Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 29 December 31 December >

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 keep. That is, do not delete; no consensus about a possible merger but that can be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  06:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle oil[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. The entire point of this article is to answer the question "What oil should I buy for my motorcycle?" That is, how do I maintain my motorcycle? Here is some reliable material on motorcycle oil: "Motorcycology", "Why don't we want to use...", "...energy conserving friction modifiers...". According to Chilton's Motorcycle Handbook [1], this is a hotly debated issue with no authoritative answer. If all of the secondary sources only offer how-to instructions, and no encyclopedic content, then there is nothing for Wikipedia to work with. There is a Wikibooks page which can more adequately deal with this, fwiw. Dbratland (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I disagree, dbratland. There are reliable sources discussing this and talking about the difference between motorcycle and automotive oils. That's a sufficient reason to keep- because there is a difference. It may need to be rewritten, but not completely deleted. tedder (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I see as the issue with the existing sources is that they are only writing how-to manuals. Which means to make something encyclopedic out of that source material, the Wikipedia editor has to reframe what the source is saying and change it into something other than what was meant. This would be fine if at least some sources wrote encyclopedic topics, but when the entire article is stitched together from how-to advice reformed into something else, it becomes a problem.

It could be that what we really need is a new article Motorcycle lubrication, that begins with the early rider-operated, total-loss lubrication systems and traces the development since then, while avoiding getting anywhere near discussing what SAE grade or brand or type of oil they need.--Dbratland (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)::[reply]

It's more than a how-to to say "auto oils contain X, moto oils contain Y", especially combined with the mcnews survey of however many years ago. However, you have a point- a "history of motorcycle lubrication" article, probably named what you suggested, would be wise. tedder (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep acceptable start to an article. Manuals for motorcycles are very much more detailed. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to motor oil. This is something of a content fork of a bunch of articles gathered in one place. It seems to me that it would make more sense for an encyclopedia to stress the peculiar requirements of motorcycles in those places. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed above, but lose the OR section on cooling. — Brianhe (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Culling WP:OR out of the article can fix the WP:NOTHOWTO concern. That said, is this a WP:CFORK of motor oil? Maybe. Does it have to be? No. I think this article can be fixed; if someone tries and cannot, that person should propose a merger on the article talk page. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: This is something that should be merged with motor oil. South Bay (talk) 20:34, 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Allgemeine Verunsicherung[edit]

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

Non-notable uncharted album, completely unsourced Rapido (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This is utter rubbish. There are links to other sources of information to support the article. It charted in Austria so this is a charted album. --Cexycy (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I concur... what do you mean unsourced? Look at the page history and the sources were there long before your AfD. AfD's are for non-notable or poorly-sourced. This article could use some independent reviews, but that should encourage improvement by the community, not an AfD. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - can you point out the significant coverage of this album that is required for it to have a Wikipedia article? It currently doesn't show any references. Rapido (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the general precedent on Wikipedia is that if a band is notable, their full-length commercially-released albums get articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 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 speedy delete by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G10. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Burd[edit]

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

Unreferenced (apart from a link to an open forum, which doesn't count) article about someone who may or may not exist. Appears to be original research and essentially an attack on a biography of a (possibly) living person with no references to back any of it up. I42 (talk) 23:49, 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Café Passé[edit]

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

Non-notable uncharted album, completely unsourced Rapido (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Leave this artist's albums alone. The artist has achieved WP notability and per the protocols of WP:ALBUMS the album articles are worthy of development. Add a stub tag or edit tag to improve the articles, rather than an AfD. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - can you point out the significant coverage of this album that is required for it to have a Wikipedia article? It currently doesn't show any references. Rapido (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the general precedent on Wikipedia is that if a band is notable, their full-length commercially-released albums get articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  06:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dancemania[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album series. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 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. Without prejudice to a new, well-sourced article on this or a related subject.  Sandstein  06:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kinism[edit]

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

All sources provided are unreliable, and there is no proof that the subject possesses WP: NOTABILITY on its own, although perhaps a mention of the subject could be added to Christian Identity, Anglo-Israelism or some other such article. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I trimmed a lot of unsourced negative information, and what's left is still under-cited for what it asserts. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- ArcAngel (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is deleted for a third time, I suggest we either salt it or make it a protected redirect to somewhere appropriate. Note that it had recently been PROD'ed for the full 7 days, before an admin noticed the topic had been previously deleted by AfD. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Sorry to say at this point. I was able to find a few references in places such as Google Scholar, as shown here [2] and Google Book as shown here [3]. In addition, I did find their web-site here [4]. However, to me, this does not delineate notability in that there is no Significant coverage of the group. A viable fringe conservative Christian group yes. A notable fringe right wing conservative Christian group no. Sorry. Just-An-Average-Guy (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Christian Reconstructionism. Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 01:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. There appears to be a distinct racism connotation to this which seems to distinguish it from Christian Reconstructionism, so I don't think a redirect there would be wholly appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt per past discussions and above. Completely non-notable and merely a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain I am unable to figure out which references if any refer to this particular group. The term seems to have been used in a variety of ways over the last two centuries [5]. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any verifiable content and redirect to Christian Reconstructionism. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Idea: Personally, if we must have a redirect, I would suggest creating a short new article called Christianity and race or Christianity and racism, which would briefly summarize the positions that different branches of Christianity (both modern and in history) have taken on racial issues. The article could mention that modern Christians generally oppose racism on Biblical grounds, but that there are exceptions, one of which is Kinism. Any verifiable content in this article could be merged there, and Kinism could redirect to that article, as a protected (salted) redirect. The existing article on Christianity and slavery which is about a related (but not the same) topic, could serve as a model. How does that sound? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's a solid idea, but it would be a completely new and unrelated article, so that can be done regardless of the outcome of this debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objection to this either, but in order for Kinism to be a valid redirect, it should appear in the target article. I'm not yet convinced that any' RS sufficient to meet V exist, so call this cautious optimism. Of course, the suggested article can exist whether or not Kinism is made into a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. None are cited in the article, and I couldn't fine any in my own search. Yilloslime TC 01:27, 7 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cycle (Absurd Minds)[edit]

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

This album does not pass WP:MUSIC. It has not charted that I can find and does not contain any references to assert or establish notability, so it fails WP:GNG also. ArcAngel (talk) 22:46, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Lee's 2 Hour Long Late Night Radio Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Iain Lee's 2 Hour Long Late Night Radio Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article of a fairly new radio talk(?) (variety?) show makes no assertion of notability that I can see and there are no external references at all. I was not able to come up with any reliable sources in my search, so this fails WP:GNG in my book. ArcAngel (talk) 22:41, 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian blad[edit]

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

Local mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN as he isn't a national or highest sub-national level (i.e. state) politician. No non-trivial third party sources... 2 says you, says two 22:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Move to Brian Blad (politician) as there is a hockey player/coach with the same name. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 2 says you, says two 14:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pocatello is 51,000 population, and we almost always keep mayors for small cities of that size (from memory of recent AfDs, the cutoff seems to be somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 -- in the absence of special considerations of course. In Pocatello has a newspaper, there ought to be considerably more information available. Even if it does not, there will be the election returns. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Redirect to Pocatello, Idaho as there is only one information about him, that he is the mayor of this city. Armbrust (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I followed my own advice, and actually looked in G News Archive. I added his occupation, and the vote tally, There's more where that came from, and I leave it as an exercise for those who were so sure there would be nothing that they did not bother to look before nominating or !voting. Time to require WP:BEFORE,to eliminate the wrongly nominated articles at AfD, so we have time to better consider the many that do need to be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect, as I recall WP:OUTCOMES, people whose only News hits are a mention in an article entitled "Group raises money for dogs held at Pocatello Animal Shelter" and his appearance in a caption of a photo in local news of his election aren't notable. And the cutoff was 50,000. Abductive (reasoning) 05:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject passes WP:GNG. See this article from KPVI and this article from KIFI-TV. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 7 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 Under the Pink. SilkTork *YES! 13:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anastasia[edit]

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

Page fails to establish notability and falls under fancruft Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:00, 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) 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil recipients of the Padma Shri[edit]

List of Tamil recipients of the Padma Shri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Padma Shri article contains a comprehensive list of all the Padma Shri awardees. The information in this article is hence redundant. Besides the award is at the national level and therefore should not be listed state-wise. Jovianeye (talk) 21:13, 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 delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swifty[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper. Has no notable work of his own. Allmusic [6] shows a handful of performer credits. Billboard doesn't list him at all. As an individual artist, has no significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Niteshift36, this artist is not, as of yet, notable. JBsupreme (talk) 20:52, 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) 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physiospect[edit]

