product in Switzerland, and years ago we've found this helpdesk app on wikipedia (in the comparision larticle), cause it's the most affordable asp.net-based product... Why does it have to be removed from both comparision and the standalone entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.242.73.158 (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — 213.242.73.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- It doesn't have to be, but there has to be an indication of notability. As it stands, this fails the general notability guideline. Being a useful or affordable product is not sufficient for encyclopedia coverage. Haakon (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just to let everyone know, the company's founder mentioned the deletion discussion of Jitbit on his Twitter page, citing "I don't get these people," among other things, so watch out for SPAs, etc. As with the Jitbit article, there doesn't appear to be significant, reliable, non-trivial third party coverage to merit inclusion. WP:ILIKEIT, etc. are not strong arguments to support inclusion, in my opinion. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a group of similar articles: non-notable and promotional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jitbit[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable company; given sources are either self-published or unreliable, and I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage of this company. Haakon (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some gnews archive hits [27], but it's pretty thin. Not enough for an article about the company. Pcap ping 06:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - may I point out that the article has been there for several years (link to archive.org of 2006), the company is well known for its products (for instance: google search for "macro recorder" or google search for "asp.net forum software"). I also added a link to the Scott Hanselman's review of one of Jitbit's products to the article. With all the respect, may I suggest to keep the article, since it's not being promotional or anything (just facts and links to sources). Thanks. Jazzycat (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC) — Jazzycat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Hanselman's blog entry might a source for AspNetForum, but he doesn't discuss the Jitbit company at all. Pcap ping 14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- also added a link to the company's LinkedIn profile and some more references, hope that helps. Thanks for consideration.Jazzycat (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are some hits in Google Scholar [28] that searches in academic literature. We've been their customers for years (read about the deletion on twitter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.242.73.158 (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — 213.242.73.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - the founder posted about the deletion on Twitter, citing "I don't get these people" among other things, so watch out for SPAs, etc. That being said, the references provided (LinkedIn profile, blogs, etc.) don't seem to satisfy WP:CORP. On that note, I support deletion. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources to satisfy WP:CORP. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to YTV (TV channel)#Current blocks. The consensus was that the programing block is not notable. The opposing comments didn't address this concern persuasively, however, an appropriate redirect target was identified. There is no reason not to redirect instead of delete, and policy favors that outcome. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZAPX[edit]

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

List of movies broadcast by a nighttime program. No importance onesoever, also contains uncited biography of unimportant host. Multiple failings, cannot be saved, nor is it notable enough for the effort Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 02:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then fix it!--174.1.80.86 (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Schmeater[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fix it by deleting it. The content cited here is not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . The article is not really good, but there are several relevant Gnews hits, so it seems notable. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:06, 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) 02:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to YTV (TV channel). Not really a notable programming block, and at best a 2-3 sentence, even using the sources found by Cyclopia, in the main article is all that is warranted. The list of films aired is trivial and excessive, and the host is clearly unnotable and needs no biography in either article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable program with unnotable continuity; you remove the unsourced list of movies and you get an article which reads "ZAPX is a movie block in YTV", which the YTV article does just fine. Nate • (chatter) 10:44, 30 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. The discussion by the numbers is fairly close between no consensus and keep, but keep arguments correctly reflect sources and the permanence of notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Technologies[edit]

This company is defunct, and there is little useful content on the article page. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted Millennium_Plus should go too. Polarpanda (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a company is defunct is not a reason to delete it. Once notable, always notable. In this case, the manner of the company's disappearance adds to its notability rather than detracting from it. - Eastmain (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I believe that it is not notable or of value based on its content. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Horizon Technologies" is apparently a name of breathtaking unoriginality, so News Archive searches directly yield little relevant. Coupled with the name of the product "Millennium Plus", Google News Archive has never heard of them. General search yields some sources of complaints from people who were led to believe they could make money fast on the Internet selling this stuff, but nothing that looks like a reliable source. A perfect lesson in why spam is bad. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Further evidence as to notability: An earlier version of the article has a reference to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/az/victimw/bissett_cop.pdf which relates to a guilty plea by one Chester Frank Bissett. A search for that name provides a newspaper article from The Arizona Republic at http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2008/08/21/20080821gr-indictment.html If the Arizona Republic thinks the story is worth covering.... – Eastmain (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is better, but I'm not sure that a legal pleading to an apparent charge of fraud, and a newspaper story reporting the crime, are out of the ordinary enough to confer notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn average company. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Not an "nn average company" as suggested by SchmuckyTheCat, but one that existed only to cheat people. - Eastmain (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reasons cited for deletion, coverage appears to meet the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "defunct" is irrelevant to notability , and so is the article being incomplete. The sources are fully sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 30 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) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yi Jet Qi[edit]

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

unreferenced BLP, no proof of notability WuhWuzDat 17:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 19:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found this possible source. There are other google hits on the name, but given that many are in Chinese(?), I can't evaluate what they are. LadyofShalott 19:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about those Chinese references? Polarpanda (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per this talk page request [29], the article creator would like the article userfied if it is to be deleted. If the consensus here ends up being delete, the closing admin could userfy it, or ping me, and I'll do it. LadyofShalott 19:59, 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) 02:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient news coverage. Recipient of the Federation for Asian Cultural Promotion's "Outstanding Young Composer" award [30], People's Daily describes him as "folk idol" [31], etc. cab (talk) 04:30, 31 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. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postsecondary agricultural students[edit]

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

non notable organization, most references are from websites controlled by the organization WuhWuzDat 18:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are at least a few third-party sources cited in the article, and this quote from the lead is a strong claim to notability: "PAS is one of the ten career and technical student organizations that has been approved by the United States Department of Education as an integral part of career and technical education also referred to as vocational education." Wuhwuzdat's arguments above are unconvincing. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as "National Postsecondary Agricultural Student Organization". The article title gives no clue that this is referring to an organization; it sounds like a sociological essay about a type of student. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:15, 29 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 single-purpose accounts seem unaware of the standards of reliable sourcing on Wikipedia, which is particularly important for bios. Fences&Windows 00:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciro Ayala[edit]

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

Along with Provoke Films (listed for AfD here) part of an apparent promotional/advertising push for this individual from one or two editors. While there is some claim of notability in the way of an award nomination (nomination does not list this individual, however), the majority of the claims in the article are not backed up by reliable sources, and what sources are given only offer passing or minor mentions, or are primary sources connected to the subject of the article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's been saying that the majority claims in the article are not backed up by reliable sources, which is Untrue. For example, the last Ciro Ayala's work which has gain notability from its release, has the following link from an article [ http://www.arminvanbuuren.com/news/264/ ]. While the link [ http://www.quintadimension.com/noticias368.html ] has the description and information of Ciro Ayala's first film in Argentina in 2002. Greenjeans60 (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenjeans60 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your first link doesn't convey any notability at all - it simply lists Ayala as the director, and the rest of the link describes the actual recording artist's intentions. Your second link only mentions that a film of his played. Both are trivial mentions and both fail the general notability guidelines. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just checked up this "article for deletion" log and the amount of links and references provided, are not trivial mentions and do not fail to the general notability guidelines. Specially the link to the "Blue Fear" project, which has gain special notability in Europe MTV since last month. Daviderudit (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)— Daviderudit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Interesting... a Google search on "Blue Fear" "Ciro Ayala" brings back only six results. A search on "Blue Fear" Ayala brings up 93, but maybe only a quarter of those appear to reference the video. I'm sorry, the unsupported word of an apparent single purpose account doesn't trump facts. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just by doing a simple research on Blue Fear song, and you will get why the music video has notability in Trance Music audience. I still considered that this your point of view and claims that there is no notability in any of the links, is strictly personal, and truly a fault of respect to this great new artist and his career, whom you don't know but lots of people has been already following him since 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenjeans60 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The one thing that you're missing here is that "Blue Fear" is not the subject of discussion here - searching on only it doesn't have any bearing on this discussion. Unfortunately, there is not a lot in the way of reliable, indepenent significant coverage about Ayala - most mentions of the video don't even mention him. You keep saying that the notability is there based on things like the links or the video (which not only doesn't have an article, but isn't even mentioned on Armin van Buuren's page), but according to Wikipedia standards, that isn't the case. Whether I know or respect the guy doesn't enter into it - I'm looking at this impartially, without any kind of personal bias - unlike the one which you've already admitted. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Firstly, I first wrote the wikipedia article about Ciro Ayala film director, after checking that there was no article at that time about him, who is very well recognized in Asia, from previous tv commercials that he directed. Secondly, I don't know the Ciro Ayala personally and never had the chance to meet him, but I joined his Fans Club this year (AFTER having wrote this article). Thirdly, I am crazy or what, but there is an article about Blue Fear music video, where Ciro Ayala explained the plot and visual concept of the video, which is POSTED on Armin Van Buuren's Official Website [ http://www.arminvanbuuren.com/news/264/ link]. That music video was released this year and is currently on Armin Van Buuren's music videos official collection. Fourthly, about that Blue Fear is not the subject of discussion: I totally agree but I wasn't the one who used the "GOOGLE SEARCH" concept, as a way to check if a person has notability or not. I just replied to your claim about how many results brings a Google Search on Blue Fear Ayala, which, by the way, is the wrong way to search the notability of a person. Greenjeans60 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The link provided from Armin van Buuren's Official Site is considered a reliable source link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviderudit (talk • contribs) 08:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC) — Daviderudit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Really? Considered a reliable source by whom? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will reply with your same question: You considered all the links and resources as "without notability", Really? By Whom?

The artist Armin van Buuren is very well known, same about his works. Just checked his Official Website again, and it's true, the music video for the song Blue Fear has been directed by Ciro Ayala (entitled as "music video and film director"). There is an article where the director is explaining the concept behind the music video, at Armin van Buuren's official website. And that's a fact and considered as a reliable source, due that the music video is inside Armin van Buuren's Music Video Collection from 1997 to 2009.Daviderudit (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said that all the links were "without notability" - I'll repost it so you can actually read it - the majority of the claims in the article are not backed up by reliable sources, and what sources are given only offer passing or minor mentions, or are primary sources connected to the subject of the article. The difference here is that we need verifiable and reliable independent/third-party sources. Go look up the guidelines as to what's needed. Armin van Buuren's site (along with this link in particular that you keep using) falls specifically into the category of sites that are "primary sources connected to the subject of the article." Neither you or your partner have shown any significant coverage from independent sources about this individual. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think TheRealFennShysa doesn't remember his own words: [ http://www.arminvanbuuren.com/news/264/ ]: "doesn't convey any notability at all - it simply lists Ayala as the director". Now, seems that an article posted from the official site of a very well known artist, talking about the behind the scenes of his music video, and providing information about the plot of it, doesn't convey any notability for this person.

Because I was the person who wrote the article BASED on the wikipedia guidelines that you mention, I will response one by one the criteria and requirements needed when writing this article, 8 months ago:

I. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject": The [ http://digitalcontentproducer.com/reel-exchange/contentproducer/ciroayala/ link] is a secondary source, reliable by the fact that it's a print published American film magazine specialized in Independent Filmmakers from all over the world. That article has a bio about Ciro Ayala, which was published in August 27 2007. The article has been written and copyrighted by Millimeter Magazine.

II. "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability": The amount of links provided shows the existence of the music videos, and 2 of them (FACES and BLUE FEAR) have articles from independent sources that clarified they were directed by Ciro Ayala, produced by Liu Ming Fei, and Provoke Films.

III. [ WP:ANYBIO ] : Point 1: The person, Ciro AYaa, has received 1 AVIMA Awards nomination for the music video Think About You in early 2009, in the category Most Mind Blowing Music Video. There is a direct link to the AVIMA awards nominees link, and the music video appears on Provoke Films Official Website with all the relevant information about the Credits and Behind The Scenes. The [ http://trainspottr.com/nosa-recordings-presents-think-about-you-the-music-video/2048 ] also provides information about the Director, Artist, Record Company and Film Producer Company.

IV. [ WP:ANYBIO ] : Point 2: The Music Video BLUE FEAR for Armin van Buuren, enters in this category, and has enduring historical record in "Trance Music" field. And all the sources and links provided clearly shows that.

V. [ WP:ARTIST ] : Point 3: Ciro Ayala has a significant and well-known work in TV Commercials in Asia and music videos for European artist, which have been the subject of multiple independent reviews. The Music Videos links (specially [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlD0adpJ8kg ] where you can see the Name of the Director at the beginning of the video, and is published at the Official Channel of the music artist, [Andy Moor] who was nominated for a Grammy Award in December 2008 ) clearly validate this point. Also, this music video has been broadcasted on MTV Netherlands in August 2009. Most of Ciro Ayala's works have been broadcasted on European and China/Taiwan TV Stations.