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

Borderline spam that fails WP:N. Complete lack of reliable sources. Zero PubMed hits, zero Scholar hits, zero Google news hits, one unrelated Google books hit, no websites in Google that would be reliable sources for a medical article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Prodded this a while back, but forgot to check in with it - my bad. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I started reading this with interest, until I realised the complete lack of reliable references. Once these guys publish in a mainstream journal, the article can come back. GyroMagician (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have read with interest the comments calling for Delete but would just like to point out that Physiospect is certainly not fake. I and other members of my family have personally experienced the system in Belgium. It is used by several practitioners in Continental Europe, particularly in France, apparently quite often with positive results. I certainly would not have written the article if I had not had evidence of the existence of the system. I would invite interested parties to take a closer look at some of the websites documenting the system. For example, the information at Physiospect-002 corresponds very closely to the system I have seen in operation. There are also several interesting sites in French, e.g the ones from Eric Fleury, or Pysioscan, the Swiss distributor. There is a French site [7] listing some 25 therapists using the system. I have also seen a number of articles on the system in the French Belgian press although these do not seem to be accessible on the Web. The problem with some of these "alternative" developments is that they often attract hostile reactions from the established medical community. But to be as objective as possible, I have also found sites which are quite critical of Physiospect, for example [8]. However, as the article does not seem to have attracted very much interest, it is perhaps not worthwhile researching any further. If I am the only one interested in keeping it, then I should bow to my peers. Ipigott (talk) 10:39, 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, Tone 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I am concerned that this article is quite simply an advertisement for a piece of non-notable equipment. Only a handful or places use this and its still described as experimental. I have not been able to find any information regarding its trials, development history, how its changing the industry, and generally found very little academic information about it from an independent and credible third party. Mkdwtalk 22:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete :used by several" practitioners = not notable. There needs to be some actual RSs, not the sort of websites with advertising and reader comments that we see here. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 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 merge to Survivor: Samoa. Notability rests on the TV show, therefore comes under WP:BLP1E . I noted the comments that he is to appear in another series - however, it is essentially the same event - he is not notable outside of that particular show. Refs supplied by Cunard are about the show, not the person, though they do mention the person. Suggestions to merge to Survivor: Samoa make sense - the relevent material can therefore be kept in the appropriate context. Searches for Russell Hantz will be directed to the show/event for which he is notable. SilkTork *YES! 14:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Hantz[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable gameshow contestant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondance2607 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin note: this !vote is from the AfD nominator. tedder (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does making it to the showcase round on the price is right and losing make you notable? This guy didn't win the million dollars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.252.17 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Accomplishments outside of Survivor aren't particularly notable. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete memorable contestant, but not a winner. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although he did not win the million, he was the runner up. He won the Sprint Fan Favorite Award (worth $100,000) and had a tremendous impact on the season Survivor: Samoa. Although winning the million dollars is a sufficient criterion for notability, I don't think it's the only criterion. However whatever (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Survivor Samoa. Article focuses on his accomplishments on the show. His non-survivor activity doesn't make him notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.138.16 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although he did not win he was clearly a notable character. Also there is much anticipation that he might make it into the next season and therefore the article should be kept in anticipation of other accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnon100 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The arguments that this article should be deleted just because the contestant did not win are ridiculous. Memorable players on Survivor have gotten pages in the past (Rupert Boneham, for example, lost twice, but has his own page) and Russell Hantz essentially was this season's entertainment. He took the intricasies of the game, and essentially cracked every one of them. I mean the man found the immunity idol three times (a feat never previously accomplished), and he played what could arguably be the best strategic game in the show's history (His political game needed some work). I think that deserves its own page. NeoAC (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notable accomplishments outside of Survivor. 170.170.59.139 (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contestant is appearing on a second season of the gameshow, which makes deletion a borderline case (not exactly WP:BLP1E). Suggest keeping with another AFD in 6 months; there's no timeline to Wikipedia, and it's going to be hard to judge notability at this moment. tedder (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to survivor somoa.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. 74.73.17.216 (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This discussion doesn't even make sense. Russell is one of the most notable survivors ever, and will be one of the few contestants on multiple seasons. If you delete Russell, you should delete about 1000 other wiki articles as well. 173.31.124.1 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would normally vote delete on an AfD like this, but I think Hantz is more notable than your average Survivor contestant. He attracted by far the most airtime and publicity of the Samoa contestants, was the runner-up, won the sprint award, and will compete in a second season this year. I think a lot of Survivor contestants pages should really be discussed again if this page is deleted, because he's just as notable as other big name Survivor contestants like Cirie Fields or Stephenie LaGrossa, and I say this as someone who really doesnt like Hantz at all. (Kyleofark (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Russell is the greatest survivor player ever though he was not the winner. He has significantly changed the game and specifically controlled Survivor Samoa. It is significant that he is returning to Survivor 20 as a notable villain. The page should be kept and clean-up according to Wikipedia's standards. Trimenes6 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Russel is probably the most popular contestant for Survivor of all time. He was a great player, probably the most cunning and influencial player of all time. Although he didn't win, he does atleast deserve a Wikipedia page. He is confirmed to be in the next season of Survivor, and deserves a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.195.172 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starblind. JBsupreme (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of how popular some feel he is (which is entirely subjective), the fact remains he was nothing but a contestant on a game show and that isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: He's more than just another contestant.
  1. He was the runner up and had a significant impact on the game
  2. He won the Sprint Fan Favorite Award (which is worth $100,000)
  3. He was invited to participate in a second season (an offer extended to very few contestants).
By your reasoning, even the winner is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. However whatever (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wouldn't particularly mind if most Survivor winners were deleted from Wikipedia, with the exception of Hatch and perhaps a couple of others. It's really only by convention that they're kept here. Few of them are actually notable, and I would say that most of them are far more forgettable than Russel Hantz. (However, with this comment, I'm not suggesting that Russell's article should necessarily be kept.) Bueller 007 (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm somewhat confused by this comment. Is notability outside of (one or two) TV show(s) required? In other words, are you basing this !vote on WP:BLP1E? In your mind, does appearing on a second season render WP:BLP1E moot or not? I'm not contesting the vote, but I'm honestly trying to understand your full rationale. tedder (talk) 00:25, 7 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beast1333[edit]

Beast1333 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Majority of references here are social networking sites and sites affiliated with the artist. The rest may not meet the standard of 'multiple, non-trivial, reliable works'. Two of the three references are interview pieces, one of which is reprinted on myspace, and the other, "Zocalo Urbano" may not be a reliable source. Cannot find any notable media coverage of this artist through a Google search. Steamroller Assault (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Mariovega0 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

  • Comment While the main coverage appears to be hosted by the usual suspects (Myspace & Co), I find this artiste somewhat different from the normal run of rappers. He appears to be somewhat intellectual and coherent, unlike the main bunch who to me seem to be regarding dumbing-down as an art form. (Exception: K'naan, of course.) While the references given aren't what is required yet, I feel there is a possibility that notability may be achieved. This is, of course, provided that an intellectually inclined rap audience exists.... Peridon (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a discussion of whether he's smart or not, we're trying to determine whether he passes WP:MUSIC at this time. As you state, there aren't really any reliable sources or indeed much of anything besides Myspace and the like. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's a comment - I personally find a slight degree of notability in it but not enough under Wikipedia criteria to vote keep. Peridon (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Chicago's Radio Arte WRTE 90.5fm radio station is cited as doing an interview and releasing information about the artist in articles published. Also independent journals/magazines have published articles on Beast1333 such as the ones cited (Indypendent and Zocalo Urbano). MarioVega0 1 Jan 2010 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: Mariovega0 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

  • Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Satisfies #1 of the WP:MUSICBIO (Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable). Beast1333 satisfied the underground hip hop genere. HU. 2 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.190.230 (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)— 99.135.190.230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP - I don't see why it should be deleted since the article does cite multiple authentic sources and satisfied the WP:MUSICBIO with option #1. This article satisfies regulations according to Wikipedia for the reasons mentioned. User: DanielHumms 09:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.36.220.220 (talk)
  • Keep: Secondary sources are cited in the article. 69.175.10.10 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per WP:BLP: Secondary sources cited (Zocalo Urbano, The Indypendent, radio interview with DJ Rev, WRTE Radio Arte Monthly) and per WP:MUSIC 1.Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable (secondary sources mentioned above).AlexV0 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC) — AlexV0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Despite all impassioned voting above, this is still a straight failure of WP:Music. Inadequate non trivial secondary sources and inadequate releases on notable lables. --A1octopus (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO; the cited sources are things like Twitter, MySpace and blogs, certainly not reliable third party coverage to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails the basics of WPMUSICBIO. RichardLowther (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies basics of WPMUSICBIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinbeacon (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC) — Kevinbeacon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Hmm, 6 out of the 7 non-duplicate keep comments (according to my count) are from IPs or SPAs...curious? Cocytus [»talk«] 01:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and the creator of the article, User:Gh7mysterio, is a blocked sockpuppet. Hmmmm... TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The music Industry is changing and labels are now irrelevant, you guys are like dinosaurs i call for WP:MUSIC basics to be reformed. The rules must be changed Beast1333 is an Independent Underground well known Artist. The rules must be disputed, they must evolve with the ever changing music industry this is Wikipedia not Nazi Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.143.180 (talk) 01:47, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3Crowd[edit]

3Crowd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined speedy, but I don't see how this fulfills WP:CORP, very recently founded startup with no third-party sources or assertion of notability. 2 says you, says two 19:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All I can find is this, and that's not enough. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the google news sources revolve around getting funding at this point, and from being tied to a notable founder (Barrett Lyon). I'm also concerned that we're WP:Crystal balling with this one, as it's in "Stealth mode", and so far we only know it will have something vaguely to do with "crowsourcing" which is just a buzzword. As for why the speedy was declined I checked with the admin on that one, see discussion. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a business founded in December 2009 in stealth mode? MEGO - especially if what's planned is just some kind of PR startup; that kind of business needs to meet a fairly high standard to begin with, and nothing founded within the month should ever pass muster. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass WP:CORP; not enough significant coverage in reliable third party sources to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-with edits I would ask for re-consideration, based on Barrett Lyons track record. This is going to be interesting going on, one has to start somewhere. As such, please consider keeping if the stealth mode marketing term is removed, I agree that isn't a 'pedia' type term to use. Note, Barrett will be on NPR Fresh air on January 21 and will be speaking at RSA conference. I must qualify he is a friend, but really this is a start of a story worthy of WikiPedia Sorry If I am not editing this properly.newtonke —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • will-change Thanks, I will give it a look and ask you to re-consider. Appreciate the advice. I will find out more about when announcements will come. But, I recommend keeping until Feb. This launch did make 'the rounds' in tech. I also suggest, Jay Adelson may not be as publicly famous, but his endorsement by investing is tremendous. newtonke —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • changed newtonke —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nayrok[edit]

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

Non-notable musician with no albums released. Only off-wiki reference used here has the statement "Information from the artist's site" at the bottom, and seems to be a simple local band list service. May become notable in the future, but who knows? Steamroller Assault (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--not notable (yet). Drmies (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails several points of WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. I was unable to find any google news hits for this person and they are an unpublished artist by any notable record company. As far as I can tell, the only pages that truly link to this person as part of them being the primary topic is a myspace page and a few articles by non-notable media. This artist may become big later on in life, and should that happen the article may be recreated, but until they have not WP:CRYSTAL prevails. Mkdwtalk 22:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete might pass WP:MUSIC someday, but not yet: unsigned and has no releases. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  fetchcomms☛ 03:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Music to the point of vanity. Will indeed become notable if her first record sells by the million but we don't do up and coming without several non trivial secondary sources, of which I can find none. --A1octopus (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as she fails WP:MUSICBIO. Good luck to her, she might pass the guidelines someday, but it's premature at this point in time. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:57, 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. The "delete" arguments about the unreliable sourcing are more persuasive than the several "keep" comments that just assert she's notable without further argument.  Sandstein  07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Jansen[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication that the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Porn performer in a handful of nn production, so trivial she isn't even listed in most of the standardly-cited-here porn indexes. GNews and GBooks hits negligible (although the searches do show a much more notable jazz performer of the same name); Ghits on lots of galleries but no relevant substantive content. One prior AFD summarily deleted, apparently as coatrack for personal abuse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A filmography/list of work was removed from this article by a vandal, then "officially" by a notoriously content-hostile editor. (Note: Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged...) Nadine Jansen is a well-known model in English, German and Japanese media. (ナディーン ヤンゼン in Japanese.) However, I'm not getting involved here since content-destruction seems to be the main purpose of the project which presumably over-sees this subject, and she falls outside my particular area of work. If another editor wishes to put in any effort in saving this article on a notable subject, feel free to contact me and I'll do what I can to help. Barring that, there's no sense in fighting a losing battle over a subject that doesn't interest me though. Dekkappai (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been almost fixed. Needs some cleaning up though. But the fact is that she was 2003 Newcomer of the Year as voted by the Voluptous Mag. That is notable enough. Norum 02:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding back all the unsourced content previously removed from the article is not "almost fixing" it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is sources if you look towards the bottom. The sources are there. I just could not make it click-able. Norum

19:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources under WP:RS and WP:BLP, which was why all the rubbish was removed to begin with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If link from Vuloptous and the Score magazines and especially her own website is not enough, then there is obviously something wrong with the person that is trying to get her entry deleted. Norum 17:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails PORNBIO because Voluptuous Magazine award isn't a well known award. Fails general notability guideline because none of the sources given in the article and found through google books and news are reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's notable enough. I'm not sure if the instigator of this motion is some religious prude or just a jobsworth, either way I don't think they have any proper reason to want this bio deleted. 90.211.186.163 (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC) — 90.211.186.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's notable enough. There's no reason aside of the deletionism to remove this bio, and that's not good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.21.112 (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' - She had her several TV show appearances in mainstream German media. See here for a bit more detail from an ealier article version. That clearly makes her much more notable than someone who just did a few photo shoots. I saw those features myself - and unless you claim I am lying, this then all becomes about the fact that proving appearances in TV shows before the internet age is tricky. For an erotica, not porn, artist, she is clearly notable. Most people may not care about the notability of such performers, but that is not a reason for deletion - in her field she is huge (pun coincidental, but appropriate). Ingolfson (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then there ought to be coverage satisfying the GNG, which nobody has turned up. No article at the German Wikipedia, either, it seems. And TV appearances in 2002 and later years aren't "before the internet age." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that you lose, Hullaballoo. She's notable enough. Norum 22:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is there no evidence of significant coverage by independent reliable sources - a requirement of the general notability guideline and the basic criterion given in the specific criteria for people (of which the criteria for pornographic actors is part) but there doesn't appear to be any coverage by reliable sources at all. The current article is copy pasted from an older version but it only gives apparently unreliable sources such as IMDb as well as obscure, unreliable, non-notable pornographic websites and magazines including http://www.amontillado.it/ and Voluptuous Magazine. Whilst I have to admit I am not familiar with these publications I would imagine that the information contained within them is designed more to titillate rather than to be an accurate source for a high quality encyclopaedia - I can find no evidence that any of the sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. This a biography of a living person, the fact that the individual works in a industry from which individuals do not receive a lot of mainstream - or other reliable - coverage does not change the fact that no reliable sources should mean no article. Guest9999 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, which is the standard we have to apply since her main claim of notability seems to be having big boobs. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable in her field. Spurious proposal for deletion at best. --80.192.1.168 (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. No WP:RS coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Her magazine credits at http://us.imdb.com/name/nm1305322/publicity are probably correct and there's another minor award in there, but the problem is there doesn't seem to be much to say about her beyond listing her credits, which is already done elsewhere. Also, it is so annoying to try to do a web search with all the WP mirrors and even book searches with the Icon group print mirrors! I rather wish Wikipedia's licensing did not allow that, because it's ruining the internet. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:36, 7 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Brandt[edit]

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

Non-notable minor leaguer. Played 1 game at AAA. Indy leaguer now. 4.88 ERA. Not notable. Alex (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Why is there a page for this guy? A non-notable orphan, with one AAA game and currently playing indy ball? Delete without prejudice. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I searched for this guy on Google News and found some mentions of him in game recaps, prospect reports and such (This is fairly typical). However, there is nothing that I would consider substantial coverage of Brandt that shows notability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is somewhat outdated and player didnt advance past AA... If he was still in the affiliated leagues I'd advocate a merge but Indy leagues don't cut it. Spanneraol (talk) 17:50, 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) 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3dpaintbrush[edit]

3dpaintbrush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

3D graphics software, no assertion of notability, developer is redlinked, no third party, non-trivial sources. 2 says you, says two 18:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added references : Zoso 13:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zosoin (talk • contribs)
  • Weak delete. This is a news peace in Digit (magazine), no editorial comment. The stuff on informer.com is the very definition of WP:SPIP. Blogs, more primary sources and youtube videos don't really count towards establishing WP:N. Pcap ping 18:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think the developer being redlinked is particularly relevant to the discussion but I agree with the sentiment to delete, and agree with 2's comment that there's a lack of good sources out there. I find Pcap's reasoning sound. I find some things in google news: [9] but they seem to mostly be recycled press releases. The articles seem to have only made minor changes to the formatting, suggesting that they essentially passed on a press release as-is. This hardly qualifies as a reliable source for establishing notability. Cazort (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zoso 11:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC) : Thanks for the comments. Regd informer.com, refer http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/informer.com . Getting listed on pages owned by Google and Rhino3D doesnt count in establlishing notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zosoin (talk • contribs)
    • Alexa internet is well-known for boosting the rank of sites used by SEO people. (I'm actually working on that article.) informer.com has no discernible editorial policy or "about us" page on the staff. Pcap ping 12:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Pcap about the editorial policy. As far as I'm concerned, traffic rank (for which Alexa is just a coarse proxy) is totally irrelevant for establishing reliability of a source. I would consider traffic rank as perhaps a minor factor in considering the notability of a website, but not the reliability of the website as a source for establishing notability or sourcing any content of a wikipedia article. Alexa's #2 and #3 websites are Facebook and Youtube, both websites with mostly user-generated content, generally not valid as reliable sources except in certain very unusual cases. Cazort (talk) 23:40, 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. Nominator blocked as a sockpuppet; no other support for deletion. Merge discussions can continue on the talk pages. Fences&Windows 00:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Barbossa[edit]

Hector Barbossa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
James Norrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Captain Teague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tia Dalma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Weatherby Swann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joshamee Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pintel and Ragetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kraken (Pirates of the Caribbean) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Potential redirect to Kraken in popular culture)
Sao Feng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

These Pirates of the Caribbean characters do not hold any notability outside of the fictional universe as there is a lack of third party, independent and reliable sources to back the content up. Therefore, the articles are excessive plot summaries. WossOccurring (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 00:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect them all to the respective movies. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least Barbossa and Tia as major characters in arguably the most significant new film franchise of the decade. The others might be better served by merging, although none of them are so egregiously minor that an article is completely unacceptable. Sourcing should be no problem given the enormous amount of media coverage of the series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This comment fails WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:IMPORTANT and WP:NOTINHERITED. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least Norrington and Barbossa, they should have plenty of external sources, I'll go look for some now. Barbossa especially since sources point to him being in a 4th. The rest should be Redirected to a Characters of PotC page. Tphi (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This comment fails WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:NOTINHERITED. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some or mergeinto a combination article . Inappropriate group nomination, as they are not of similar importance. I must admit I too do not know the works involved, but at least I read the main Wikipedia articles and can see that much. A combination characters article is appropriate for all important works of fiction. Combination articles have contents that must meet WP:V but need not individually meet WP:GNG--for if they did, they would be separate articles. And character ≠plot -- they are separate aspects. The "cast" sections in the individual film articles are inadequate--for a franchise like this, it's better to keep all the characters together. And at least to me, if not to some of the people at the film project, characters and cast are also separate related things, each needing discussion. Retelling major amounts of the plot for each character's position in it is usually unnecessary if they are grouped in combination articles, which is another advantage. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This comment fails WP:IMPORTANT. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - a totally absurd ignorant, unproductive delete suggestion. Keep all articles. More information is better. if you want to delete stuff, people are totally easy to go ignorant. Stop this nonsense. 174.16.239.106 (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 174.16.239.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This comment fails WP:ILIKEIT, WP:VALINFO and WP:PA. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all these articles to one, not giving undue detail to each character. Giving a separate article to each character isn't necessary. Rkr1991 (Wanna chat?) 06:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Barbossa and Norrington (they appear in every film and must have some sources). -- deerstop. 07:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This comment fails WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:IMPORTANT and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, especially Barbossa and Dalma. These articles contain lots of useful information, they're not just one- or two-paragraph stubs. I find the whole thing of deleting articles on notable fictional worlds quite absurd. --89.31.118.248 (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This comment fails WP:ITSUSEFUL WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep! Barbossa is a major character that is vital to the plot, for heaven's sake, and should have a separate page. It serves no purpose to deleting this and the others that are also targeted. Also keep Norrington.PNW Raven (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This comment fails WP:NOHARM, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:IMPORTANT. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, not my !vote: personally, the only pirate movie I like is Errol Flynn's Captain Blood (1935 film). While we're at it, I don;t see any other comments based on that argument either--though a few seem to be based only on its obviously important. DGG ( talk )
  • Comment I usually don't venture into the AFD area, but randomly ran across this one. While I agree that articles about movie characters may not be notable enough for separate articles, I would like to note that most of what WossOcurring in regards to failing WP argument guidelines could be applied to his nomination in the first place. I would vote to merge most of these entries into the list of minor characters in PotC. Clegs (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What part of my nomination fails the guidelines? WossOccurring (talk) 21:27, 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. All deleted WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax or WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Buckley[edit]

Bruce Buckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mãos Da Verdade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can't Stop Now (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Colorless Dreams (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Colorless Dreams (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can't Stop Now (single by Bruce Buckley) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Davis J. Johnson (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One Time (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles about a 13-year-old Portuguese singer-songwriter and his records appear to be a hoax. The articles are completely unreferenced; see the main article's talk page for searches, which turn up absolutely nothing relevant. The record label's website does not mention him, there is an Allmusic entry but it's someone else, and there are no articles in Portuguese Wikipedia. From this old version of the user page of the author Salgado96 (talk · contribs) it appears that he himself is "Bruce Buckley". JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, apparent hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete preferably speedily. This is an unreferenced (and unreference-able) blp of a minor. I'm virtually positive this is a hoax. See Davis J. Johnson on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Same photo, same "real name" given for the artist (Renato Miguel Salgado de Freitas). And worse, the Portguese WP reveals the name of his school, as well as an exact birth date which also appeared in an earlier version of the Bruce Buckley article [16]. Voceditenore (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:MiguelRob has now created Davis J. Johnson (singer) here (also edited by Salgado96). I've added it to the deletion list along with a spurious album article One Time (album). Note also the extensive edits to Salgado96's user page by two IPs attached to the vodafone network in the UK.[17] . Voceditenore (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thanks, Voceneditore, now I look, there is undesirable personal information in the history of this one, too. It's a clear enough hoax that I am now happy to delete it WP:CSD#G3, and all the others can go WP:CSD#A9. JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Dreams We Fall into the Eternal Lake[edit]

In Dreams We Fall into the Eternal Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this demo. Joe Chill (talk) 17:10, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinaman[edit]

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

non notable publication WuhWuzDat 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral a weekly news magazine in a major country certainly could be notable, but the article is written so poorly it's impossible to tell one way or the other. It's possible some editing might save this, but as written it's hopeless and might be better to delete the whole thing and start over. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's now back to being a stub. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of its sponsorship by the major English-language Indian newspaper and the notable editors. I agree that's indirect, more so than I would like, but it's all I can do at with the existing cultural bias. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 07:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Couldn't believe my eyes 1 minute after I added some categories: Good job SpacemanSpiff! --Crusio (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. easily meets meets WP:NMEDIA. Its from the TOI group and that itself is enough to meet "significant publication in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets" --Sodabottle (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of the editors and sub-editors of the magazine are recipients of India's two major literary awards -- Sahitya Akademi Award and Jnanpith Award, but most of the info is hidden behind paywalls or not previewable on gbooks. I've added what I had accesss to, but the article can be significantly expanded by someone with access to sources. -SpacemanSpiff 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MUST KEEP Dinaman was a great magazine and anyone familiar with Hindi journalism, and we are talking a population that may be half of the size of the most spoken language in the world. we should improvise it and get more information. Dinaman set the gold standard and we need to understand that. I am surprised someone had the wisdom to talk about it.