And Finally, if You really follow the Wikipedia Guidelines, you should then reply me my previous question about How can improve the article if you still consider it not proper for wikipedia. Greenjeans60 (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to improve this article, you *really* need to takea serious (instead of a reactionary) look at finding better sources. Simply mentioning someone in an article, without any further exposition or follow-up, the the very definition of a trivial mention. The Armin van Buuren link simply mentions Ayala was the director - as you say, the rest of the link is about the video itself, with the ARTIST talking about the making of the video - Ayala is never mentioned again. As to your Point I, this link appears to be nothing more than an online resume listing as part of the ReelExchange site - there's nothing to corroborate your claim that this was actually published in a physical magazine - in fact, the datestamp on the link points to it being an online listing only. Point II - no one's claiming he didn't direct any of these videos. Just because he's done some work doesn't actomatically make him notable. Point III - the nomination is not in his name. Your trainspottr.com link again only mentions him in passing, therefore a trivial mention. Point IV - the "Blue Fear" video is not the subject of this discussion, and whether your claim of "enduring historical record" is true or not doesn't matter in regards to Ayala himself. Point V: You keep claiming Ayala himself has been the "subject of multiple independent reviews" - yet you haven't show any. The YouTube link, again, only mentions him in passing. There's no independent critical review there of Ayala himself - it's a primary source. TV broadcasts, again, only would apply to the status of the videos themselves - Ayala does not inherit any notablity simply because something he worked on was broadcast.

What you need to understand, and I'm going to say this one time, is that this debate is not about trying to claim that he's not done any of the work that you obviously are a fan of. However, that does not automatically confer any notability on the guy. You have failed to provide even one actual independent item that goes into any detail about Ayala himself, and/or why he himself is important. His work, maybe. He himself? Not so much... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, and this is really getting boring: The Armin Van Buuren Link where he mentions Ayala was the director, the one who is talkin about the making of the video is Ayala himself, not the musician. Ayala is describing the concept of the music video, that's why he won't mention himself again, because he is the one describing the video.

You are saying that I fail to provide an item that goes into any detail about himself, and that's why the link to Taiwan's International Radio Station Interview, has been overpassed by you. It was broadcasted almost a year ago, and it goes into detail on Ayala's Bio and recognition overseas. Secondly, since when an artist is more important than his works? But his works would never exist if he didn't create it. That's the reason, why, when writing the article, lots of wikipedia moderators helped me on providing the right way to write the article. And at that time, they all approved the inclusion of the article on wikipedia. But suddenly, I hope without any personal agenda, both Provoke Films and Ciro Ayala are nominated for deletion, with the claim that there are "not enough" links or references to sustain it for notability... So, my question is: Why suddenly, after almost a year of having wrote the article, nothing worth based on someones opinion? Greenjeans60 (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Below I described the clearly "sufficient sources" needed to establish notability:

I. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject": The [ http://digitalcontentproducer.com/reel-exchange/contentproducer/ciroayala/ link] is a secondary source, reliable by the fact that it's a print published American film magazine specialized in Independent Filmmakers from all over the world. That article has a bio about Ciro Ayala, which was published in August 27 2007. The article has been written and copyrighted by Millimeter Magazine.

II. "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability": The amount of links provided shows the existence of the music videos, and 2 of them (FACES and BLUE FEAR) have articles from independent sources that clarified they were directed by Ciro Ayala, produced by Liu Ming Fei, and Provoke Films.

III. [ WP:ANYBIO ] : Point 1: The person, Ciro AYaa, has received 1 AVIMA Awards nomination for the music video Think About You in early 2009, in the category Most Mind Blowing Music Video. There is a direct link to the AVIMA awards nominees link, and the music video appears on Provoke Films Official Website with all the relevant information about the Credits and Behind The Scenes. The [ http://trainspottr.com/nosa-recordings-presents-think-about-you-the-music-video/2048 ] also provides information about the Director, Artist, Record Company and Film Producer Company.

IV. [ WP:ANYBIO ] : Point 2: The Music Video BLUE FEAR for Armin van Buuren, enters in this category, and has enduring historical record in "Trance Music" field. And all the sources and links provided clearly shows that.

V. [ WP:ARTIST ] : Point 3: Ciro Ayala has a significant and well-known work in TV Commercials in Asia and music videos for European artist, which have been the subject of multiple independent reviews. The Music Videos links (specially [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlD0adpJ8kg ] where you can see the Name of the Director at the beginning of the video, and is published at the Official Channel of the music artist, [Andy Moor] who was nominated for a Grammy Award in December 2008 ) clearly validate this point. Also, this music video has been broadcasted on MTV Netherlands in August 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenjeans60 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a not particularly interesting individual person with a job. that job gets a little attention, but not enough to care about long term (as yet demonstrated, the future might change). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep his works are well known in China since (around) 3 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matiasjuy (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC) — Matiasjuy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The more that Single Purpose Accounts waffle and insult established Wikipedia editors who have a good varied history of editing, the more I think 'delete' before I even check the facts. To all new users (or new accounts) posting here: This is not a voting procedure like an election. Vast numbers of 'keeps' by new or anonymous accounts will do no good whatever unless you bring something solid. The rules for notability here might not be what you are used to at home. However, they ARE the rules here, so listen to the more established people who know them. I'll have a look at this myself tomorrow, but in the meantime, read the relevant policies, and if you can't find them, ask. Peridon (talk) 22:44, 19 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 // 09:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it's worth, The Reel-Exchange article, did appear in the October 2007 issue of Digital Content Producer. However, I would be wary of considering it a reliable source, even if its content amounted to enough to establish notability. The page on which Ayala's paragraph appears has a lead which reads: "Want to be a part of Reel-Exchange and its growing community of global collaborators? For the free trial offer email R337-3x[|-|a//63AT...dotcom or visit reel-exchange(dot)com and click on the register link." I searched for "reel-exchange" in the same database that I found Ayala in, and in an article entitled "Job Search," found this: "Reel-exchange allows members to post profiles and up to four sample reels. We now have member from 76 countries and every state in the nation....The service works for people looking to find collaborators, employers, employees, or contractors." Sounds to me like the content was self-created, and not third-party at all. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 29 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, thanks to the sourcing brought up by Schmidt. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cain and Abel (film)[edit]

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From Smartse's prod: "I can't find any sources to establish the notability of this film." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources other than IMDB. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per Schmidt, although the URLs given are the movie's producers' own archives. The Venice festival website seems to be totally neutral, however. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too cannot find requisite sources needed to establish the notability of this film. JBsupreme (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Advocate, Voice Tribune, Baton Rouge, Courrier Journal. Heck it even won an audience award at Other Venice Film Festival. Let's try to improve it, not toss it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:59, 29 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 Rajkumar College, Rajkot. The drastically trimmed list should easily fit on the main page. If this article was created to save space, then that rationale doesn't hold now the list is substantially shorter. Ged UK 14:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians[edit]

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

An amazingly crufty list of "alumni" and notable individuals who apparently attended Rajkumar College, Rajkot. I tried turning it into a redirect, which was undone with this comment. It isn't eligible for speedy, but that isn't an endorsement of its encyclopedic nature. tedder (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; while numerous people in it are apparently notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, this is a rather trivial article and it would be more logical to create a Rajkumar College Alumni category instead, into which the relevant people can be added. KaySL (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note many of the "notable alumni" are simply bluelinks because they are piped to a city or name. For instance, [[Portland, Oregon|Tedder of Portland]]. tedder (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Comment: Hoping this comment is appropriate and allowed Place name used for temporary link for the place which each of those are/were rulers/Kings of the place pending creation of specific page. Patelurology2 (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I reverted the conversion to a redirect minutes ago, having earlier declined a speedy on this page. My view is that if the college is notable enough for an article here -- and I think it is -- then a list of notable and soemwhat notable alumni is a reasonable extension of that article. The page could be improved but I see no need to delete it. DES ^(talk) 20:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment: Improvements are being attempted to this page around general aspects of Alumni; intent for creation of this page was to separate the list from page save the most notable category which righly has been left by the first Admin on main page, so that clutter can be avoided and also link to page preparation page under my userspace can be established; I infer that the latter cannot be linked as per guidelines?;it was de-linked by the first Admin. Anyway, Alumni capable of completion of these page will now have a started page ready to input; my first attempt months ago to start first page was met with Auto-deletion, then the Userspace feature came to attention; upto that time all the material gathered was somewhere else; casting a page gives avenue to completion someday; not all likely to be completed soon; inertia ruleth supreme and current limited manpower in background further help from all the Alumni will be needed considering Alumni In Memoriam; institution is 130 years old.
See also talk pages of college and the list page for recent postings regarding above.
User:Patelurology2/Article Preparation page for Alumni of Rajkumar College, Rajkot
Rajkumar College, Rajkot
Talk:( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians
Patelurology2 (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the important content is already at Rajkumar College, Rajkot, which is the appropriate place for alumni--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article with the article for the college. A separate article is not necessary, the list of Principals can be merged. The other content is simply not notable. Rkr1991 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 13:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Solution from a Beginner Wikipedian Alumnus in Observation: Hoping this comment is appropriate and allowed The page was created to avoid clutter on Main page and further development of individual pages and an instruction page for creation of pages was started under my space feature with intent to speed up and maintain order; listing on main page would be acceptable, if that is the best logical option; if so, a revert to version of prior acceptable date( ? Revision as of 17:54, 13 December 2009 ) could be considered, so that merger is seamless; list was a copy of list on prior version page. See also discussion/talk page of this list page. Patelurology2 (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing if a high school has a long list of alumni. It's not clutter. Just work on the main page. Abductive (reasoning) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any missing notable alumni and list of principals back to Rajkumar College, Rajkot. The red linked people should not be merged. TerriersFan (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR; no independent source discusses the alumni of the school. The truly notable alumni are already listed at Rajkumar College, Rajkot, and most of the other blue links in this article are simply piped links to cities and towns. Abecedare (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Comment: Hoping this comment is appropriate and allowed Place name used for temporary link for the place which each of those are/were rulers/Kings of the place pending creation of specific page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patelurology2 (talk • contribs)

Delete, this is a high school, not a college. Article is horribly titled, and unsourced. Abductive (reasoning) 00:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment: Agree and it says on the opening sentence of main page Rajkumar College, Rajkot that "The Rajkumar College (also known as RKC) in Rajkot is one of the oldest K-12 institutions in India today." This page is a list page; descriptions are attempt to improve the page with descriptions about some appropriate commonalities amongst Alumni. Themain page of the college ( school ) is the reference page and this list page, originally on that page, was given it's own page toreduce clutter on main page.

I cleaned it up. There are only 12 truly notable alumni and faculty (using "no redlinks" as a good proxy of notability). Removing the rest of the clutter, it's now a small list. It could (and should) be easily on the main page. tedder (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Princess Diaries. Needs a hefty trimming, but merging is the consensus Ged UK 14:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genovia[edit]

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

Article is entirely in-universe and poorly written. While that is not, in itself, a reason to delete, it is completely unsourced, a mess of OR, and I can't find out-of-universe sources that give it more than a passing mention. Its been tagged with Uncited and Notability since July. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable fictional location, with no real-world notability and little real impact on the stories themselves as it is simply a made up place to set the story, and not of significant difference to anything in the real world that requires such significant explanation nor OR (as a side note, it seems the same OR regarding the "differences") is repeated throughout the various film/book articles) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and set Redirect to The Princess Diaries where this location would have its notability and souring within the notable works themselves. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge as this is the location for the books, material about it is important, but the information here is both excessively detailed, and could be presented better with less duplication in the main article. But I note this is really a discussion about how to arrange the material, not about deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a setting used in an entire series of popular books and movies. I believe it is notable do to the popularly of the books and the movies that make it familiar to many. I do agree it needs to be rewritten to achieve encyclopedic status.Sabiona (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to The Princess Diaries. There are enough Google News hits to suggest that this is a valid search term, and since is not titled Genovia (The Princess Diaries) it is a good redirect. Abductive (reasoning) 00:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main TPD page. The location is important to the series but this article consists almost entirely of in-universe fluff that belongs on a fansite. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 07:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested nomination. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzoe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage searching on his real name or either of his stage names. I would recommend that the two articles on his albums are also included here. Neither appears to have received significant coverage. One is speedy deletable.--Michig (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cna't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there doesn't appear to be enough reliable third party coverage of this artist to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO and thus merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kay (footballer)[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played in a fully-professional competition as his only appearance was in the FA Cup, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Lack of non-trivial sources means that he also seems to fail WP:GNG. -- Big Dom 18:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This footballer played in a fourth round FA cup tie (a round which very few non-professional clubs reach) between two Premier League teams. If we use common sense, rather than wikilawyering, can we really say that that doesn't make for as much notability as playing in a League 2 match? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in my experience, participation in the FA Cup has, generally, been grounds for inclusion. I remember asking about it once in a discussion at WikiProject Football over some players who had participated in a cup (Carling Cup, I believe) match but not in a league match, and the consensus appeared to be that they met WP:ATHLETE on the basis of the cup appearance. The FA Cup is more prestigious than the Carling Cup, surely, and this athlete has played in the fourth round, which, for me, is enough to pass WP:ATHLETE. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ATHLETE as he has played at a fully-professional level of football. --Jimbo^[online] 16:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he passes WP:ATHLETE, but the article needs reliable sources. --Carioca (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - FA Cup appearance should be adequate to satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Rlendog (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 - an "internet book" counts as "web content". JohnCD (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Potter and the Iron Phoenix[edit]

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

Non-notable book.(Removed prod) Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 18:01, 29 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. Uncontested nomination. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Operation M.D.'s second studio album[edit]