  • Keep Most notable publication in Hindi. 25 years with Dinamaan were a high point in Hindi journalism.
  • Comment Apparently this magazine's time on WP has come... There is a second article on this journal, Dinamaan, that was created yesterday... --Crusio (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2nd article was redirected to the 1st, as it was a blatant attempt by the original article author to get around this AfD. WuhWuzDat 11:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its interesting to see how what was historic has to be defended in a world where its unknown. Edit it, improve it but please figure out a way of not losing good because we don't know it. Dinaman was clearly a notable magazine and it should have been on Wiki a long time ago.
  • THIS WAS A GREAT MAGAZINE. HOPE SOMEONE DOES JUSTICE TO IT ON WIKIPEDIA. THE TROUBLE WITH THE STUFF ABOUT BEFORE DIGITAL MEDIA BECAME PROMINENT IS THAT IT TREATS THE REST AS IF IT DID NOT EXIST. AM GLAD TO SEE IT HERE. HOPE SOME OF THE MILLIONS OF ITS FANS IMPROVE THE WRITE UP.

whoever calls it non notable probably has a lot to learn. it will be great if this person could achieve a millionth of what Dinaman was in the quarter century it enlightened the millions of Hindi language readers—Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.128.76 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to anonymous IPs: Please stop yelling. There is not a single "delete" !vote apart from the nom and many "keep" !votes, so this is not going to get deleted. --Crusio (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep that's good news. may be the one who nominated it should lose his rights to nominate. wish he took the same precaution as others did. i think the problems seem to have begun with the nomination.
  • Weak keep and expand. Seems to be notable per notability guidelines and some current sources; an increased number of reliable sources needs to be incorporated. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it will be good to improvise it. some history, some writers, editors, key contributions etc will be helpful
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A mention may be made in the Halfnelson (band) article that the band made a demo of this name - though a redirect wouold not be appropriate as the title is an unlikely search term. SilkTork *YES! 14:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Woofer in Tweeter's Clothing Demos (Unreleased)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
A Woofer in Tweeter's Clothing Demos (Unreleased) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this unreleased album. Joe Chill (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete/Merge: My Weak Delete vote is for the same reasons as Starblind above, because there is historical interest and notability for the associated artists. If the decision here is to delete, then the informationin this article should be merged into thr History section of Halfnelson. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:05, 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. No reliable sources. Books are self-published, and the main source website is her own. SilkTork *YES! 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Om[edit]

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

Non-notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 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. Due to concerns over verifiability and hence also notability.  Sandstein  07:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Rumyantseva[edit]

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

No sourced autobiography Истребительница (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wow, this one is really quite something. I do not have a definitive opinion yet but at the moment I am leaning towards delete, based on WP:V and WP:BLP concerns. The article is clearly relentlessly self-promotional and looks to be a WP:AUTO or WP:COI case. I looked through the talk page of the ru-wiki version of the article and people there are also complaining about not being able to verify various things, about WP:RS issues with sources cited etc. Various googlenews, googlescholar and googlebooks searches for the name of the author (both in English and in Russian) also produce fairly little, which is hard to reconcile with the grand claims made in the article (here is a sample search in Russian[18]). I tried to do some worldcat searches for various versions of transliteration of the subject's name but did not find anything that looks like her books (maybe someone else should give it another try, though). This is all pretty strange given the grandiose claims made in the article. One thing that does check out is the "best economist" prize but the people at the talk page of the ru-wiki version of the article claim that the organization that made the award is not really notable itself. Basically, I have no idea how we here can untangle this mess and decide what is and what is not verifiable from the information in the article and the current text does not look salvageable to me... If someone with some economics background and some knowledge of Russian can comment here, that'd be good. Nsk92 (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By the time that a BLP gets to AfD it is required that notability be demonstrated explicitly. The extensive researches of Nsk92 have failed to turn up anything of deciding substance. GS gives two cites of 36 and 18, which is nowhere near enough. The genealogical evidence is charming but would confer notability only on the close family of a reigning monarch. If further evidence appears I am prepared to change my vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • KeepComment. Looks notable to me.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to be more specific? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
an author of 35 books.Biophys (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A search of Google books and Google Scholar with -author:"Elena Rumyantseva"- gives zero relevant hits. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Do you really suggest that all book references that are currently included in this article were fake? They do not look fake.Biophys (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepUncertain article needs trimming down to proper size , perhaps 1/10, and translation from google-english, , and made less like a CV, but the presumption is that an author such as this is important. I'm looking further to try to identify the books. The google translation of the Russian talk p is fascinating [19] -- there is a repeated assertion that her noble origins are what make her important, and a discussion of whether the degree of her noble ancestry is sufficiently distinguished, but that's the part I think we would all remove here as totally irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC), I have not yet succeeded in identifying the books. Reading more of the talk page, it is seriously questioned whether all the supporting material are actually independent, or were written also by her. It is hard to judge the reputations of people on another WP, and I would appreciate it if Biophys or someone else actually knowledgeable could comment in detail. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She appear to be a notable person based on the article in ruwiki. Sorry, but I do not have time to actually find and read her books. And I do not care if this article kept or deleted. Let's delete. Not a big deal. Biophys (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ultimately I don't see the article's text as salvageable and don't see how to separate verifiable from non-verifiable bits. In this case I think WP:V and WP:BLP concerns outweigh the other considerations. Nsk92 (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took a sample book listed in the article, «the Technique an estimation of productivity of agrarian reforms. Calculations on 51 country of the world» (1999; ISBN 985-6320-51-8), and tried to check the library holdings for its ISBN number. Worldcat has no entry for this book[20], Open Library also has nothing[21], Internet Book Database has nothing[22], Karlsruhe Virtual catalog has nothing[23]. This suggests to me that either the ISBN is invalid or that the book is really obscure. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Nsk92, this fails WP:V, one of our core policies. It's possible there is a core of notable truth to all this, but we're not going to find it by sifting this article. I tried Google news (for her name in Roman characters) but found only a French-language story from 2005 about a stampede at a party that killed a college student from Murmansk by the same name. There are several other stories about different people named Yelena Rumyantseva but I'm not sure whether any of them match the subject of our article and in any case there still doesn't seem enough to go by even to stub this down to something believable. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this mess of an "article" for failing WP:V, the topic might be allowable if properly written and sourced. Abductive (reasoning) 05:55, 7 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HAPI drum[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. According to its website, HAPI is trademarked. DaveCW (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further research shows that a number of commercial and hobby versions of this instrument are being produced, which I think makes them of interest. They are all basically steel versions of slit drums or tongue drums, and could be included in the existing articles on slit drums - an ancient and non-trademarked instrument. DaveCW (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cant say its highly notable, but the drum manufacturers website lists 2 testimonials from notable drummers (they have WP articles that are not currently disputed). I can see an argument for merging with slit drums, but i must point out that "things made up one day" and "trademarked" are not valid arguments for deletion here. trademarked products can and should have articles, if they are sufficiently notable. "things made up" doesnt mean things manufactured, it means things thought up. anything patented, manufactured and sold with any degree of success is a prime candidate for an article or mention in one. i did have trouble finding other references for this product, though. maybe someone else will have better skill at it. oh and googling "hapi drum" in quotes gets 78900 hits, pretty impressive (though i know raw ghits is not a pure argument for either keep or delete, it does seem to show name recognition). article of course comes off as somewhat promotional, but that, again, is not a rationale for deletion if evidence of notability is extant.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, I am new to this, I think there is an abbreviation I should be using, but "things made up one day" is indeed a valid argument for deletion. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day As for the trademark, I cite it as evidence of a non-neutral point of view. Title the article "Steel Tongue Drum", or tell the reader why HAPI is significantly different than other brands of the same basic instrument. A patent would help convince me that there is a difference, but I don't think they have one. DaveCW (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct, things made up one day can be a valid argument. it applies to ideas or objects not in the pubic sphere yet, such as neologisms or unmarketed prototypes of objects with no press attention (i have this nutcracker in the shape of a polaris missile that i made, its cool and it works-that sort of thing). this product is manufactured and distributed, so the argument doesnt apply. its absolutely ok to have an article that is a copyrighted brand name. just check out the numerous articles on businesses and products here. we can use trademark images in articles as well, its fair use, as long as its limited to articles significantly about that trademarked item. i believe their website shows they have patents. the rename suggestion doesnt work, as this is in fact about this brand, not the idea of a metal tongue drum. the debate here must, and will, focus on the companys and its products general notability. i believe its notable enough to deserve an article, but others may not. the article could become a section of the slit drum article, of course. I do agree that an important part of the article should be how this product is different from other slit drums, but that alone is not necessarily an argument for deletion, only improvement. PS i have no conflict of interest. in fact, i have the opposite. i personally knew the person who probably was the first westerner to make and sell small wooden slit drums in the US, but they never patented, copyrighted, etc, and others copied them, eventually leading to this major music instrument category. Since this persons work in this area was not documented at all, from WP perspective it doesnt exist. sad but true. i would personally prefer they have an article on this person, and am annoyed that they will never get credit for what they did, but WP is not a memorial site. and since they never sold a lot (though they did sell to at least one MAJOR musician), its almost as if what they did was a thing made up one day. of course, i really hope someone else will comment here. we will not be able to decide this alone. hello out there?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I guess what I am looking for is a new article on steel tongue drums - on the general idea, how to play... i.e. 99% of the contents of this article, and then this article would be confined to what is unique about the HAPI. I would say the same thing about an article on the "Fender Stratocaster" - I would expect that an article exists on "Guitar", and the "Fender Stratocaster" article was limited to what is unique (in construction, in who plays it,...) about it. I suppose I could do that myself, but I don't want to be autocratic. Hello out there? DaveCW (talk) 20:42, 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 delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lampshade hanging[edit]

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

Dictionary definition. I have been unable to find any reliable sources at all, even when throwing in key words. Either toss outright or send to Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Afd1 subst:ed onto page one day after AfD page's creation. --EEMIV (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weird. Twinkle must've glitched. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V, the original source is probably TVtropes.org. Polarpanda (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable neologism, apparently from a blog TVtropes. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 18:41, 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. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toa_(Bionicle)[edit]

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

The article is a clear example of Fancruft, something which Wikipedia is NOT (WP:NOCRUFT)(WP:NOT). And given that another Wiki exists, devoted specifically for Bionicle (http://biosector01.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page), this page should be deleted. (Actually, two Wikis -- http://bionicle.wikia.com/)

Apparently, the first attempt to delete the article reached No Concensus (between 5 members), and the second a Keep (between 6 members). Nevertheless, the issues pertaining to it have not been addressed.

Since this is the 3rd Nomination, and the article has been tagged since early 2009, it's best to delete it.

"So Neutral that I may as well not even vote" Neutral Im really in the middle here. I can see that the nom makes a point but it doesnt seem like we should just delete it all of the sudden.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article cannot be deleted because it explains a very important part of Bionicle, the main protagonists in fact. If it ends up deleted, readers will have a hard time understanding exactly what a Toa is, especially give that we can't squeeze all the info in one section. The Toa are the main protagonists from 2001 to 2008 and will be returning to that role in 2010. I think that what this article needs is some heavy-duty clean up and having the Toa Nuva's info compressed while the other Toa team's expanded.--Twilight Helryx 16:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of real life info (the creation of the original sets, for example) may also help smooth things out. By the way, the number of nominations is no reason for the article get deleted and fancruft can be fixed. Again, the addition of real life info would clear this as a fancruft article.--Twilight Helryx 16:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep character lists are considered acceptable for fictional works. I'd like to see better sourcing and some cleanup, but there's no compelling reason to delete at present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Lenahan. Taprobanus (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Character lists are acceptable spinout articles to keep main articles from growing too large. No legimate reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 18:10, 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. Withdrawn. tedder (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zascha Moktan[edit]

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

Was a very clear copyright vio. Speedy removed and turned into a very good A1 or A7 candidate. I'm taking it here instead. No assertion of notability. There are two albums but I don't see any sources for them either. Shadowjams (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article currently exist on de.wikipedia with reliable sources here [24]. Would need translation performed; however, a rough translation shows that she has charted passing WP:notability. Calmer Waters 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom withdrawn - Editing since revealed the charting hits in Germany. I didn't find those sources initially (didn't help they were in German). [Any other editors that agree are welcome to close (barring any intervening dispute)] Shadowjams (talk) 19:58, 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 = unverified = delete Spartaz Humbug! 15:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Mormonism[edit]

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

This is a second nomination, the first having taken place in 2007. It was deleted then and has since been re-created. Due to the fact that the original discussion was almost 3 years ago, I didn't feel good about just speedily deleting this, but a PROD was recently declined. Since 2007, not much has changed with this article. It's still difficult to find any sources on this subject that are not blogs or self-promotional material. The movement is real, but I can't see anything that indicates that it is notable or that we can satisfy WP:V. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--It is important to keep all the articles about the various sects within the Latter Day Saint movement so that they can continue to be listed in the List of Latter Day Saint sects and thus provide easy access to the various beliefs all Latter Day Saint sects for the benefit of scholars and researchers. Keraunos (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment--The references in the article to the Liberal Democrat website and the article in the "Times and Seasons" LDS Internet magazine show that the movement is notable in that it has attracted attention from third party sources and thus there are sources in the article that are not just "blogs and self-referential material". Keraunos (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not quite. Times and Seasons is a blog. Democratic Underground is a site where anyone can post messages; the linked-to "article" is nothing more than a post by a member who has signed up. It could be self-promotional or not, but it is certainly not a reliable reference. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while this may be useful to some people, it's about a subject that appears not to be notable because of the lack of reliable sources, and thus we can't write a proper article about it. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If there isn't a minor sect article it should be created. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Uh I'm reluctant to say this, after Harvard Div, but I doubt to what extent this is a continuous group of Mormons who morphed their beliefs into this confession, or is it perhaps a group of outsiders who have managed to take over an identity and rework it to their likings. Those movements occur in religions of many kinds, and anyone could ask that about many of the groups in 'modern religion' that bear little resemblance to their namesakes of earlier centuries (it's called 'reform' without an LDS tradition of the word 'reform' - as Calvinism has), but a case could likely be made either way. MaynardClark (talk)

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 // 09:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, although it may become so. The whole thing is rather self-generated, or so it seems. The first two sources were the founder's own site and the record of his registering his new group with the state. The third is a blog discussion of the WP article. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge While the article is not exactly in-depth, it is related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a very controversial religion. Perhaps best to merge this article. RayJazz21 (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that every fact about a "very controversial religion" has to be included in its article. Of course liberal trends in Mormonism or the Mormon community should be covered in WP's articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no requirement. However, I think this is notable enough to be included in the larger article, just like other sects who have been scattered across news channels the past few years. The point is that Reform Mormonism may very well (and probably will) become quite notable. Take a look at other reformists. I say merge it. RayJazz21 (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, probably to the section on other LDS faiths. This subject is definitely not worthy of its own article yet (it looks like Reform Mormonism is only recognized by one U.S. state) but it is worthy of a few sentences in the main article, especially since it's so different from other offshoots of the Mormon church. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't seem to find any media coverage on this subject.--PinkBull 04:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is actually highly unsourced and potentially unverified. In the 5 references: 2 blogs and a yahoo group. In the external links it directs to a Myspace page, 3 blogs, French Wikipedia article, and a festival page. I have removed them from the article as they are unreliable sources and cannot be used. Aside from its .org website, I have been unable to find any third party websites of notability and zero news media stories about the sect. I have a feeling this is a very small group of religious people that would hence fail WP:GROUP. Mkdwtalk 22:53, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyWebFace[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedia article -- it is an advertisement for a freeware program, complete with how-to instructions. Two attempts to Speedy Delete the article were rejected (incorrectly, IMHO). A wishy-washy Prod tag was put in place, but I thought we could use more eyes on this to confirm its lack of notability. A Google News search only turns up a self-promoting press release: [25]. Warrah (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, this reads as though it were a brochure from the software's creator, with instructions and trivia like the privacy policy, which really isn't even about the software. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V. Given the part about the privacy policy it seems pretty likely this is intended as an advertisement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, db-web. Woogee (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, quite like an advertisement really, but after the privacy policy part is deleted it seems better than before.--219.79.1.245 (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't really think this article should be deleted, at least it provides information such as age requirements of the software.--Tingo Chu (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes this software notable? Woogee (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Half of the article is an advertisement talking directly to the reader. No indication of notability. Eik Corell (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't find any sources to indicate that this is notable. And for a moment I thought it looked pretty cool, until I found out it's a browser toolbar you have to install. I can't imagine what sort of spyware features it must be loaded down with.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:39, 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. Consensus not to delete; any merger or transwiki can be discussed on the article talk page.  Sandstein  07:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of FTP server return codes[edit]

List of FTP server return codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Move This page is rather a HowTo than an encyclopedic content. It should be moved to Wikibooks as it is written here and should be added to the current FTP tutorial. Ftiercel (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I see nothing how-toish about it. --Carnildo (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. ThemFromSpace 23:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to File Transfer Protocol; information here is encyclopaedic, not a howto. The WP:NOTGUIDE argument is better, but still weak in my opinion. If the article can't be kept it should be merged to the main FTP article, but I think it would be valid to leave it as a separate article and link it from FTP.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These type of articles are actually quite popular and these are much more of a summary than a how-to. I'd like to see this one expanded so that we end up with something more like what we've done with List of HTTP status codes. We now have {{cite IETF}} to help cite RFCs and other IETF documents as well. One of our most popular pages is HTTP 404 (currently averaging ~2.8 million page views per day, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Popular pages). --Tothwolf (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Popularity is not the problem. It's not a deletion but a migration. People read the article where it is placed, even it is at the right place or not. Ftiercel (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are obviously free to export and merge content into Wikibooks if you'd like, but there is nothing wrong with having such articles on Wikipedia and WP:NOTGUIDE does not apply here. As for popularity, List of FTP commands has been averaging about 250-300 hits per day [26] and List of FTP server return codes has been averaging about 100 hits per day, [27] so clearly these articles serve a purpose to the community. List of FTP commands would also be much more useful if it were restructured more like List of Internet Relay Chat commands, which currently summarises and references half a dozen RFCs. We could really use such an article for SMTP too. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Acceptable spin-out article. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Wikipedia is an excellent source of information and more and more we're becoming an authoritative encyclopedia. And as such I believe we have to keep ALL the knowledge available. --PJonDevelopment (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - seems like a reasonable fork. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is useful information, to be sure, something I would expect to find in, oh, say... a manual. Alas, WP:NOTMANUAL (Wikipedia is not a manual) nor should it be one. I'm not sure what the best WikiMedia alternative would be, WikiSource perhaps? Or WikiBooks? I find it strange that so many people find this to be reasonable information for an encyclopedia to cover, and yes, I realize, once again, that my viewpoint is in the minority. JBsupreme (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second choice: Transwiki to Wikibooks, that appears to be the most sensible option. JBsupreme (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - and expand. There is nothing resembling a manual or a how-to; it is perfectly sensible information to be covered. --Cyclopiatalk 15:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic content that is probably best handled in a spin out article rather than in FTP. Yilloslime TC 03:19, 7 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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of FTP commands[edit]

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

Move This page is rather a HowTo than an encyclopedic content. It should be moved to Wikibooks as it is written here and should be added to the current FTP tutorial. Ftiercel (talk) 15:03, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — ækTalk 02:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rainy Davis[edit]

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

Is this atrociously self-promotional article worth retaining in some vigorously paired down form? Her only notability that I can see seems to be as co-writer of a song Sweetheart (song), covered and made famous by someone else. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN BY NOM PER BELOW.[reply]

  • Keep – Rewrite yes. I agree with nominator that the article does need to be pared down. However, that is an editing issue not a reason for deletion. Regarding notability, I believe being nominated for a Grammy Award, as shown here from an independent source [30] fulfills our requirement for inclusion. Just-An-Average-Guy (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Not a problem. With all the fluff in the article, it was easily overlooked. Happy Holidays. Just-An-Average-Guy (talk) 18:21, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Peru relations[edit]