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

WP:HAMMER. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too soon. JBsupreme (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; no confirmed album title, track listing, or release date. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 18:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's WP:HAMMERTIME. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator has been banned as a sockpuppet, no other arguments for deletion. Fences&Windows 00:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of persons who have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards[edit]

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

This article contains a table of people who've all won the same few awards, and then goes on to list those who are "missing" one, two or more. There is no evidence that this "phenomena" is at all notable and it has not been commented on by multiple, independent reliable sources, leaving the article to look like one giant trivia section. The article also fails WP:N, WP:IINFO, WP:SYNTH and, arguably, WP:LISTCRUFT. WossOccurring (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Any passing admin can close this as no other deletion arguments have been offered. Fences&Windows 00:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would only like to say that it was the subject of a recent episode of 30 Rock. MMetro (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the entertainment industry there is such a thing known as a triple threat - "can sing, can dance, can act" - I suppose this list indicates the best of the triple threats, depending on the dancing portion being somewhere... 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I decided to vote. The IP brings up a very good point, citeable with the PBS Broadway documentary if you don't want to trust an IP. The scope is the same as any article on various Triple Crowns or Grand Slams: A and B and C and D is an identity, not a synthesis. Reliable sources document the wins for each individual award, or the information on any award would not be on Wikipedia, plus the 30 Rock writers had to have gotten their info from somewhere. The article cites the NY Times, which noted that the awards have the commonality of peer voting. Therefore, the article suffers from bad sourcing, but Rome wasn't built in a day. MMetro (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The LA Times calls this the "Showbiz Award Grand Slam",[32] as does the Boston Globe.[33] Many more examples here. Playbill also comments on the phenomenon: "With his Tony wins for the Broadway musical, The Producers, Mel Brooks enters a rarefied circle of people who have won a Tony Award, an Academy Award, a Grammy Award and an Emmy."[34] Rita Moreno was noted in 2006 as "the only woman alive who has won an Oscar, an Emmy, a Grammy, and a Tony."[35] Whoopi Goldberg's achievement is discussed here. The nominator needs to do more research before their nominations. Fences&Windows 22:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW KEEP - winning any one of these awards would garner an automatic article on Wikipedia. Winning all four is a rare feat indeed, and is totally sourced and completely notable. 23:13, 31 December 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orioles-Yankees rivalry[edit]

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

As a Yankees fan, I wasn't aware we had a notable rivalry with the Orioles. As an editor, I don't see very much use of this article (at least as it stands). This guy seems to think there is a rivalry, but that seems to be about it for the sourcing, and the author seems to take a viewpoint that we on the Yankees side don't. If there is a rivalry, it's quite one-sided. Maybe I'm wrong and there really is something resulting from the Yankees playing as the "Baltimore Orioles" in 1901 and 1902, but I'm skeptical. Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced, WP:OR, etc. Wknight94 ^talk 17:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless RS to show that this isn't OR are provided. Sarah182 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable rivalry. Spanneraol (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Work On, but Delete Later if Need Be I created this due to the teams playing each other for years. Both teams had a heated rivalry in the 70s and it was renewed in the 90s. With that said, when I created this article I didn't equate the RS situation regarding this rivalry. I was alerted to this after I suggested a Phillies-Pirates rivalry article, but found out that was shot down because apparantly they didn't find sources for that. In all honesty, I don't edit too much so I don't keep up with things because I don't have the time to. I would have liked to read more about great events between the 2 teams, which I have witnessed a few of in my lifetime, but I will understand if you guys delete based on the criteria. Hopefully we can save it though. Arnabdas (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/bal-sp.oriolepark30jul30,0,6359648.story

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/30/sports/baseball-yanks-and-orioles-two-teams-much-too-close-for-comfort.html

Delete I was never aware of a Yankees-Orioles rivalry. Alex (talk) 18:20, 30 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. There's nothing to merge, redirect is unlikely. Fences&Windows 00:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Reason's Major Festivals and Performances[edit]

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

No reason for this to be a separate article from the artist. Merge with Dana Reason Bonewah (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could even possibly qualify as A10. TN X Man 17:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article, not separately notable. Sarah182 (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, nothing to merge. Created by WP:SPA account, presumably for promotional purposes. TJRC (talk) 09:02, 30 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. Unsourced BLP, no support for keep in discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omkar Nath Koul Budgami[edit]

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

A completely unsourced BLP. Google searches[36][37] produce very little (mostly Wikipedia mirrors), nothing passing WP:RS. Could even be a hoax, I am not sure. It is also possible that the search problems are caused by name spelling issues, but either way there is no coverage by reliable sources that I could find. Does not pass WP:V and WP:BIO Nsk92 (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails to meet any WP:BIO criteria, and doesn't make any claims of notability. KaySL (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and WP:BIO Annette46 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 19:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't locate any independent sources on the subject. Abecedare (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet any biography criteria, even WP:ANYBIO. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delayed delete (one month). All seem to agree that this ought not to exist as an article, but editors disagree whether to merge some content or to delete this outright. So I'm implementing a compromise: I'm redirecting the title to Najib Tun Razak. Editors have one month to find consensus about what, if any, content should be merged from the history. After one month, the remaining redirect should be nominated for speedy deletion with reference to this discussion, and the processing administrator should delete the page. Sandstein 20:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scandals of Najib Tun Razak[edit]

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

This page was created as an attempt to get around page protection implemented on Najib Tun Razak in response to edit warring. The title and content of the article make it clear that the intent is to attack the subject in violation of BLP. I feel strongly that this article should be deleted based on the title alone. Monkeyassault (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined the speedy deletion as an attack page because of the extensive sourcing, but I agree with Monkeyassault's position that the title of the page constitutes an attack, and I won't have any objection to a speedy deletion if that's the consensus at this AfD. My position is that you need more than two people to make this call for pages with this much detail and this many references. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. There's a new speedy deletion criterion, WP:CSD#A10 ... the odds are that it won't apply here, but there's a chance it might, I'm just throwing this out because it's new. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All apologies. I did not blank the article on purpose.Monkeyassault (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination for deletion is not showing properly in AfD. Apparently I botched the job. Can someone help please? Monkeyassault (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's showing up on today's AfD list. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put in my comments on the article. This article is not meant to be permanent but an area where we can put all the information that was inadvertently deleted and whitewashed from the main article by a certain individual. The main article was temporarily frozen after I reported the individual of edit warring and whitewashing whole sections of the main article. The information from the current article will now be moved to the main article once we have gain consensus. But apparently that individual did not take any opportunity to gain consensus from other contributors or editors before whitewashing, putting us back in square one. Now the freeze has been lifted the individual continues with his blatant deletions and whitewashing of whole sections of the article. You can see that this individual has purposely blanked this whole page before seeking a nomination for deletion. Roman888 (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeyassault has apologised and said it was not done purposely. Do you want to strike out that comment? Meanwhile, you seem to be saying that you deliberately created this to get around the page protection. I've raised this at ANI. Have I misunderstood you? Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that Roman888 move any temporary article to his own userspace and that the scandal article then be deleted at the request of its creator.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you have misunderstood me. I just wanted to point out the continued edit-warring in the main article Najib Tun Razak and the failure of that individual to seek consensus in the discussion page of the article. As an administrator it would be good if you freeze the main article for another few months until consensus can be achieved, otherwise this blatant whitewashing, censorship and edit-warring will continue unabated. Roman888 (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We generally do not freeze articles for months. There's an AN/I thread open, let's see what happens there.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a spiritual violation of WP:CSD#G10. G10 does not carry an exemption for sourced attack pages. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV fork, undue weight, etc. Sarah182 (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that Sarah182's editing history consists of four edits, all comments at AfD's.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. We don't create forks of articles because the original is protected, we discuss the reasons for the protection on the original article's Talk page. Woogee (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my view, a well-sourced attack page is almost worse than an unsourced attack page, as it gives a one-sided attack a veneer of legitimacy. The controversies section of Najib Tun Razak can adequately and fairly deal with Najib's "scandals" in context and with balance. There may be material in the "scandals" page that can be merged to that section. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to Roman888 (talk · contribs)—who created this article as a container for content being removed from Najib Tun Razak—and discuss on Talk:Najib Tun Razak. This is a mistake of reasonable intention, but wrong namespace. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User space is no place for a BLP-violating attack fork. Woogee (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Najib Tun Razak. There's a lot of cited material from reliable news outlet. __earth ^(Talk) 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the sources are not reliable - they are from anti-government blogs. A merge would imbalance Najib Tun Razak. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not most. A majority (35 out of 51) of them are from news outlets and one academic paper, discounting all the blogs and Malaysia Today. Below is the list of those news outlet:
    - The Malaysian Insider
    - The Edge
    - Bernama
    - New Straits Times
    - IHT
    - FT
    - Asian Sentinel
    - The Star
    - AsiaOne?
    - Malaysian Mirror__earth ^(Talk) 23:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Najib Tun Razak. There's a difference between opinion blogs and news blogs. Malaysiakini.com and Malaysian Insider belong to the latter, yet were both questionably considered anti-government blogs, when they have actually reported from both sides of the fence. Both are relevant and mainstream enough to considered by Google as news sources (their articles show up in Google News). Interestingly there's no mention of them being anti-government in their respective wiki-entries either. Simply blanket-naming them as anti-government blogs and denying them as relevant/reliable sources runs counter to the spirit of wikipedia. To think of it another way, if they do contain some articles that appear anti-government, that merely balances the information given by state regulated/controlled media. In fact there woult not even be a need to merge the article as the content were in the original article, except much of them were deleted without editor consensus. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fair point - I don't think it would be wise to rule out the web-based news sites entirely. However, the problems though with this content are (1) the use of plainly one-sided sources (Anwar and Lim Kit Siang's blogs); (2) many of the articles from the so-called "independent" blogs are just attack-jobs, not reliable journalism: see this; and (3) there's very little balance from mainstream and international media. I think we ought to be very cautious about merging any of the content to Najib Tun Razak for fear of unbalancing the article with weakly sourced contentious material.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge as obvious POV fork.( And pay attention to proper sourcing for the part that is merged) DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork. Hash it out on the Najib Tun Razak page, please. Abductive (reasoning) 00:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unanimous consent to delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jha Jha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. This article has made no progress since it was nominated for deletion over 15 months ago. We're not on a deadline, I will grant that. There are even a few Google News hits, 99% of which are passing mentions, I will grant that too. She was a once an associate (but not an actual member?) of Dipset. I do not believe notability is inherited. The question, or the bottom line is this: has this subject been the recipient of non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable publications? I don't believe so, and would like some community feedback on the matter. JBsupreme (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:MUSIC. Armbrust (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only significant coverage I found was two interviews from the same website ([38], [39]). The website is fine as a source in my opinion, but interviews such as these do not constitute significant independent coverage. --Michig (talk) 18:50, 29 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. All agree. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Old Republic (novel)[edit]

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

In contesting the prod for this article, the creator asserted that the novel exists. Unfortunately, an assertion of existence is not an assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability substantiated by citations to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a whole string of books called Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic but I can't find any reference to this one. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 29 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Brown San Antonio Transmissions[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG for notability. With no matches in Google News or Google Books the only sites I can find are business listings (such as yellowpages) which do little to establish notability. Ash (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like this would have been a candidate for a speedy delete. Regardless, I'm not seeing anything in a search besides the usual directory listings, Yelp reviews and similar, and press releases. Nothing suggest that this company is meeting the guidelines for general notability or WP:CORP. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to satisfy WP:CORP, and the article, currently, reads in a rather promotional tone. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Ben MacDui (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Fisher[edit]

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

Notability not established Kittybrewster ☎ 14:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7 - an article about a real person that does not assert the notability of its subject.--Unscented (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Kittybrewster. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I tried to find anything that would support notability but came up empty. Some interesting photos but no reliable sources. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:21, 29 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. Clear consensus to keep, and the original reason specified in the nomination no longer applies. Further discussions can occur on the talk page Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terran Federation (Starship Troopers)[edit]

AfDs for these articles:

Articles for deletion/Terran Federation (2nd nomination)

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

Completely unreferenced. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the third AfD on this article. Previous ones were either keep or no concensus. Unless the quality of the article has deteriorated then what is the merit of a further nomination? NtheP (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No improvement in over a year - lacks any references. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not factually accurate as the article contains citations from published books. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, possible original research. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The problem lies in the lack of references rather than in any supposed original research. Most of the information in the article can also be found in the book, but there are no references to support them. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep referenced now. Ikip 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin this page has gone through significant improvements since nomination.[40]Ikip 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starship Troopers. That article already offers appropriate real-world treatment of the topic. There seems to be some real-world smidgen of something at the bottom of the TF article; that might be worth merging somewhere in Starship Troopers. Fascism in the works of Robert Heinlein might be an appropriate spin-out article, but there's no need for a single article on this one item. --EEMIV (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if the nominator would support a merge/redirect, User:UNSC Trooper? Ikip 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll support a merge, if only the referenced stuff goes through. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as an earlier discussion closed as keep and a second discussion also did not result in deletion and as Ikip points out the article is indeed referenced through published books. At worst we would merge the information somewhere and the suggestion above about Fascism in the works of Robert Heilein is worthy of consideration per WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would be very problematic and extremely POV. All allegations of fascism directed at Starship Troopers are limited to ambiguous comparisons to Nazi Germany's uniforms and the Federation's strong emphasis on military discipline. Perhaps Authoritarianism (or militarism) in the works of Robert Heinlein would be more appropriate? --UNSC Trooper (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's looking at kicking off such an article rightabout now; insofar as this AfD is concerned, looks like it's going to be a selective merge to the novel. A spin-out on the Political ideology in the works of Robert Heinlein is best discussed on the author's or scifo or novel wikiproject page. --EEMIV (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference better It is well written but the author should have added a reference for every paragraph, for each of the two main sourced he used. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though central to Starship Troopers, the concept is present in a great deal of Heinlein's fiction, and the article can & should be expanded accordingly. Strange to repeatedly nominate for deletion the central concept in one of the seminal SF works. BTW, I do not seethe point of predicting in the middle of an AfD how the discussion will turn out DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as this is a concept present in much of Heinlein's literature. Makes no sense to merge or redirect to one novel when the concept is so much a part of numerous other novels and stories by this author. Hint: "Future History". Also happy to note the improvements, even though AFD is not supposed to force such within some arbitrary WP:DEADLINE in contrevention to guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a reference there to a book discussing the politics of it. Google book search shows other mentions of it [41] and some of those are probably also about it in itself, not just a brief mention of the name when talking about the series. Dream Focus 12:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consesnus of the discussion is that the original concern about being a hoax has been addressed. No prejudice to renomination if examination of the sources uncovered show a problem with verifiability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrianjaka Razakatsitakatrandriana[edit]

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

This kingdom did not even exist during the time that the article says this person was king, and the source has gone dead. It seems to be a hoax article. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a hoax then the article on his father Andriantsimitoviaminandriandehibe must also be a hoax. Polargeo (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now fixed the broken link in the article. Polargeo (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background info: After reading the comment below, I thought I should probably note for the convenience of other people who come across this discussion that the Wikipedia article on the Mernia Kingdom (the kingdom this person supposedly ruled) says that it existed from 1787-1897, and this article says this king ruled 1670-1675. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going on wikipedia Merina as our source then three or four kingdoms did in fact exist in Central Imerina before 1780. Polargeo (talk)

My understanding of the Merina Kingdom is that it was created by conquest by a pre-existing Merina ethnic group. They may have had leaders before they established a state. (Ranavalona I is one of my heroes.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. While it's possible that the Merina Kingdom existed before it conquered the rest of Madagascar, and even given the likelihood of variant spellings, I wouldn't expect Google Scholar and Books to draw a blank on a verifiable monarch. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sources found by this search show that the kingdom existed before 1787, and identify the article subject's successor, but I can't find anything about the subject himself. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Even none source.Jack007 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is this source The Royal Ark. It appears that User:New Babylon 2 added several articles using "The Royal Ark" as a source. It is fairly clear that this not a hoax and the only issue may be the verifiability of information on The Roayal Ark website, although the detail there is amazing. There is also an article on this guy's brother Andriamasinavalona I think this needs relisting and all of these articles should be examined together. it is clear this deletion debate has not had all of the relevent information presented yet and several editors including the nominator have considered incorrectly that this article could be a hoax or that it has no sources. Polargeo (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should consider the following related pages

- Andriamasinavalona his Brother
- Andriantsimitoviaminandriandehibe his father
- Andriamanitrinitany his other brother
Keep It is clear that he existed, there were kings (or Hova chiefs who later became known as kings) before him see Tananarive#History the period of his reign is verified in this book and this one Polargeo (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a verified monarch. Great work, Polargeo! Phil Bridger (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. NAC by—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Buchanan Hotel, Townsville[edit]

Nomination withdrawn. The hotel appears on a nationally issued stamp which gives it significant coverage in Australia. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Declined prod (no reason given), unreferenced article with no assertion of notability. The article was originally created with the only content being an infobox (the wrong one) that the editor had copied from Sydney Tower, and two short sentences.[42] Another editor added copyrighted material from this site.[43] This included an image that has since been deleted as a copyvio. I've attempted to improve the article by removing the copyrighted material and replacing the infobox (this three storey pub was most certainly not a skyscraper) but the article is still an unreferenced stub that doesn't assert notability. While the article could be expanded, I'm not interested in doing so and apparently neither was the person who declined the prod.[44] Since the hotel's name was, according to the site from which the copyrighted text was added, "Buchanan's Hotel" and not "Buchanan Hotel", the article would best be recreated from scratch at the correct page, if anyone feels the unlikely urge to do so, rather than moving the current version there. AussieLegend (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Buchanan/Buchanan's, the state department transcript of LBJ's speech - the most reputable source we have so far - that mentions the hotel calls it Buchanan. May well be wrong, but until we can know for certain, I've added a "(also Buchanan's Hotel)" to the article and ultimately we can redirect folks who search for one to the other...Vivisel (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't see how this hotel is notable. lack of coverage [45]. a visit by a US president does not make this hotel notable. LibStar (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like he didn't just visit, he mentioned the hotel in a speech while president...added to article. Seems to me that this is a piece of US military history and AU history, as well as US presidential history. There's an interesting story about the officer with whom LBJ shared a room (and a bed) while there at this page [46] that nearly ended in LBJ's premature death. not sure if if can be worked in, but wanted to point out. Also, adding some citations. Vivisel (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Mentioned" is all he did. "Things are much calmer and much more peaceful here in Townsville today at the Buchanan Hotel than they were when I was here 24 years ago." That's it, other than confirming that he stayed in Australia on one night in 1942. Well, part of a night. He left at midnight for New Guinea. The other reference in the article, which is of that speech, doesn't even show Buchanan Hotel. The passage is from four paragraphs further on. I don't see how that's notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look, the more this is clearly notable. Featured in a postal stamp series along with the Sydney Opera House as a beautiful australian building. Everywhere it's mentioned is a comment about its unusual beauty or standout qualities. See the google book search - I regret that they're all snippet view but you can see in the search the terms that are used to describe the building. [47] - check it out! How many regular old buildings have been featured on national stamps and visited by presidents? There are articles in a Townsville newspaper (one of them's cited, the other didn't contain anything terribly useful) over 20 years after the building was destroyed, asking after its iron facade. this was not any old building! Also note this reference to it in AU parliament as a "famous building". Vivisel (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that issue on a stamp makes it notable. Not sure about a flying visit by a US president who couldn't get the name right though. The iron is nothing special. Every town in Australia has a pub that looks like Buchanan's. I'll withdraw the nom. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:54, 29 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 Washington Metropolitan Association of Chinese Schools. The rationiale behind the sole keep comment has been acknowledged not to apply. Since a clear redirect target exists, I'm closing this as redirect vice delete per WP:PRESERVE. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weihwa Chinese School[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Should apply under CSD criteria but it doesn't, so it's here. Shadowjams (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 15:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All high schools are notable. - Eastmain (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article is kept, it should be moved to Wei Hwa Chinese School. See the school's website. - Eastmain (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't believe it's a high school, but a "language school." If I'm wrong about that distinction then that would change my opinion. Shadowjams (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Shadowjams is correct. The school offers courses (primarily Chinese language courses) aimed at students from kindergarten to high school levels (as well as some adult activities courses), but it only operates on weekends, as far as I can tell. See http://weihwa.schools.officelive.com/CoursesProspectus.aspx - Eastmain (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero signs of non-trivial WP:RS coverage either in English or in Chinese. cab (talk) 04:33, 31 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 A7. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Youth Foundation[edit]

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

I have no clue what the assertion of notability is here.

It's not notable. Shadowjams (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. One-liner with no assertion of notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. There might be notability somewhere in some non-English language, but I can't find anything I can read that would qualify; and, as noted above, no assertion (or presence) of notability. Incidentally, Richmond is a suburb of my home town and I've never heard of this organization -- not that that means anything, but it contributed to my thought process. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:25, 29 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. All agree HAMMER applies. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna's twelfth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Madonna's twelfth studio album

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

Blatant violation of WP:NALBUM, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:HAMMER. The release date, title, and tracklist are all unknown and this doesn't appear to have significant coverage so it does not meet notability criteria for an album. Chase wc ⁹¹ 11:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominater. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; does not meet WP:NALBUMS at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 17:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NALBUMS states, "future album whose article is titled '(Artist)'s Next Album' and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article". I think that about sums everything up. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Nice to see somethings don't change. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pretty much everyone above, recreate when it has a release date, track listed or album title, you know, when it's notable. --MrRadioGuy P T C E 05:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's WP:HAMMERTIME! Cocytus [»talk«] 04:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brick dance[edit]

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

Seems to be a hoax. I can't find any substantiating information to back this up. Original page creator only edited this one page. --Martyman-(talk) 11:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax and WP:MADEUP. Shadowjams (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:V, likely hoax. blue520 11:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost certainly a WP:HOAX; can't see Victorians performing upside down balances, etc. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No showing that the subject meets notability criteria; all favor deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhish P Kavinnamannil[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:BIO as there are no sources demonstrating notability and as there are no results in Google News, Google Books or Google Scholar, his contributions to creating adverts does not appear sufficiently notable to justify a biographic article. His work during film school and claims to have scripts currently "under production" are unlikely to address the issue of notability in the near future. Ash (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 15:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 15:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity page by a short film "director" with only 1 film [48] and who owns 2 websites for branding and PR [49] I agree with the nominator on notability and lack of sourcesAnnette46 (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any independent sources. Would probably fail WP:CREATIVE, even if the claims in the article could be verified. Abecedare (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Page was created by user who has exactly one edit in his entire history at WP, viz. this page. Clearly an attempt to seed personal spam. rudra (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Logitech#Products. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech Illuminated Keyboard[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Per [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], and [63]. Joe Chill (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge as appropriate to the company. The present article is a mere advertisement. Normally reviews make a product notable, but for something a trivial as this there is no reason to have an article. notability is required for an article, but it can still be better to merge. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – To Product List at Logitech. As DGG pointed out “…article is a mere advertisement.” for a particular company’s product. As such, it gives undue weight to that particular company’s product line with regards to illuminated keyboards, which have become standard with other manufacturers of similar items. Almost like we our giving a Good Housekeeping Seal to the item, if allowed to have a standalone piece. There is nothing notable or unseal about this particular keyboard that makes it stand-out more than any other manufacturers keyboard, as such, does not deserve a special place here at Wikipedia. Happy New Year. JAAG^Talk 16:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. Peridon (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Logitech and trim out the peacock words. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable product.Jack007 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utech[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable website. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Provides quite a lot of information, although non-notable.--Tingo Chu (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if it is non-notable should it not be deleted? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like spam. Jack007 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argus (Final Fantasy)[edit]

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

The main page for all Final Fantasy monsters was deleted some time ago so a page for an individual monster from a single game should fall to the same reasoning but more so: not notable element of fiction. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I cannot find anything establishing notability here by a mile. Also seriously runs afoul of WP:GAMEGUIDE. –MuZemike 18:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. It also reads like one of those game databases, so I think it could be interpreted as indiscriminate information. --Taelus (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability, and fails WP:GAMETRIVIA. Not deserving of a full article, but maybe worth a passing mention somehwere in Final Fantasy XI? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 13:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds a lot like a game-guide entry hence violating WP:GAMEGUIDE. Belongs in an article or a Final fantasy-pedia. matthewpaulster (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted under CSD A7 and G12, substantially because of copyright concerns. WP:NAC for cleanup reasons by—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Jerry Galloway[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

notable? Adi4094 (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still a copyvio. I'm going to add db-copyvio. This will be the second time. Woogee (talk) 08:37, 29 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation road[edit]

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

Non notable band. All links are primary sources or non notable. Nothing additional. Shadowjams (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet any criteria of WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 17:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. The article makes no claim of notability. The discography consists solely of two demos. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage - discography solely demos, doesn't meet WP:BAND. Skier Dude (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND; currently links are the band's page, friendster blogs, etc. Perhaps someday, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prospero Banking System[edit]

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

maybe notable,written like an adv. Adi4094 (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertisement. We are under no obligation to try to source and clean up the spammers' messes. Sarah182 (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced article on non-notable product. The same editor also created Prospero Global Banking and Wealth Management Solution and SAGE SA, both of which were speedily deleted. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. Tangurena (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam; as others have pointed out, it appears to be part of a spamming campaign. I wouldn't oppose a speedy on these grounds. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. JBsupreme (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam (dog)[edit]

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

Delete. If this were about a person, and not a dog, I think it would fail WP:BLP policy. I don't think being awarded "World's Ugliest Dog" by some typepad blog makes the subject notable, either. Beyond that, the poor thing lacks any substantial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless MSNBC is a "typepad blog" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10152429/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.64.163 (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As with people, notability requires independent sourcing. Placing the words "sam chinese crested dog" into Google gets his website, www.samugliestdog.com, along with a couple of pages of direct hits on the dog. Switching to Google news immediately brings up this link. The article needs work, but the subject itself is referenced multiple times in independent sourcing and therefore should be kept. Miyagawa (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just added some independent sourcing - wasn't at all difficult to find. Miyagawa (talk) 14:50, 29 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 G12 Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ateliers BIGATA[edit]

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

spam. Adi4094 (talk) 08:17, 29 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 Speedily deleted under CSD G12 as a copyvio. WP:NAC for cleanup reasons by —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Mercodia[edit]

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

notable? Adi4094 (talk) 08:03, 29 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Fratoni[edit]

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

Autobiography of non-notable DJ. All hits are to MySpace and forums. No evidence of significant coverage (I've also checked for coverage in Portuguese sources since the subject seems to be based in Brazil) Voceditenore (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 08:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Brazil - Voceditenore (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've never heard of this guy (I'm Brazilian). The Portuguese language article of this DJ is also in a deletion discussion, and no one there has opposed the nomination so far. Couldn't find any reliable or useful source at Google. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 19:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to satisfy WP:BAND, and thus does not appear to merit inclusion; a lack of reliable 3rd party sources which is required. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenn Wu[edit]

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

Is he notable? Adi4094 (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda-sorta, but unless this can be greatly expanded and the claims to fame justified, I vote to delete. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 08:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only real source I could find was a two-paragraph China Central Television piece [64]. Other WP:RS coverage is trivial (GNews in English, GNews in Chinese). cab (talk) 04:38, 31 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.