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

noting that there exists no agreements between these 2 countries except 2 weaker memos of understanding. yes there have been state and ministerial visits but it always under the context of APEC multilateral forums and meetings. no significant coverage of any notable relations [31] LibStar (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No refs to show it is more than one more criss-cross listing of two countries out of the hundreds in the world. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no evidence of a significant relationship. Australia doesn't maintain an embassy in Peru, and there doesn't appear to be any state visit between the leaders of the two nations. Mandsford (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no notability in these bilateral countries. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable bilateral relationship. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's coverage of Australia's relationship with Peru doesn't indicate that there are or have been notable ties between the countries. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I sourced A$1.5 billion of foreign direct investment from Australia to Peru, with a number of minerals and mining companies listed. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the amount of trade is not a criterion, notability requires third party coverage as per WP:N and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am continuing to find more and more Australian investment and direct ties to Peru, and if there was a strong Mining in Peru wikipedia article this article would make a lot more sense. WP:ITSNOTFINISHED is reason to keep, and just because the article doesn't yet have third party coverage included doesn't mean it's not there from sources we haven't located (the specialized mining trade press and the Peruvian press are underrepresented). Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
added two more refs today (on agricultural trade), specifically referencing upcoming trade talks. The relevance of this article is getting more obvious as I work on it more. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
is WP:ITSNOTFINISHED a policy or guideline? it does not appear to exist. I'm not convinced by the additions, most of the companies you list Rio Tinto Group, BHP Billiton, SKM operate in many many countries not just Peru and Peru is not their main foreign operation. LibStar (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is a distinct lack of non government sources ie independent third party sources to describe these relations. LibStar (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep folowing improvements by editor Edward Vielmetti. Even with the scarcity of non government sources, there seems to be a good IAR case to keep bilateral relations articles like this, due to the clear accademic and practical value. For example to businesses assessing the prospects for trade. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL for businesses it not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IAR arguments dont need to be valid in the sense of according with policy, as long as they show there would be an improvement to the encyclopedia. If you and Biruitorul dont like the pro business angle, what about the benefits for world peace and international co-operation, for example when delegates are at a summit they can check on the relationships other participants have with each other. IPE theory teaches that the more information is available, the better the chances of optimun outcomes being reached! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you're still using a WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. we don't relax notability criterion so people can find it useful. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and Mansford. This topic falls under the general notability guidelines which require that there be direct detailed coverage of a topic in multiple reliable, independent sources if we are to have an article about it on wikipedia. I'm not seeing that for this topic. Yilloslime TC 17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as stated, no coverage of the topic exists in independent sources. And no, FeydHuxtable, we're not here as an investment prospectus for businesses, but as an encyclopedia. Learn the difference. - Biruitorul Talk 07:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is simply not an encyclopedic subject, and crystallballing to make it seem like one is an old, tired, sophistical tactic. Dahn (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As illustrated above, this intersection between Australia and Peru is not encyclopedic as of yet. JBsupreme (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mere existence of the pedestrian functions of govt. doesn't make the relationship notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trade relations count. In this case, they are major trade relations supported by multiple sources. They are natural trading partners, as are most nations immediately across an ocean from each other. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but are they are notable relations, there is a complete lack of third party coverage of this. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Libstar, there's coverage now from three newspapers (two Australian, one Peruvian) referencing upcoming trade talks. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 08:36, 7 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) 03:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh_Predators[edit]

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

non notable UK university sports team, which fails WP:GNG as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints

What exactly is it that defines this team as non notable? The BUAFL is an American Football league, recognised by the NFL[1] and reported by such media outlets as Channel 5[2] and The Daily Mirror [3].

The BUAFL has its own wikipedia page and, as such, surely there should be information provided by all the member teams. Perhaps this information should be included in the BUAFL article but with 56 teams in the league, the largest university American Football League in Europe[4], that would make the article unwieldy.

Of those 56 teams, 46 have wikipedia pages. Many of those pages feature a greater depth of information than the Predators page but that is largely down to their having played in the league for nearly 20 years. The Predators are in their first season, so the page cannot be expected to be in such depth as, say, the Bath Killer Bees.

In the topic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints, one of the points made was this,

"The university football and rugby teams dont have pages and they are far greater in terms of participation and interest at UK universities"

That may be true of Durham University, but at the University of Edinburgh there is a wikipedia page for Edinburgh University A.F.C., Edinburgh University RFC and Edinburgh University Boat Club. If these clubs are granted an article, despite not playing at the highest amateur level, why can't the Edinburgh Predators have a page.

Finally, I would argue that wikipedia is a point of reference, a tool for finding information about things that you are interested in. For example, if someone was interested about the village of Torphins in Aberdeenshire, Scotland they could come onto wikipedia and find some basic information about that place that they could not on the wider web, since such information cannot be found. In articles such as these, it is the collective general knowledge of people that form a comprehensive, if short, summary of the topic. My point here is that, while the BUAFL or the Edinburgh Predators might not be notable to you, they may be notable to others. Other people may wish to use wikipedia to view the Edinburgh Predators page as means of reference, to supplement the limited information provided on the web (what is provided is cited in the article).

Thus, I see little reason to delete the page (my sincere apologies for the extended response!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.111.101 (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.nfluk.com/news/NFLBUAFL_121108.html
  2. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnGhrMDxcKk
  3. ^ http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/fourth-down/buafl/
  4. ^ http://www.buafl.net/history.asp

The reason that the team are not notable is that they fail to meet the guidelines set out for notability at WP:Athlete. This states that 'the highest level of amateur sport' is needed, since this is not the highest level of amateur sport, even in as minority a sport as University level American Football, which receives little to no interest in the UK in terms of media coverage and attendances, then the notability of any of the teams in this league is not sufficent for wiki entries, as established in the Afd for Durham Saints.

Regarding your sources, the channel 5 clip shows a discontinued(?) late night sports programme on a minority channel, for the main part, laughing at the names of the teams in the league. Besides, the notability of the league, which those sources support is not the question here, but the notability of the individual teams within the league. Some sort of table showing the teams in the league should be included on the league page, but all these individual entries with pointless facts and match by match accounts which are only of interest to those that played in the matches are unencyclopedic. I was active on bringing Durham Saints through AfD and will put each of the other pages through in due course, none of them are likely to be notable enough, but each should be able to make its individual claim of notabililty. This particular team looks to have played less than ten matches in a non-notable amateur univeristy sport league.

Re your argument regarding the other university teams, you should read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as an aside my personal view is that i agree with the contributor in the AfD for Durham Saints who stated: "they (football and rugby) are far greater in terms of participation and interest at UK universities". Petepetepetepete (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is little point in my arguing further, since I'm somewhat over a barrel in terms of the rules stipulated in the articles that you suggested I looked at. All I will say is that regardless of how popular a university sport is, if you are to delete this article for failing the WP:Athlete notability criteria, then you must also delete the university football, rugby and rowing articles, since none of them meet those criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.111.101 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No, we won't be getting rid of the football team: as a bare minimum, you have to take part in your country's national cup. They've done that. (I can't vouch for the other two, though.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:17, 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) 02:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The top amateur level in the UK is British American Football League. This is not a BAFL club, it's a BUAFL (university-level) club. Saying that this is the British equivalent of an NCAA club is misleading for two reasons: firstly, it implies that the profile of university sport is equivalent to that in the US, and secondly it implies the profile of American Football is equivalent to that in the US. Both are false.
University/College-level sport in general has a very low profile in the UK. Most university sports fixtures - and American Football is no exception - get few if any spectators who are not actually members of the clubs concerned. American universities have stadia so that people can watch their matches. Spectators at British university sports matches generally sit on the touchline. In all but a very few cases, the idea of televising university sport in the UK (as in the US) would be absurd - even for a high-profile sport like (Association) Football or Rugby Union.
But American football is not a high-profile sport in the UK. It has a very low profile in the UK. And what profile it has is almost exclusively geared towards the NFL, rather than the domestic game. The profile of domestic American Football in the UK is not much higher than the profile domestic Rugby Union in the US. I would argue that, even if a club is at the highest available amateur level of a low-profile sport, it is not necessarily notable, particularly in the absence of independent reliable sources. This is not a case where the highest available level is the Olympics or something.
In the US, the NCAA produces a high-profile format of a high-profile sport. In the UK, the BUAFL produces a low-profile format of a low-profile sport. There is no equivalence between the two. And we cannot assume that a team in such a league is notable - particularly in the absence of independent reliable sources from which a policy-compliant article could actually be written. Pfainuk talk 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - American football at university level has pushing zero public profile in the UK. In the States, university sport is highly notable; in the UK, with some limited obvious exceptions, it is no big deal. It is also not the highest amateur level; that is the adult British American Football League. TerriersFan (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment. There's a whole bunch of these teams. Most of them have wikipedia articles as seen at Template:BUAFL. Not sure if the nominator wants all of them deleted or just this one, although I can't imagine there's a significant difference in the notability of the individual teams. I suppose merging them all into British Universities American Football League would be one approach, but the article may become a bit too large. --PinkBull 02:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Strip out everything that fails basic policy requirements such as WP:V and WP:NOR, and in most if not all cases you're left with nothing to merge. Pfainuk talk 10:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator and TerriersFan. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 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. Per Wikipedia:Foreign sources, non-English reliable sources are acceptable as sources. I believe that consensus is that the article meets the notability standards for inclusion. NW (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chalermpol Malakham[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Non-notable singer; I can find no coverage by anybody (although this may be a language issues). References, even if non-English, are needed to prove the subject's significance. Also potential BLP issue. I'd be willing to withdraw this if sources are found. Mm40 (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Mm40 (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seeing how this can easily be a language issue, I'm quite sad to see this was nominated rather than put in front of a Thai WikiProject or Wikipedians who speak the language. By the way, this is not a BLP issue. BLP issues are about contentious material. This is unreferenced, but in no way disparaging or otherwise problematic to the point it could cause a lawsuit which is what this BLP rule was made for. - Mgm|(talk) 12:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For one, I added this to the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions, which is presumably watched/check up on by Thai editors. Also, while I know it is not a BLP issue at the moment, it it's an unreferenced—and probably not widely watched—BLP, which tends to attract disparaging material. I tend to heir on the side of deletion when it comes to borderline unreferenced BLPs. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google the name in Thai and you get 500000 hits (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), so he is far from unnotable, he is only virtually unknown outside Thailand. The article needs references and some more content, but that is no reason to delete it. andy (talk) 21:09, 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) 09:09, 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, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject of a major published work,[32] in addition to having released multiple records with mainstream labels and easily satisfying WP:MUSIC. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was in thailand 4 weeks ago and heard of this guy and now telling people about him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdt1 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article as currently written is a clear delete - it does not cite any references or sources. If Paul_012 or Bdt1 care to add them then that could change, absence that - delete or move to user space for more work to be done on it. Codf1977 (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was my understanding that we expand stubs, not delete them. I'm not up to researching this subject right now, but that shouldn't be relevant, because AfD is not a venue to request article improvement. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I Think you missunderstand my point - I was not requesting article improvement - mearly pointing out that the artical does not, as written now, demonstrate notability as there are no references or sources, if you or Bdt1 can find any to add then my view (to delete) could change. Codf1977 (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is based on WP:V. This is the English language version. If I can't read it, I can't consider it verifiable. If verifiable sources become available, then I might consider changing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 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 redirect to Blaxy Girls. unsourced still so the temptartion would be to go with delete as the best policy based argument but the possibility of notability through music is also an option so a redirect seems the least harmful outcome short of keeping, whihc really needs some sourcing to demonstrate independant notability. Spartaz Humbug! 15:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If You Feel My Love (album)[edit]