Jerry Galloway[edit]

The result was deleted as a copyright violation

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

not notable. Adi4094 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tagged as a copyvio, so it's a speedy delete. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:48, 29 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. WP:CSD#A7 no credible indication of importance or significance, likely hoax. Searches for the subject or his films come up blank, even his supposed Facebook page doesn't work JohnCD (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George DuCranz[edit]

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

Contested prod. Movie director, no notability asserted. Google returns nothing of value. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I cannot find any reliable sources which show both independence and depth of coverage, as noted at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --Jayron32 07:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It is impossible to verify a single sentence. Apparent hoax. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. There is no assertion of notability here. I am adding a speedy template to the page. Steamroller Assault (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom Shadowjams (talk) 08:37, 29 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) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns, controversies and opposition[edit]

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

Contested prod. Indiscriminate collection of snippets about current affairs related to the Vancouver Olympics. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Completely indiscreminiate collection of information. Not encyclopedic in the slightest. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've renamed this article to Concerns, controversies and opposition at the 2010 Winter Olympics, despite my own reservations on the use of "at" as a preposition ("of" is inadequate, and "concerning the..." seems too wordy). I'm reserving judgement on its deletion for now, though I do believe this to be a POV fork created by someone who wants to purge the 2010 article of information critical of the Games and its organization, with the rationale "there's only 45 days left" (i.e. "to put on a good face). There are space reasons to split off various chunks of the main 2010 article, but this material was singled out as being unsavoury to those who aren't "naive" and aren't pro-Olympics enough; it's important material, not "indiscriminate" but certainly with the original title, and without a lede, it may seem so. The creator didn't actually delete or even condense the original material on 2010 Winter Olympics. Unless measures are taken to treat other sections of the 2010 article the same way, this is expressly a POV fork and I support its deletion. But if other split-off articles are created, "without prejudice", it has grounds to exist in the same way the subarticles on venues etc are....Skookum1 (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork, and a duplicate of content already in 2010 Winter Olympics. Reso lute 15:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The same content exists at 2010 Winter Olympics, specifically this section. There's no reason to repeat it in another article like this. PK T(alk) 15:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The creator's intent seems to have been to remove this material from the main article, though he didn't actually do that; there are grounds to consider a short summary on the main page, with this as a subarticle; but as noted if that's the case then preparations & development, construction, and other sections could/should be treated similarly. See the current last section on Talk:2010 Winter Olympics.Skookum1 (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is a POVFORK. If it is determined that it should be kept, a more NPOV title should be chosen, such as Reception of the 2010 Olympics DigitalC (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is this a delition proposal for Concerns, controversies and opposition or Concerns, controversies and opposition at the 2010 Winter Olympics or both? Also, what is the standard procedure for handling articles renamed during an active deletion proposal? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad - I made that change soon after the article's creation, when there was only a prod template, not an AFD, but I hadn't considered the name-change-during-deletion-debate issue; I waqs simply trying to clarify what the article was about. Agreed maybe a more NPOV title could be used, but "reception of" doesn't fit (and would include way more in hte way of subject matter).Skookum1 (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the inclusion of more material to be a bad thing. However, "Reception of..." was simply a suggestion, and another NPOV name could work. The current name however only allows inclusion of negative views. DigitalC (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's either disingenuous or jejune, Digital C. "Controversies" is not a POV word; what you're suggesting is that criticisms of the Olympics be washed under "positive views", but the whole point of this article's creation was to get rid of the "negative" material from the main 2010 Olympics article. This is not the place for this discussion, but your proposal is naive. Negative views do exist; if someone else wanted to partition them off as a separate article because they didn't want to see them in the main article, suggesting that they not only be sequestered away from view but also "balanced" with positive p.r. is just "not on".Skookum1 (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:POVFORK. DigitalC (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know bloody well what a POVFORK is, thank you very much. What you're suggesting is equivalent to saying that Venues of of the 2010 Winter Olympics is a POV fork. What this article was created for (not by me) was a place to put the lengthy materials concerning same on the main page into a separate article; the creator didn't make a summary of its contents and place a {{main}} link appropriately, but it's effectively only a split-off of existing content which should have been condensed on the main page, but wasn't. In your logic making similar splitoffs of the construction and bid sections would be POV forks; and the main difference here was that the creator was wanting to remove so-called "negative" content from the main article to make it more Olympics-promotional friendly; he'd just wanted the stuff deleted or downplayed outright, the idea of a split-off article was suggested by me; he just didn't create or title it properly. Your idea of an article which would have "balance" and not just "negative views" is in itself POV; trying to call the truth something other than waht it is, and paper it over with denials and p.r. campaigns. This is only a POVFork by mistake, not intent; but what you want to do, it seems, is turn it into something else; the material is already NPOV; complaining that it's not because it covers all the negative aspect of the organization and financing and violations of human rights asssociated with the games is akin to "publishing false history", giving untruth an equal footing with truth.....what I'm hearing from you is thet idea that this should bve retitled so that happy-traveller accounts of the Games and hype as presented by hte foreign media "reception" is somehow related to Harriet Nahanee's death and the funding scam perpetrated by Fortress/Millennium ree the Athletes' Village. Give your head a shake and smarten up. Such material wouldn't have been in the original section, the "ahppy travellers" and "gee-aren't-the-Games-Great stuff can have their own section/article...Skookum1 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's a standard procedure, I think the best option would be to start over with a new deletion proposal for Concerns, controversies and opposition at the 2010 Winter Olympics. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the redirect located at concerns, controversies and opposition, handle concerns, controversies and opposition at the 2010 Winter Olympics separately. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Following Gordon Ecker's lead, delete the redirect, start a new AFD for the retitled version. I've also reconsidered by comments about it not being a POV fork by intent; the creator clearly wants to sanitize the 2010 article by getting rid of all this stuff "so the page is ready for the Games", and claims second-language English as a reason not to do it himself; see this discussion and the second-previous section to it.Skookum1 (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AS the creator of this page I will clarify a few points I wanted to treat the content of this page the same way venues, the torch relay are treated. With an introduction and a link for further information. The point wasnt too hide all bad informations from the games just to follow the same templeate use ON THIS PAGE with other content. The main page of Vancouver 2010 propose many pages to completed the information about the games and I wanted to do the same way about opposition/controversies. Why isnt the case anyway? I try to do something and I failed doing it... I taught it was an easy task to do... and I soon realized I dont have the background on wikipedia, and my English isnt strong enough to be involve on big project like that here. I only try to make Vancouver 2010 better (and when I say better I'm not saying better content) just better in quality. So I wont apolozise I try unsuccesfully to built this page the proper way, I'm new here. But, instead having a debate about this page (this page should be removed, I agree), why not having a debate about my proposition to built a separated page with the full information and on the main page having an introduction with a link for further information. One last time, I dont want to remove information negative about the games... wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this kind of information should not be deleted, they are fact, and proven, just want them to be better organized. But I wont do the change myself 1)because i dont have the necessary support 2)because wikipedia is too complicated and I'm not able to do it anyway. So dont be worry I wont rebuilt this page or try to do something similar. Just hope somebody will understand my point of view.

--Rundleds (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Missionary_position#The_Grip. SilkTork *^YES! 12:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starfish position[edit]

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

this was supposed to be here first somehow it didn't get here. Delete, Appears to be neolgism, having probleems finding reliable sources showing this is legit. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove this? ,the references are added. Noraalicia (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hellbucket, a neolOgism is according to wiki; newly coined word that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language. Starfish position is lacking on the wikipediapages. It is a well known position and by all means used in everyday life just like missionary and doggy. It would be weird not having it on wiki along with the other sex positions. This is one of the most popular positions among women due to increased achievement of orgasm. Since you`re a male, you might not know...Noraalicia (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
merge into an appropriate article, assuming that any Verification is possible. (there ought to be, I have heard the term). The likely sources for this on the web are not customarily indexed by Google. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there is no verifiable, reliably referenced content on the name of this sex position. The stuff about difficulties reaching orgasm in missionary position can be merged to missionary position. — æk ^Talk 08:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- — æk ^Talk 07:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the verifiable information on the missionary position to that article and retain current page as a redirect to Missionary position--Cailil ^talk 22:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, look in the Google Books results, there are some hits. I think the article may be describing this position incorrectly, but the name is a valid search term. Like DGG, I'm not sure where to merge. Abductive (reasoning) 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nurani. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nurani Thondikulam UP School[edit]

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

Schools generally would qualify for notability. However, the Nurani Thondikulam UP school has no notable entry on any reliable secondary source as far as I could search. In fact, I couldn't find even primary sources. Comment: This school was tagged by me for speedy deletion earlier - a tag which was removed later on. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found two primary sources. A list of polling places from the Chief Electoral Officer of Kerala includes this school: http://www.ceokerala.com/erole/palakkad.pdf This Google map shows the school. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nurani as a one line statement listing the school. The school exists per this and the two refs Eastmain posted. However, it is not a secondary school as it is not listed on the Kerala Schools list or the Kerala SSLC results listing. This is also confirmed by the article creator's edit stating that the school has grades 1 to 7. -SpacemanSpiff 06:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In Kerala a "U.P. School" stands for "Upper Primary School" (fifth grade (L. P.) + a couple more). -SpacemanSpiff 07:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nurani, per SpacemanSpiff. Abecedare (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominator agreed to close after I rewrote the article. Ikip 01:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ospina Coffee Company[edit]

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

This page was created by User:Grancafe, and it appears from his user page that he is the owner of the company. I added unreferenced, spam, and notability notices to the article shortly after its creation. The article's creator subsequently expanded it and removed the templates, but did not address any of these issues, and solicited feedback on the article at Talk:Ospina Coffee Company. I described the problems with the article there at about this time yesterday, but the article has not been substantially changed since then. The article has no citations or references to anything but other Wikipedia articles, which, as I wrote on the article's talk page are not reliable sources for citation purposes. It does not give evidence of substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources, and thus appears to fail the notability guidelines for corporations. It is also written in a self-promotional tone, which, combined with the conflict of interest of its creator, make its unsupported assertions yet more dubious. The subject has about 5,600 Google hits, but the first several pages of results are commercial in nature and do not appear to include reliable, independent sources. It appears that some of the company's previous owners were notable for other reasons and have articles, so perhaps the content that is relevant to those people could be merged there, and the rest deleted. Opus 113 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was previously deleted as a copyvio at Ospina coffee. If what is stated is true, the company is notable and should have an article (also as the company that several notable Colombian politicians worked in). It should be possible to cite information about the company from sources about these people; however, in a cursory search I have been unable to do so. Any Spanish speakers around? If there are no sources to be found, I would recommend deletion until our verifiability policy can be demonstrably met. —Кузьма^討論 15:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, I can't even figure out the name of the original company (I assume it was not in English). The present-day US company would be a lot less notable without the historical connections and the claim of continuity, which still seem completely unsourced. —Кузьма^討論 17:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Privet Kusma, google translate says that Ospina coffee is "de café de Ospino" Ikip 22:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

(Note: The collapsed section is a copy of Talk:Ospina Coffee Company as it appeared when User:Grancafe posted it here.--Opus 113 (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comments copy and pasted from Talk:Ospina Coffee Company
Kindly please make your comments, suggestions and observations to this new article Ospina Coffee Company. Your contributions will be highly appreciated. Thanks. Best, Grancafe Mariano Ospina, V 20:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC) I have a few comments: 1. It appears that you have written an article about a company that you are in some way involved in. This is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. 2. I placed a template on the article to the effect that it cited no references or sources. You apparently tried to do so by citing other Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for citations in other Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. ("Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles, nor should any mirrors or forks of Wikipedia be accepted as reliable sources for any purpose.") If the articles you cited have reliable sources that they rely on and that are relevant to this article, you can cite those instead, or any other reliable sources as outlined in the policy. Additionally, you can link to the other Wikipedia articles, but this is not a substitute for other reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Linking. 3. It is not clear from the article as it stands that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability policy, under which corporations are generally notable if they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Please add citations to coverage in such sources if they exist. 4. Much of the article is written in a tone and style that tends to promote the company. This is discouraged, and such content should be removed or, if notable, rewritten in a neutral fashion. See Wikipedia:Spam. The article has a number of fairly serious issues that need to be resolved. If they are not, the article could become a candidate for deletion.--Opus 113 (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks Thank you very much for your comments, observations and suggestions. 1. Yes, I am very involved with Ospina Coffee Company. This is what makes me the maximum authority to describe, narrate and write about it. Nobody knows it better than I do. The Company is 175 years old, and this is the first time that a serious article has been writen about it, although there is plenty of info and references out there, in the public domain. 2. This is my first article in Wikipedia and thus, I was under the impression that references from Wikipedia were much more reliable than any other. 3. As to the notability issues, the Company has received numerous awards and recognition world wide, such as in France, China, Japan, Taiwan and the USA. There are many articles published in books, magazines and newspapers. Please go to Google and search for "Ospina", "Ospina Coffee" and "Ospina Coffee Company" and you will find these information. 4. I do not undesrstand what you mean by the tone and style of the article. It is a cronological exposition of facts, names, dates and places. It is not a spam. They are undisputed facts! You mention a number of fairly serious issues that need to be resolved. Kindly please point them out to me. Thanks. --Mariano Ospina, V 04:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grancafe (talk • contribs) --Mariano Ospina, V 04:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grancafe (talk • contribs)

Comment. See this search for some potentially useful references from reliable sources. - Eastmain (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for Ospina Coffee rather than Ospina Coffee Company, you will get better results. - Eastmain (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More references can be found at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/search/?q=Ospina+coffee -- Eastmain (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Quantumobserver (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References
Preliminary Book References Books Informe del Gerente de La Federacion al Sexto Congreso Nacional de Cafeteros, Federacion Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia, Junio de 1934, Colombia. Brown Gold, The Amazing Story of Coffee, Andres Uribe C., Random House Inc., NY, 1954, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 55-5793. The Ideal of the Practical, Frank Safford, University of Texas Press, 1976, ISBN 0-292-73803-X Gobernantes Colombianos, Interprint, Ignacio Arismendi Posada, Bogota, Colombia, 1983 Colombian Coffee Sector Study, The World Bank, October 2002, ISSN 1657-5334 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grancafe (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Most truly, --Grancafe (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Two More Books De la Unidad Nacional a la Hegemonia Conservadora, Hernan Jaramillo Ocampo, Editorial Pluma Ltd., Bogota, 1980 El Café en el Desarrollo de Antioquia, Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia, Editorial Colina, January, 2000, ISBN 958-33-1279-7 Thanks, --Grancafe (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Magazine Articles Robb Report, Best of the Best 2004, Singular Essentials by Jessica Taylor, Volume XXVIII, June, 2004. Target Trends Magazine, The Taste of Ospina Coffee, Shanghai, China, April, 2005. Robb Report, Best of the Best 2005, Pure Perfection by SGS, Volume XXIX, June, 2005. Uptown Magazine, Damn That’s Some Good Coffee by Thomas Carrig, Charlotte, NC, March, 2007. Robb Report, Best of the Best 2007, Of Note by James Dimonekas, Volume XXXI, June, 2007. Robb Report Motor Cycling, Haute Coffee by Jennifer Hall, Volume 2, Number 2, Summer 2005. Evasion’s International, Les Cafés Exceptionales by Rufus Willis, Paris, France, March, 2005. SouthPark Magazine, Premium Blend by Lee Rohdes, Charlotte, NC, October, 2007. Please consider, thnaks --Grancafe (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Newspaper Articles The Charlotte Observer, Gourmet Coffee by Cristina Breen, February 14, 2003. The Charlotte Observer, The Observer’s Choice, Best of 2004, Tuesday, June 8, 2004. The Charlotte Observer, The Insider, by Jeff Elder, Monday, October 2, 2006. The Charlotte Observer, The King of Coffee in Exile by Jeff Elder, Sunday, March 16, 2008. Thanks, --Grancafe (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Encyclopedic Works and References Encyclopedic Works a) Wikipedia, Colombia, Mariano Ospina Rodriguez, Partido Conservador Colombiano, Pedro Nel Ospina, Mariano Ospina Perez, Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia. b) Biblioteca Luis Angel Arango, Bogota: Mariano Ospina Rodriguez, Pedro Nel Ospina, Mariano Ospina Perez c) U.S. Departament of State, Colombia, Ospinas d) Coffee in Colombia 1850- 1979, Marco Palacios, Cambridge, Latin American Studies e) Encyclopedia Britanica: Mariano Ospina Rodriguez, Pedro Nel Ospina, Mariano Ospina Perez f) El Continente de los Siete Colores: German Arciniegas, 1965, Buenos Aires, Editorial Sudamericana g) Historia de America: Rafael Maria Granados, 1953, Bogota h) 1200 Años de Historia: Historia, relatos y Genealogia de los Ospinas, Mariano Ospina Peña, 2004 Bogota i) Diccionario Biografici y Bibliografico de Colombia, 1926, Editorial Cromos Bogota j) La vida del General Pedro Nel Ospina: Emilio Robledo 1956, Autores Antioquenos Vol 8, Medellin k) Fundacion de Educacion Superior Mariano Ospina Perez, Nov. 2009 (in the Internet) l) Biografia del Cafe: Malcom Deas, Agosto 2009

Thanks, --Grancafe (talk) 20:56, 29 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. It appears that consensus is that average frustrated chump should remain a blue link. Discussions concerning merging can and should take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Average frustrated chump[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I submit this article for AfD for two reasons. First, it seems to perfectly fit WP:NEO. Second, the majority of the article is WP:OR and based on a singular source. Based on these two reasons I feel this article is not fit for an encyclopedia. Basket of Puppies 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep First of all, WP:NEO does not prohibit articles on neologisms; it merely states that they often aren't notable enough for an article of their own: "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, and this is sometimes but not always the case." This is such a neologism; it has entered the popular culture and can be found in many, many reliable sources (just glancing at the Google News and Google Books search results). The article as it stands is not WP:OR, either; it cites multiple reliable sources, and while Strauss's book is the main reference, it is far from the only one. (Newspaper sources include The New York Times and The New York Sun.) If anything, the article has improved since the last AfD (where the consensus was to keep). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important term in the seduction community, and its presence here is appropriate. Tangurena (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Quantumobserver (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Reply I kindly submit to ~~Quantumobserver~~ Tangurena that all articles on Wikipedia are required to pass notability in order to be kept. I realize this is important for the Seduction Community, but that does not translate into passing the threshold for an article in an encyclopedia. Basket of Puppies 05:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BoP, first of all Tangurena is the editor to whom you should be replying; Quantumobserver was merely deletion-sorting. And second of all, are you asserting that this does not meet the general notability guideline? You didn't mention that in your nomination. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly, silly me! I haven't considered if this group passes WP:N, but I was pointing out to Tangurena that their rationale isn't one that an closing admin is likely to accept as it doesn't make an argument based on policy. Basket of Puppies 21:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you meant. I agree that he/she made a WP:LOCALFAME-type argument. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been considerably reluctant to keep articles on this general topic, but this seems adequately documented and important. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge to Nice guy. The lead makes it plain that AFC is just another way of referring to the "nice guy" syndrome. Fences&Windows 03:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usenet, one of the sources for the article, is not really a RS, even if it is a moderated list. A moderator is not the same as an editor. It's more of a WP:SPS see also the essay point on WP:USENET. Per WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term." I don't think the Times and Sun meet that criteria. Also "the seminal (peacock?) Cliff's List definition"? Is that site a RS? It doesn't look like one. Шизомби (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A term one guy has come up, with no coverage by other reliable sources about that term. The comment above is important. The only person who discusses this phrase is Strauss. Quantpole (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but that's patently untrue. Strauss didn't coin the phrase; Ross Jeffries did. It says so in the article's lead. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that claim has no source, so I ignored it. Quantpole (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with Nice guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark link (talk • contribs)
Keep - I just read a Craigslist post that used the terms "PUA" and "AFC" and I came to WP to find out what they meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.59.251 (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle Thieves (2010 film)[edit]

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

Double or Nothing (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Across the Street (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previously deleted by PROD, there is no assertion of notability here for a short film that doesn't exist yet and is unlikely to be notable when it does. Two other films by the same group are attached to this AfD - one makes a vague assertion of notability that it was shown at Cannes, but even that is unsourced and even if it was, that alone is unlikely to pass the bar of notability. Black Kite 23:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Not likely to ever be notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nom. If they ever win multiple Oscars, or perhaps a few break box-office records, then they could be recreated. But that's not likely going to happen, is it? Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias) 19:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not currently notable, if any of these do end up becoming worthy of an article they can be created then. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of significant third-party coverage or any other citations to establish notability. --EEMIV (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 02:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note – this was never listed on any of the AFD pages when first nominated for deletion. Will now be listed at WP:AFD/T. Please allow the standard discussion length to happen from today's timestamp. –MuZemike 02:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing the notability test. ArcAngel (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 29 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) 18:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. Martin Croker[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. No citations to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has verifiably significant roles in multiple notable productions (Space Ghost Coast to Coast and Aqua Teen Hunger Force). Therefore passes WP:ENT. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite impressive body of work. Meets WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources here at all. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Yappy2bhere... but lack of sources in an article is a matter for correction, not deletion. Rotten Tomatoes, Variety, NNDB, NME Online Magazine, Voicechasers Database, Outside In, Journal News, Inbaseline, Boxxet, DVD AF, Retroland, Popmatters, International Animated Film Association of Atlanta, et al, all offer WP:V toward his body of work meeting WP:ENT. Per WP:ATD its worth improving... not deleting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to improve the article by adding those references to it. So many editors are quick with an opinion, but slow to do the work. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thank you so much for improving the article and adding them yourself. Its so refreshing when editors do something more proactive than simply commenting on others' comments. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements without sources are original research, Michael.[65] This is a biography; please support your additions with reliable references. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RottenTomatoes is a reprint of the Wikipedia article. Ditto for NME Online Magazine. Your Variety reference is a search result, not a reference, but if you follow the first link to his profile he's credited with one (1) voice performance. The Outside In page contains nothing about Croker. Neither does Journal News. DVD AF credits him as a director, which appears to be an error. The International Animated Film Association of Atlanta page advertises a performance. The rest appear agree that Croker has had three minor voice-over roles, including a recurring 10-second gag at the beginning of a 15-minute late-night animated series.

In the future, don't copy URLs and claim them as references without actually reading the text. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you felt the need to scold me and point out my deficiencies, but I've been editing for a little longer than three months and have a few more than 300 edits [66], and do know how to improve an article... having actually done so a couple times.

Rather than you continuing to denigate another editor, It might be more helpful if you actually spoke toward Croker's having voiced 48 episodes of Space Ghost Coast to Coast from 1994 through 2004, 41 episodes of Aqua Teen Hunger Force from 2000 throgh 2003, 29 episodes of The Brak Show from 2000 through 2003, 7 episodes of Perfect Hair Forever from 2004 through 2007... his being a cel animator for 97 episodes of Aqua Teen Hunger Force from 2001 through 2009... and his being animation director for 91 episodes of Space Ghost Coast to Coast from 1994 through 2004... and share how it is that you believe his body of work does not meet the criteria of WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put it back in your pants, Michael. If I'd known how experienced you were, I wouldn't have called it carelessness. I see one source in the article and a whole lot of Wikipedia links, and Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Yappy2bhere (talk) 09:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review wikilinks... a part of the Manual of Style. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To what end? Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER based on his work in voice acting, etc. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James & Evander[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James & Evander

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

Nonnotable electropop duo; the only claim to notability is related to flunked wikipedia documentary with deleted article. - Altenmann >t 02:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 05:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this music duo. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no reason for Wikipedia to be deleting quality pages simply because someone defines them as irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.251.26 (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why is a documentary about Wikipedia (the first and only one known) not notable for some reason? I don't get it. A quick search for "Truth in numbers" gets 'many' results! Planetary (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is the deletion discussion for James & Evander, not Truth In Numbers. The rationale for deleting the article on Truth In Numbers is explained fully in its own deletion discussion. — Gwalla | Talk 18:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A band with no albums, no awards, no tours, no radio play, no nothing. The closest thing they have to a claim to fame is having one of their tunes used in an online PSA (supposedly; the link actually just goes to Wikimedia's donation page, and I see no video there) and an as-yet-nonexistent documentary. — Gwalla | Talk 18:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to satisfy WP:BAND under any point (at least as of yet, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Cocytus [»talk«] 04:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete .Jack007 (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dotty Cotton. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Conlin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