If You Feel My Love (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by a known sock puppet (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Montana 4 and User talk:STEF1995S), although the title of an album may not be a hoax, none of the information can be reliable. 117Avenue (talk) 19:09, 16 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) 09:15, 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, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there doesn't seem to be any improvement to the article. 117Avenue (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - you're nomination was already an !vote to delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per WP:NALBUMS, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The group that recorded this has an article on Wikipedia, so is apparently notable. As does the label that released the album. Assuming that any of the sources User:Gongshow found are reliable, then this album appears to meet notability and should be kept. Of course, the article needs improvement, but there is no deadline for that. Rlendog (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added comment - If there are no reliable sources for the album, a redirect to Blaxy Girls would be more appropriate than deletion, consistent with WP:NALBUMS. Rlendog (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with or Redirect to Blaxy Girls.Deb (talk) 22:18, 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. Tone 21:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Włostowice,-Puławy.-district[edit]

Włostowice,-Puławy.-district (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from the possible issues with the article in the first place (see the current issues template right below the AFD notice), the article is essentially a duplicate of Włostowice, Puławy, which itself appears to have been moved by User:Kotniski previously from a slightly different name. Apparently, the article's original author created it twice (under this name and the other name it was moved from). As there would be nothing to merge, I recommend deletion with no redirect. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:20, 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, —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Author appears to have created this article with a faulty name then created again with a corrected title and was unable to delete this version. Sussexonian (talk) 21:10, 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, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:15, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Di Carlo[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. At this point, the only sources quoted in the article are a YouTube link and an IMDb entry for a person with a different spelling of the name and whose first film appearance occurred when this guy was five! Web and news search find several hits, but they are Ontario real estate agents or other corporate types. Favonian (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep clearly shows tony di carlo as a notable person, both at academic level and under STAGE name. Surely age cannot be used as a reason for deletion?! it clearly states that he acted from an early age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdt1 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strikethrough added as poster has expressed a stronger Keep lower down page. Peridon (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clear mistake on imdb stating he played teenageboy/mechanic when casted as 'boy'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdt1 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC) --Bdt1 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable per WP:ENT. Criterion 1 is "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." His roles have not been significant as the most shows he's been in for a series is four (Dynasty (TV series), which isn't particularly well-known. Criterion 2 and 3 ("large fan base" and "contributions to a field of entertainment", respectively) aren't evident, as I can find no third-party mentions of him. Mm40 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Mm40 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously the user wanting to delete has a problem with the programme and this person as quite clearly Dynasty was extremely well known that lasted on US prime time television for 8 years. Admittadly the actor may not have played a lead role in them however he was also in films and other tv programmes of great PUBLIC knowledge. Other photos are available in regards to the philips modelling competition and also it is clear when watching Gordan Ramseys The F Word that Di Carlo is in it however his name would not be credited as there would be no relevance to it, but in the actual show he is. I do not see the prob--Bdt1 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)lem in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdt1 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC) --Bdt1 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple 'Keeps' struck through. Only one !vote per !voter please. Other things are Comments. Peridon (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I saw this guy on last nights episode, good to see him back on screen. NOTE for above, IP address' can be the same if at the SAME location/building, does not mean it is same person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.115.128 (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC) — 91.104.115.128 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note to closing admin: I believe there to be a vendetta against the page from the above deleters as this is a legit person who is clearly in films/tv shows and a UK entertainment personality. Although the IP address is similar this does not mean it is the same person and as it is not clear (cannot be proven that it is the same person) the vote should stand.--Bdt1 (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I would have to agree with Mm40, it would appear when you read WP:ENT he does not meet the criteria as notable. He may in the future meet the criteria but I can't see that he has yet got over that bar. Codf1977 (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: When you read WP:ENT 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. This is true to Di Carlo, on the social website Facebook, he has thousands of fans —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdt1 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact that this isn't credible proof of a "cult following" or "large fan base", it's also not true. The only fan page for a Tony Di Carlo is a football/soccer player with 44 fans. Mm40 (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thats quite obviously not true as I am looking at it as I write and clearly has thousands of fans. you seem to have a problem with good looking up and coming celebrities?! --Bdt1 (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave a link either here or on my talk page (or if you have e-mail enabled on your account, e-mail me). Mm40 (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Daily Echo link lists Tony Di Carlo as having received a BA degree. So? The imdb entry is for a totally different person altogether. That is, unless this person appeared as Sprugo at the age of 5, and even more unlikely, played a PFC in a war series at 6 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0732245/ . The Tony DeCarlo of imdb is to my mind fairly obviously an American - and rather older. Fans on Facebook? Come on... While I wish Mr Di Carlo well in his chosen career, I feel he hasn't yet achieved the notability for an article here. (I also feel that his name may be a little too close to that of the American actor who has priority by age and career length, but that is not within the scope of an AfD here - just a comment that might be of help to Mr Di Carlo.) Peridon (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MUST Keep I have already noted that there are a couple of mistakes on the imdb page however it is clear that Di Carlo moved to and from the States and after appearing in and on US and UK tv series / films he is a notable person. I feel that there is some unrest here and feel that if the people who want to delete di carlo had not of seen a picture they would be voting to keep and to NOT delete. Hopefully common sense will hopefully win in this case and the page able to stand. --Bdt1 (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, WP:HOTTIE is a joke, if thats what you're basing your !vote off of ;) Mm40 (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: the above comment from Mm40 was not called for and I find this unacceptable behaviour, extremely rude and ovensive to Di Carlo. --Bdt1 (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe there exists a possibility of WP:COI issues here. Bdt1 may be the same as the subject of the article or somehow closely related to him. I say that because Bdt1 seems to be taking delete !votes and comments quite personally as well as his claim that File:Dcmodel.png is Bdt1's own work. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Hard to prove, of course, but two months ago an article of the same name was created by Tonydicarlo (talk · contribs) as demonstrated by this. The article was speedily deleted as non-notable. Favonian (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the above is not true whatsoever however I am tired of wikipedia being ruled by snobbyness, arrogance and all round rudeness and want to make a stand up to it. This page MUST be kept to save the integrity and future of wikipedia. thankyou.--Bdt1 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no indication that the subject of the article meets any criteria set out in either WP:ENT or WP:N. Google searches provide no verification through third party reliable sources that notability criteria are met. No prejudice towards recreation should the subject become notable in the future. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Firstly, can you only vote once please, if you wish to make further comments please use comment. Secondly Bdt1 you should stop taking this personally. Thirdly - without wishing to comment for the authors of the WP:ENT, I suspect when they said Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. they did not have in mind a Social Network where you can get a following by doing very little. Fourthly - If, as I suspect it will be, the discussion is to delete the page, you could always ask for it to be moved to your user space so you can carry working on it and when he does meet WP:ENT you can ask for it to be moved back.Codf1977 (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So even if he went to America, how did he still manage to play a PFC when he was 6? There's no indication that this was a 'kiddy' thing like Bugsy Malone. I am assuming that Private First Class is meant, rather than Peterhead F.C. or any other PFC. There's also no mention in the article about writing or producing, which Tony DeCarlo was doing in 2004, along with acting in the film. I echo Codf1977 about the unreliability of followings on social networks. In respect of "if the people who want to delete di carlo had not of seen a picture", I would also like to point out that I couldn't care a tinker's cuss what Di Carlo looks like. (I care slightly that it should read 'should not've' or 'should not have', but that's a professional concern on my part.) I quote again: "I am tired of wikipedia being ruled by snobbyness, arrogance and all round rudeness". If this is the case, you are at liberty to start your own encyclopaedia, or go somewhere like aboutus or linkedin, in both of which promotional or self-promotional articles are quite acceptable. Here, they are not. Produce evidence that we consider reliable and meaningful, and you'll find us helpful. (Well, a lot of us anyway.) On the basis of what's there, no go. Getting wound up doesn't help your case. In fact, it harms it. Calm down and produce the goods. That will help. Peridon (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Endless ranting here by Bdt1 but no evidence of notabilty added to the article. Sgroupace (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. I hope the bevy of WP:SPA's unerstand that although the body of his work might be pressing at ENT, it does not quite hit the bar. Due to lack of reliable sources, the BLP curently fails. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give your reasons, please? This is a discussion not a voting session. Without reasons, your post will probably be ignored, especially as you have little or no editing history. Peridon (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not seem to satisfy WP:ENT. SPAs, etc. usually do not help a subject's case. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: I have asked Bdt1 on his talk page to explain the copyright statements he made when adding two images he has used on the page (File:Dcmodel.png & File:Tdcfword.png), Favonian has also identified a potential issue with a third File:Tonydc.png, ‎if the decision is to delete the article can you also review them to see if they need to be actioned as well. (link to Bdt1 Commons files) Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply fails WP:ENT. Might pass it some day, but not yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:51, 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 delete. All agree that WP:PROF is not met, except for Stephanefr, whose argument I have difficulty understanding.  Sandstein  21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Madore[edit]