First AfD slightly less than a year ago led to a delete. Notability is more likely now than then because the actress plays a recurring character, and IMDb reports that she has appeared in 35 episodes since the character was introduced.) Eastmain (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Keep. See the first discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Conlin - Eastmain (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation:' At 19:50, 28 December 2009 Abductive (talk · contribs · count) tagged the article for speedy delete as {{db-repost}}. I couldn't determine whether the article was substantially the same as the one which was deleted, or whether the change in circumstances (35 episodes) represented a change in circumstances, so I brought the deletion issue here. - Eastmain (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dotty Cotton for the time being. WP:ENTERTAINER requires significant multiple roles - one role in EastEnders is good, but not good enough. All the others seem to be very minor cameos. (Also, I'm wary about having articles for children which don't have the attention of Wiki regulars - they are easy targets for nasty misinformation.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dotty Cotton per Chris Neville-Smith. But don't worry about the article not having the attention of Wiki regulars - it's been on my watchlist for several months. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
INCUBATE Ignoring the currently inaplicable WP:ENT, the child is pushing quite hard at meeting WP:BIO through WP:GNG. Sure, set a redirect... but send the article to incubation so it can get attention and return without prejudice when it becomes a slam-dunk. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* I originally added the article, but on reflection, I think it is a candidate for deletion. I would disagree with incubation because that relates to articles that need work, not ones which just not be here. "As a rule, do not incubate an article unless you intend to improve it or you reasonably expect that it will be improved by other editors." Basically I created this from a red link thinking of the notability of the character (who is undoubtedly notable in the context of the series), not the actor (who is currently not notable, although she might be later). raining girl (talk) 22:49, 31 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) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bitextor[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) 01:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an application whose objective is to generate translation memories using multilingual websites as a corpus source. Which actually sounds like an interesting application; the idea apparently being to discover multi-lingual versions of the same text to improve machine translation. But the user base for such a tool is going to make notability rather hard to achieve. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A search returns plenty of options for download, but nothing resembling significant coverage or anything indicative of notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be academic software. A few gshcolar hits. Not much else; nothing in the news or books. Pcap ping 07:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to qualify for inclusion under the notability guidelines per a lack of significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glest[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this video game. The review in the article doesn't look reliable. Joe Chill (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember why I created this article to begin with, but it was the first 3D RTS opensource game... so I guess that I may have created it because of this fact. Currently, I don't see any objection against the deletion of that article. Sitenl (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about this other review? Pcap ping 04:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About.com is definitely a reliable source. Joe Chill (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this one by a "professional gamer". Pcap ping 04:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep then. Based on those reviews, it's practically the only playable RTS for Linux (rather weak claim for N, I know), but together with the 1reliable+2meh reviews is probably enough. Pcap ping 04:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm satisfied. When it comes to finding sources for software, you're the best person that I've come across. Joe Chill (talk) 04:12, 29 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) 18:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Galoff[edit]

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

Per other recent AFDs, such as those for Henry Blomberg and Daniel Martin, soldiers who have received nothing more than a Distinguished Service Cross are not notable enough for individual WP articles. Dana boomer (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have nothing but the utmost respect for this soldier's most distinguished actions in service of his country. That said, Wikipedia is not a memorial and Galoff does not appear to be notable under WP:MILPEOPLE. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recipients of second-tier decorations are simply not notable enough unless there is another compelling reason for notability. No disrespect to them whatsoever, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial to bravery. I recommend we speedy all these DSC recipients that include only a citation and virtually nothing more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely disagree with the consensus that states that being awarded the DSC or the Silver Star is not enough to be considered "notable", but the fact of the matter is that the consensus has consistantly come out that way here on Wikipedia, and we all have to play by the rules. Rapier1 (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but allowing recipients second- or third-tier awards to be inherently notable would generate massive amounts of articles. In a British context, nearly 9,000 DSOs (second-tier) were awarded in WWI alone. Over 20,000 DFCs (third-tier, only awarded to aircrew officers) were awarded in WWII. Around 100,000 or more gallantry awards were probably made to British servicemen in each world war. And many countries are far more generous with medals than the UK (compare the average lengths of the medal ribbon bars). Yes, WP is not paper, but there are limits to the people who are eligible for articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not going to debate this again. I stated my opinion. I stated the rule. I stated my intention to stand by the rule. I don't have to like it. Rapier1 (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, a lack of non-trivial mentions in reliabler sources means the article fails WP:GNG, which trumps all else really. Skinny87 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:V and the precedent set by the aforementioned AFDs in the nomination. Admirable, but not quite notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing against the fellow, but he does not appear to pass WP:ANYBIO, and thus I do not feel that he merits inclusion. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 04:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the subject was clearly courageous and dedicated, he does not meet current guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sharp disagreement over this one, with the nominator switching to keep, but others maintaining strongly that deletion is appropriate. No clear agreement here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruin democrats[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently a non notable political group doesn't qualify as a speedy deletion. Who knew, having no references or any people elected from your party made it enough to pass notability? If you can't understand what I mean , Delete. Non notable political party with no attempt to explain notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Strong keep, upon a review and several good points by PolarGeo I find this group notable. PBS mentions Bruin here...[[67]] another newspaper [[68]], [[69]], [[70]] [[71]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to "Hell in a Bucket" and all: Bruin Democrats is not a political party and does not claim to be. This article describes the largest club organization on a major university's campus, and therefore it is notable. Hundreds of active members, significant lobbying efforts, and a large number of former members in the US Congress and other sectors of the federal government indicate how important the group is to the political ecosphere. If some random song by some obscure artist is consider notable by wikipedia's standards, why not an active political organization as large as this one. I encourage improvement of this article for accuracy and objectivity, but strongly defend the right of this article to existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruin Democrats denotes it is a political organization. If it is not help me understand how it isn't....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is a political organization (I want to clarify that it is not a party and does not need to prove its notability as such), why should it be deleted? Why did you nominate it for deletion? This article gives the general reader some basic background information on a notable group, just as an article on any other interest group, corporation, or political movement does the same without being nominated for deletion.--Truth Be Told 01:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Refer to comment number one. It is a non-notable party/group. It does nothing to explain much less prove how it meets wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Student organizations that exist at only a single university are generally non-notable per WP:ORG. I don't see ~~any~~ independent reliable sources cited in this article to help establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While there have been sources added to the article, I don't think they are significant enough to warrant changing my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am obviously reading different notability criteria to you. WP:CLUB is satisfied here because A) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. And B) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. The fact that the organisation is based at UCLA does not count because the scope of their activities is national. Polargeo (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point the way? I would reconsider if I saw something that came close to explaining it's notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is some third party press coverage, maybe not a lot but it is over a long period of time, Washington Week 2005 LA Times 2008, LA Times 1978 and LA Times 1979 and many more LA Times mentions from 1976 to present, Center Daily Times, Baltimore Sun Polargeo (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Okay maybe Washington Week is not fully third party and you have to pay to view the Center Daily Times article. Polargeo (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's a tough one. I'm going to sleep on it. I will also re look over the notability guidelines for club and organization. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this rides on coverage in multiple articles in a major regional newspaper, with high circulation, over a long period of time. The previous AfD in 2006 was a joke (I would have loved to have been on wikipedia in those happier times). Polargeo (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced it really meets the notability guidelines. That being said I think that we can keep it, contrary to my deletionist nature. It's enough of an arguement to keep it around and say that Wikipedia is bettered by a article that is on the fringe but still improved. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<changing to> Strong Delete: Non-notable group. No claim to fame. No independent refs. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how the LA Times is not an independent ref? Polargeo (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I've now changed to strong delete. Show me a local paper to a university that doesn't make references to its university's various clubs at different times. And 15 mentions in the L.A. Times over 33 years? Once, on average, every other year? Hardly notable. I don't count L.A. Times as much of an independent source given that it's the local paper. Were any of these stories picked up by the Washington Post? New York Times? BBC? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True you have a valid point it is marginal but this only needs to pass WP:CLUB not "WP:The most famous student organisation in the world" Polargeo (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Also the guidence says "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." And the LA Times independently verifies the longevity. Polargeo (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I will also add that the size of membership should be taken into account per the notability guidance I outline here. Polargeo (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my arguments above Polargeo (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a search of the LA Times website and "Bruin Democrats" are mentioned 15 times, 1976 (1), 1978 (3), 1979 (2), 1980 (1), 1984 (1), 1988 (2), 2001 (2), 2006 (1), 2008 (2). Some of these articles detail the group's activities. The LA Times may be regional but it has the fourth largest distribution of all US newspapers, you cannot get much bigger. This consistent appearence in such a major newspaper over such a long period of time verifies not only notability but longevity of the group. Their activities are national in nature and so they pass WP:CLUB Polargeo (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator I had ot agre with Polar's view. The coverage isn't major but it has been consistent over the year. I think it is a fringe article but there should be no problems with it....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable.Jack007 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia ocean liner[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL applies to this article about a residential ocean liner project that has not begun construction and for which the contract hasn't even been signed yet. There is one legitimate reliable source in the article (the other two are press releases), but one magazine piece does not make this project notable. Creator contested prod. RL0919 (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No say yet on whether or not to keep it, but I just found another source. CNN Money ran an article/photo gallery on it. link:http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/real_estate/0912/gallery.Utopia_residences_ocean_liner/index.html. C628 (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate for a while until this is farther along. Even a "binding" letter of intent, which is just a contract, does not mean this will actually be built, only that damages would be available in case one party backed out. As I said when I originally PRODded this article, I think this will be ready for an article perhaps when the keel is laid down. In addition to WP:CRYSTAL, consider a comparison to WP:NFF, which holds that "[f]ilms that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. Budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." Although Utiopia ocean liner is so far a well-written stub, and this proposal has been covered on CNN.com and elsewhere, in the end I think the same principle must apply. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That'd work fine for me. But should probably be taken out a bit before the laying of the keel, depending on the level of publicity surrounding it. Most ships get articles pretty soon after they're formally ordered, not once construction has begun. C628 (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since this project is relatively likely to be notable if it does go forward, I have no objection to incubation. --RL0919 (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wp:ships has many articles about ships that are not yet under construction. There are also 2 Featured Articles about ships that were never even built. If the construction of this particular ship is canceled then the article should be updated accordingly. There seems to be enough verification of pending construction for this to stand. --Brad (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point us to those two specific FAs so that we can evaluate whether they are relevantly similar? --RL0919 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep planned projects if they attract enough notice are notable. The Forbes article is sufficient. But I am a little concerned that even it is just repeated the PR handout in very similar language. If genuine, there should be some more sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DGG and Brad - the project seems fairly notable and I think it appears far enough ahead to be worth an article, if written properly. However, if this article is kept it would probably need at least some rephrasing, but I also think it should be moved to Utopia (cruise ship); if it's anything like The World (which is what it looks like from the website), it will be a cruise ship not an ocean liner. The image given there also gives that impression, and I can't find anywhere on the website where they call it an ocean liner. Jhbuk (talk) 16:39, 29 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) 10:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shima hospital[edit]

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

Unreferenced article of dubious notability. Recommend merging content into Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Survival of some structures or other related article. armagebedar (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. At the very least, the information in this article preserved. I'm not having a hard time finding references, and the fact that this location was the epicenter of the Hiroshima atomic bomb gives this subject a very strong claim to notability. Anyone who wants to merge may discuss that on the article's talk page. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very strong keep, actually--famous building because of its role in the center of the explosion. There are sure to be multiples sources, at least in Japanese--and their article in JaWP is about triple the size of ours, with usable appropriate free illustrations. The hospital is discussed in every book about the event, see Google Books. And I learn from even the snippets there that is was in fact deliberately the target point. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 29 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. I wouldn't have relisted this one. Clear consensus for retention here. –MuZemike 00:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Devil[edit]

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

The article does not meet the General notability guideline. All attempts to find reliable and independent sources have failed. A prod was deleted from this article previously with no discussion nor contention of its addition by an anonymous editor. Brian Reading (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two potential sources are [72] and [73]. Alison22 (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I don't believe the first source would work for Wikipedia as it appears to classify as a self-published source. Since the second source is in Italian, which I can't understand, I can't really evaluate as to whether it is an acceptable source. Is there any evidence of such? Thanks! Brian Reading (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [74], [75], [76], and [77]. Joe Chill (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above. Alison22 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Chill, hopefully someone will integrate those sources, as of right now the article is relying on BLOGSPOT.COM for referencing. JBsupreme (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:44, 29 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. This is somewhat of a tough call. Prior to MichaelQSchmidt's comment, there was a clear consensus to delete; however, given that there was no further evaluation of the sources, I agree with Tim Song's call to relist the AfD. The relist did not result in any further discussion, so I'm going to go with the current consensus and delete it as apparently non-notable. It's worth noting that although Alison22 was blocked as a sockpuppet, they've not engaged in any vote stacking at this particular AfD; thus, their vote is not inherently problematic and I include it in my final interpretation of the discussion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha (film)[edit]

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

Related to this AfD. From Blanchardb's prod which was just removed by an IP (and marked as minor, too, which I think is wrong to do (along with re-adding copyrighted material)): "Movie with no assertion of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases (like this one), readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability. Alison22 (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've had trouble with this one. A movie titled Maverick in which Natasha Richardson was considered for a major role at one point led to truckloads of false positives. But I was unable to find the needle in that haystack, and so unless I'm mistaken, there are no reliable sources to be found. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found several instances where DVDs are being sold, and this "press release" review, but I do not see anything to satisfy WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Jag Mundhra and source per India Currents, Twitch Film, Film Critics United, Sify, and even perhaps with Bollyvista. Its enough, with work, to bring the article into line. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: relisted to obtain more comments on MichaelQSchmidt's sources. Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:43, 29 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) 10:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Wolff[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable. The "references" given in the article are just about macrobiotic diet in general. The "newspaper and magazine articles" section has two dead links, one blog post which quotes the article subject briefly, and one feature article from "an insert within the Portland Pres Herald" – i.e. a Parade magazine-style publication (but more obscure). None of this establishes notability. Googling around finds a few mentions on macrobiotic/cancer survivor blogs, but again nothing that gets this article over the bar. — æk ^Talk 03:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided in the article show coverage of the subject exists, but don't show that significant coverage of the subject exists. I also note that one of the sources is a blog post. Ultimately, this fails WP:BIO. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:44, 29 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. After a relist there are no comments. I'm treating this as a de facto prod. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Schouteten (politician)[edit]

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

Delete - does not satisfy notability criterion for politician Wikipedia:POLITICIAN --Matttwd (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no hit from Google News, but I found some links that confirm this young politician's career a bit.[78][79][80][81][82], but I'm not sure how notable the sites are. French editors' input would be highly appreciated to gauge the notability of the politician.--Caspian blue 19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:41, 29 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) 10:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Dahl[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Article lacks third party references. (TurnWild (talk))

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is tough because the name is too common to search on its own. However searches in GNews w.r.t. the companies he is said to be/have been involved in turn up only three hits, and all of the them are more or less passing mentions of him as a corporate officer. He doesn't seem to have done anything notable. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His name isn't that common, really, and in conjunction with Rock Creek Capital I found this. But he generates plenty of coverage as a former trader for Michael Milken who testified against his boss: see this search. That the article doesn't reflect this is a matter of puffery, I believe. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I added the real notability, the part he will actually be historically notable for. The refs need some touch up, but I think I got the essentials. The books on Milikan will also need to be checked. I also warned the editor responsible. To be fair, we probably need articles on Milikan's other key associates. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reluctant keep He seems to be something of a one event guy, but it is hard to argue that a reasonably sourced article can be produced. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sourcing provided by DGG. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, I think notability has been demonstrated in this case. JBsupreme (talk) 21:14, 30 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) 10:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey (Ice Cube song)[edit]

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

Ice Cube single, fails WP:NSONGS. It fails the litmus test in that it hasn't charted (yet), and I am unable do find in-depth coverage by reliable sources to make it pass the general notability giudeline (so little actually that I only find mention of that title in the unofficial YouTube video ...). Has no verifiable content, the little information that is in the infobox could easily be presented in discography or the artist's article.
Previous redirect to Ice Cube was contested by article creator. Amalthea 18:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd have gone with re-direct, but if the author wants to keep removing it, deletion is the next step. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any significant coverage for this; does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 08:43, 29 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) 10:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GLC Player[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) 04:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources found to show notability, search shows only that it exists. Mattg82 (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletionists SUCK! Try to compensate your problems other way. No other reason I have. Some reading: strategy:Proposal:Change Wikipedia Notability Guidelines Ragerds, --Kozuch (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really think that this keep !vote will help save the article? Joe Chill (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing to indicate why it's notable other than its existence and its status as FOSS. By those criteria, every utility in the GNU repository should have its own article, and that is obviously not the case. --Alan (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Literally no references at all. ConCompS (Talk to me) 02:06, 29 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) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New England Institute of Religious Research[edit]

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

IDk why somone did this? i agree with it 100% but not complete the process? any way i saw it watchlist so i complete it Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

I consider this subject not notable, The Boston Globe Published the article [[83]] questioning Notability of the institute. Dr. Andrew Walsh [[84]] editor of the Journal Religion in the News questions the main face of the institute Robert pardon's expert credentials seem to be merely claims he has told to the media and the media has repeated. [[85]] Almost all mentions in the articles cited are introduce him and then lets him give opinion on "x group" not in compliance with "Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story". The only two articles to have any substantial mention him regard his opening intention to open meadow haven treatment center and then one of its opening, not meeting "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." he seem notable for the attleborro case then a smattering of articles outside of it not in compliance with "People notable only for one event" all book references in article are merely Works carrying merely trivial coverage... telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories" Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant secondary source coverage as made clear already by the article. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is heavily sourced, some of which comes from established articles in published printed documents such as books and newspapapers. It also must have been commented upon (with notable, published proof) by people from notable shows such as The Early Show. Thhe wikipedia article does make mention of the leader of this corporation, Robert Pardon, making exaggerated claims, but that shouldn't be much of an issue here, because even if some claims are exaggerated, this article has been proven in my eyes to be kept as an article. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 06:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nom is forgetting that the fundamental underpinning of articles is not whether they're notable, but whether they're verifiable. This overwhelmingly passes the GNG due to detailed coverage by reliable sources, whether or not this Institute has any widespread importance. RGTraynor 07:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : as per RGTraynor's argument. Notability established by significant coverage. -- Europe22 (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment RGTraynors argument isn't really correct. There are lots of things that have substantial coverage in reliable sources that are not notable anyway and that should not have its own article - for example as the nominator states persons known for only one event etc. Furthermore most the article's sources do not treat the Institute but for the most part they treat some of the institute's - they basically establish that the institute exists but write little about it. Thirdly the article does not establish in the text what is notable about the institute if anything. There are a million similar institutions out there - what singles this one out? (I suspect that the answer is the fact that two of its staff members are notable).·Maunus·ƛ· 08:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Sorry, but you're wrong. WP:V and WP:N both establish that if a subject is discussed in detail in multiple reliable sources - and you don't need all the 34 sources in the article to be about the Institute in detail, you need two to be - whether or not you think that subject's important is irrelevant. Heaven knows I've been tabbed as a deletionist often enough (for one thing, you won't often find DGG and me on the same side of a AfD discussion), but this article plainly meets the relevant policies. RGTraynor 09:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply I don't believe you are correct in your assessment. According to the general notability guidelines sources must treat the topic "directly and in detail" - i do not think the sources do either. Also the level of coverage only establish a presumption of notability - whether it in facts meets the criteria is up to us to judge. In my opinion the sources simply establishes that the institute verifiably exists )- not that it is in itself notable.(I can verify by reliable sources that my house exists - that doesnt mean it is notable. As for what people have called you in the past or how you have voted in other afd's that is not an argument.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you've read none of the sources, then. This one from the Boston Globe [86], cited in the article, is a thousand word article (to which I have access by virtue of my local library database) about the Institute. This from the Globe [87], likewise cited in the article, is a 1025-word piece about the Institute. This from the Boston Herald [88], likewise cited in the article, is a 210-word piece about the Institute's treatment center. To quote from Harlan Ellison, every man is entitled to an informed opinion. RGTraynor 12:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keepThe references seem sufficient to show the notability DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that there are major POV problems with the article, and attention will be needed to it. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient notability Annette46 (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage in reliable news sources to establish notability.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmm, there seems to be enough coverage (at least at this point) to satisfy the notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty of Hasan Pasha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Three months after last AfD, this article is still unreferenced original research. No one but the original author has shown any interest in writing for it, and the author has steadfastly refused to provide *any* references, repeatedly defending it by explicitly describing it as original research. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify (is that an available option?) and keep. From the last AfD, it seems like this dynasty is notable, and I agree with Phil Bridger's comment there. At the same time, while AfD isn't the right place to bring an article for cleanup issues (not saying the nom did), I'd hope that once an article's here on tenable grounds alternative outcomes are available. To the extent they are, it the nom's concerns about the sourcing of this article are entirely valid and should be acted upon. Glenfarclas (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you want to find some sources and stub it down, providing references for what you keep, be my guest. I'll withdraw the nom. But right now, it's a joke. I recently reverted some changes to the religious identity of the family, but it was out of a general tendency to reject unsourced factual changes; given the whole article is unsourced, I'm not sure why I bothered. Keeping a theoretically notable article around is okay if you expect it to be cleaned up over time. When no one has done anything to the article for three months, I consider it grounds for deletion (but not salting, if someone recreates it as a decent stub, that's fine). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a rather difficult search because of the numerous people by these names, Pasha being just a title. But the basic information here is documented in this academic book, and the dates match. Starting from this, there should be more. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources have been shown to exist in both the last AfD and this one. If anyone is unhappy that they are not cited in the article then the way to fix that is simply to edit the article, not to complain that someone else hasn't done so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 29 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 Community of Christ. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disciples' Generous Response[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Disciples' Generous Response

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

non notable. Only references are to the christian site that created it. Google has little more. noq (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability. Alison22 (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Community of Christ. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To the Community of Christ. It is a viable resource of the organization as shown here [89]. As such, the information can and should be incorporated into the article. As a standalone piece, just not enough coverage to gain notability outside the organization. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 21:58, 29 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) 10:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Scoon[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. Those sources I can find indicate minor mentions in the context of something else; the fact that he was the co-producer in one episode of American Gangster doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC) ^[1][reply]

Well the truth is he was the actual producer for the Shower Posse episode and a consultant for the Fat Cat episode in the debut season. The reason the last credit is not on IMDB is because season 3 was never released on DVD. Instead it airs on Biography network. Read the credits yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trini Badjohn (talk • contribs) 00:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Scoon worked all 3 seasons with American Gangster. He began as a consultant in season 1 and finished as a full producer in season 3. His name is in the credits of all. His contribution to Ethan Brown's book as a contributor and source is undeniable. He receives royalty payments from the book and is entitled to a percentage of any subsequent TV or movie projects. He's a published writer in Playboy and King Magazine. All of this while being being wrongfully suspected of a yet unsolved crime. Trini Badjohn (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ONEEVENT. His only notability is that he was a suspect in a celebrity murder. The producer credit isn't notable. Pburka (talk) 00:43, 29 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.

Mark David Chapman is in Wikipedia and "all" he did was kill John Lennon. The double standard is obvious. There are other such examples but what's the use, white makes right. Trini Badjohn (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2010 (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 delete. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Gang (band)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 05:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete: although I think this band is notable for being a "supergroup" of some really significant italo disco musicians, there isn't even a page for it on the Italian Wikipedia, which suggests to me that it's less noteworthy than I thought. I'll ask some friends with more pop-music-history knowledge to see if they can beef up this article, but otherwise it should probably go. Luvcraft (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTE As with the above, it not being on the italian wikipedia even as a stub leads me to believe that deletion should be carried out.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy And The TV Show[edit]

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

Appears to be some kids attempt at making an internet video series. I can find no reliable sources to establish notability. Sarilox (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete It's Sonny with a Chance with other names filled in and character names changed. That and the lovely title screen via Windows Movie Maker says it all...this is either a hoax or the beginning of the future copyright lawsuit Demi Lovato/Walt Disney Company v. Cindy & the TV Show, LLC. Nate • (chatter) 04:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: This show has no coverage, its some kids screwing around with his camera and uploading it everywhere.--Milowent (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 18:22, 29 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) 10:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cemeteries of Villages in Eastern Slovakia[edit]

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

I nominate this page with WP:NOT in mind. This is simply a list of cemeteries in Slovakia without wikilinks. -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 19:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was written in 2006, and remained virtually untouched for 3 years since. It's possible that one or more of these cemeteries might end up with an article, if sources and historical data can support the idea that the site is notable. But, in this form, there isn't much to go on. I see some name matches on google, but I'm limited in my ability to evaluate non-english sources, unfortunately. I also took the liberty of notifying the original author that the article was at AFD; since they have not edited since 2006, it might not matter except for form's sake. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an odd case, as this stand-alone list does not appear to be an actual list of links. As such, WP:SAL may not apply at all. However, I think there are policy-grounded reasons for deletion, as this list violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as listcruft. Why is it listcruft? "The list was created just for the sake of having such a list," "the list is of interest to a very limited number of people, and "the list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lists of cemeteries are acccepted on Wikipedia. But this page lists the names on the gravestones in 5 villages in alphabetical order, B-C, suggesting that this was somebody's unfinished little project. Grave markers are primary sources, so this page is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 05:13, 29 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) 10:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoners of Society[edit]

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

Contested prod. Movie in pre-production with no assertion of notability. Also, the article on the production house ~~is currently nominated for speedy deletion~~ has been speedied. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete supposedly upcoming movie not on IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nathan Phillips without prejudice toward recreation as seperate article when film can meet WP:NF. There's some available now telling us that this will be Nathan Phillips directorial debut and that the the comedy is expected to begin shooting next year.[90][91] Wikipedia can wait for more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:19, 23 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 // 00:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable film that fails WP:NFF and WP:N. I do not understand the suggestion to redirect it to a disambig page given above. The director is also unnotable, so nothing to redirect to. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:55, 29 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 Python (programming language). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boa Constructor[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) 01:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=iceweasel-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&num=30&q=python+ide+%22boa+constructor%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi= -> >20000 matches => speedy keep -- Frau Holle (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Read WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a cross-platform integrated development environment (IDE) for the Python programming language. A tool for computer programmers, in other words. Google News archive hits are an amusing collection of typos on the first several pages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Python (programming language): I've used Boa Constructor. It's got quite a following and it's a standard package on all major Linux distributions, but it doesn't really stand on its own as a notable topic. The Python article could do with this info, though. --Slashme (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Python (programming language) as per slashme. I have heard of this, but it isn't deserving of it's own article as per WP:NOTE NativeForeigner (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is a likely mispelling for Boa Constrictor, so redirecting to Python may give the wrong impression. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, searching by "Boa Constructor" IDE gets more appropriate hits. Abductive (reasoning) 01:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://blogs.bet.com/ontv/americangangster/2008/12/shower-posse-invoking-unbelievable-fear/?cp=1

[1] ttp://blogs.bet.com/ontv/americangangster/2008/12/shower-posse-invoking-unbelievable-fear/?cp=1

[1]