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

I would have prodded this, but this article survived a discussion in 2005, way before we had any notability standards for academics. The argument that he invented Unlambda is exceedingly weak; I could barely find secondary references to add to that article— it's not a well-known language by any stretch. Pcap ping 12:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unlambda doesn't seem to be notable and should perhaps be AfD'd as well. Usually math notability relies on making a discovery which is notable in its own right, as in appearing in a secondary source. There is no evidence that this is the case here. All the links from the subject's page seem to be published by the subject.--RDBury (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable academically per WP:PROF. Five articles on mathscinet, Maitre de Conference, etc. Mathsci (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • His CV is on his home page, and it doesn't appear he meets the criteria at WP:PROF. It looks like, in 2005, the bio here was kept because of unlambda. We have to weigh how well-known that language is, but given that Madore does not meet the criteria in WP:PROF, I think that it would take an extremely well-known language to warrant a bio. I don't think unlambda is very well known. Honestly, I don't know if I would support a bio for the author of nethack, and that has to be much better known than unlambda. So I think that the article should be deleted for now. As always, if things change, the article can be recreated in a few years. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain because I am the person involved, but I have some comments to make. Evidently I do not meet the criteria of WP:PROF, and evidently this article could be an embarrassment for me since it makes me sound like some kind of academic crackpot. (I have no idea of who wrote it, by the way. I never edited it myself.) On the other hand, I strongly think that if this article goes, the one on Unlambda should go as well; this I say as a Wikipedia user: I've always thought that there should be at least a stub article for the creator/instigator/inventor/main author of every single item/event/fact/invention/work which itself has an article on WP, and this would simplify the debates on notability—but obviously the folks who decide on the notability criteria think differently, so this opinion is worthless anyway. One thing I have a hard time imagining, however, is why people invest energy in having articles deleted which like this one are fairly short and at least have the merit of containing nothing wrong or contentious, when those on—say—Charles Musès notable for his Musean hypernumbers (not only is this one nonsense, but it has great potential for confusion) haven't been nominated for deletion even once. I mean, I agree that deleting some articles can be as constructive as augmenting others, but the priority order seems strange (especially as the article has already been around for some time, and some people have spent a little effort in editing it). But at this point, a loud booming voice thunders: “you are not notable!” and I vanish in a puff of logic. --Gro-Tsen (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:PROF is a guideline not a rule. M. Madore above statement points out topics that are more important than the question of deleting a page about an author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanefr (talk • contribs) 22:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in view of subject's reasonable request to do so. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Question: Is the Unlambda programming language notable within the framework of Wikipedia's own guidelines? I'm leaning towards delete for the biographical article due to a noted lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should discuss that in a separate AfD. The secondary sources I found are pretty thin, I agree. Pcap ping 10:16, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warlord UK[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for well over a year. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. The band has released only a single album, back in 1996, on a notable label. No significant coverage in third-party reliable sources (a solitary radio interview is nowhere near good enough, no significant tours (note: "Meltdown Festival" is not a major festival). Nothing there really to pass any aspect of WP:MUSIC that I can see. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:09, 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 RF Online. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Armor Unit[edit]

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

Subject has no sources or sufficient notability and should not have its own article. It's also orphaned from the RF Online article. DEVS EX MACINA pray 09:52, 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) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sociological Random[edit]

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

Not notable, invented. No sign this actually exists at all beyond an unimpressive looking first-party reference. Declined prod. Hairhorn (talk) 09:51, 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. still not courced = unverified = delete Spartaz Humbug! 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Code Masters[edit]

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

Entirely in-universe + No claim of real-world notability + No sources found in 1 year --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:36, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Maple[edit]

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

This page was created and then edited repeatedly by a drawerful of socks, one claiming to be the subject. After much hard work by several editors (and special mention goes to Rees11 (talk · contribs) who has done the hard legwork trying to improve and substantiate this article) we're left with an article whose sources are largely self-published or PR puff or not substantiating the points in the text. Because of that, the article doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC and I seek community input as to whether it has a place in Wikipedia. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 09:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — I've checked about half the references and none of the ones I looked at supported notability. Many of them don't even support the text in the article they are being used to reference. I did find one news story that mentions Maple, Splashing out, but it quotes him on a different subject, and does not constitute substantial coverage. I don't believe the subject meets the notability criteria. Rees11 (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- there is indeed a bit of coverage of this person in the press, but no articles substantially about him. He certainly fails WP:PROF and I don't see anything close to sufficient for WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This expert on post-modern marketing has not yet achieved notability in WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete The only claim to notability appears to be that subject is the Course Director at a university with the "largest cohort of charity students in the UK", and there is no independent analysis to show that that is notable. Many people work in the charity field and we should only have articles on those who satisfy WP:BIO – a level not achieved by this subject. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - after many edits, subject still seems non-notable and the article still reads like a résumé. --CliffC (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - quite evident this person does not meet WP:PROF, and since the questionable nature of the many of the sources has been brought up, it leads me to endorse deleting this page. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:28, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macrophone

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per references provided by Samdstein Spartaz Humbug! 15:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right to quote[edit]

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

The use of this term seems to rely almost entirely on a mailing list source and some Internet lawyer's website which (I think) only uses the phrase incidentally, and not as a proper legal concept. The article is only one sentence long, and part of that sentence – "...in continental Europe..." – has no reliable reference to it whatsoever. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 08:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see enough references to suggest this is a genuine and notable legal concept: see here, but the article needs some expert attention. Alternatively, the content could be merged to cyberlaw or some other intellectual property law topic (again, expert opinion would be required on whether a merger is appropriate). --Mkativerata (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to fair use. Although that article is on United States law, a small section on the comparable law in France should be fine. WP obviously can not have an article on every law in every nation and this French law would be of little interest to this site's English speaking readers. (Sentence removed since I am sure some WPers think we should have articles on every law in every nation, and not really the issue here.) No information would be lost doing this. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could be of use to someone researching the subject and I see no reason for its being deleted. -- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd Talk 20:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to fair use per Dufour. THF (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as notable legal concept, but probably better known in the original French as Droit de courte citation. Fr:wp has an extensive article with more interwikis at fr:Droit de courte citation, and there are several books dedicated to it, e.g. Le droit de citation: propriété littéraire et artistique, droits voisins et droit des marques, étude de droit comparé. The concept also exists in German and Swiss law as Zitierrecht, and in many other legal systems. It is indeed an example of limitations of copyright originating in Continental European law which taken together are similar to US fair use, and a viable article topic.  Sandstein  21:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a sufficiently important subject in its own right, and a great number of possible references. Failure to use WP:BEFORE, which is basically making the assumption that article could not be improved beyond what it stands, or the basis of no investigation whatever. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 7 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) 03:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Akcelrod[edit]

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

Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below:

1. Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional. 2. Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition. 3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games. 4. Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played at the national level of league football are considered notable (no other level of amateur football confers notability).

This is not Akcelrod's case. 1. There is no evidence he played for the professionnal clubs mentionned (Cwmbran, Paris, Tigre). He played for the Paris Saint Germain team, but at an amateur level (5th team). 2. He played a match as a substitute for Swindon Town two years ago, but it was a trial, at a domestic level. 3. No 4. He played as an amateur in Paris, but not with the first team.

I found one relevant fact showing that Akcelrod has played in a team[33]. In 2005, he played for the Belgian club of Givry. This is not mentionned in his WP page, the club played in Provinciale 1, which is the 5th level in Belgium.

On his mybestplay page[34], he says he scored 7 goals in 14 games played with Tigre (Argentinian Premier League) in the 2008-2009 season. The FIFA does not mention his name in the results[35]

To sum up, this WP page says Akcelrod plays for : - Cwmbran (Welsh Premier League) : no source, no picture.

- Paris Saint-Germain (French L1) : no match played with the first team.

- Tigre (Argentinian Premier League) : no source, no picture.

- Swindon, Bournemouth, Norwich (League One): That's true, he played some matches (it is not difficult to find videos posted by Akcelrod himself) but as a trialist.

- CSKA Sofia : He made a trial at sofia, but the club discovered that that Akcelrod has lied about his past[36][37] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.206.61.231 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The french article has been deleted[38]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.206.61.231 (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is absolutely no evidence that he passes Wp:ATHLETE. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence he has played professionally. He definitely did play as a triallist for various English professional clubs, but the matches concerned were non-competitive pre-season warm-up games. The Welsh Premier League is not professional, so that can be ignored. That only leaves potentially Tigre, PSG and CSKA, and I can find no evidence that he played a first team game for any of those clubs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cara[edit]

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

This article was previously deleted on 6 February 2009 for failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article has since been rewritten, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. On 28 September 2009, the article was created, and the creator, Hotrod2hell (talk · contribs) wrote on the talk page:

However, notability has not been established. The first reference is insufficient because it consists solely of an interview, and so fails WP:MUSICBIO #1: "Any reprints of press releases [and] other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" cannot be considered significant coverage. The second source, a YouTube video is not a reliable source. The remaining links in the article (1, 2, 3, and 4) are websites related to the subject's music career, and thus are not independent of him.

A Google News Archive search returns no relevant sources.

In summary, this article should be deleted because it fails Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt. Per nom. Reywas92Talk 17:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources are severely lacking and thus it does not appear to satisfy notability guidelines. Additionally, the "we" in the creator's quoted statement is worrisome--is that account used by multiple people? Cocytus [»talk«] 23:20, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction Event (novel)[edit]

Extinction Event (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I think the compelling argument is that inclusion is rather subjective with no clear inclusion definition. I mean how do we define how klnow for being supportors iof Rev Moon? Unless that's documented in the sourcing then inclusion is always going to eb subjective. Spartaz Humbug! 15:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of Sun Myung Moon[edit]

Supporters of Sun Myung Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is WP:Original research. There is no source for listing people based on their support for another person. Would WP have an article on the supporters of President Obama, much less a fairly minor person such as Mr. Moon? Northwestgnome (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The page has some good citing, though it definitely could use improvement of sources in a few places. There seem to be other "Supporters of" lists, for example List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States. Cirt (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the starter of the article I think this is an important topic. I have only listed people if their support is substantial and well documented. And yes the president does have lists of supporters, mainly those who endorsed him in the campaign. I do hope that all Americans support him, although maybe not on every issue.Borock (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the nominator said this is WP:OR. I am a member of the Unification Church and am aware that Rev. Moon has been very active in many areas of public life over the last 60 years. As such he has worked together directly or indirectly with, literally, millions of people. To single out a few and say they are "supporters", besides original research, also runs into potenial problems with WP:BLP. If WP had a policy against conspiracy theories it would run into problems there too. Also who says they are supporters of him and not he of them?Steve Dufour (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not the greatest article (and it should be renamed to "List of..." since that's what it is), however these people's support of Moon is well documented and this seems to be a notable issue that is brought up by the news media. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are two acceptable bases for such a list: those who are known primarily or in large part for their support , or, alternatively, those people with Wikipedia articles to show their notability for whatever, who are supporters. At present it seems to be the less defensible Prominent Figures in public life who have been well-known as supporters.... DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Most times I am in favor of Lists. I usually find them informative and typically they peek my curiosity to investigate further either the subject of the list or a person/place or thing on the list. However, in this case, there are no parameters that give guidance of who is included on the list. An example would be what constitutes support. Giving money to the cause or person and if so how much money makes it a support to all the ideologies of the cause or person the money was given to and does this mean actual support. An example from the article itself gives Neil Bush as a supporter of Rev Moon based on this article [39]. However, the list fails to mention Joe Lieberman or former President George Bush, that are mentioned right after Neil Bush, in the article used as a reference. And does saying a few nice words about the individual or cause mean that the individual saying these words really supports the individual or the cause. Remeber, sometimes we say nice things, with our fingers crossed behind our backs, is this tantamount to being considered as support or actually just Diplomacy . Personally I believe this list would be subject to POV inclusions that would vary wildly from individual to individual who is placing a name on the list. As such, the list would not conform to our current policy of NOPV and would subject the list to constant edit warring which would serve no purpose other than opening Wikipedia to chraagers of libel. Happy New Year. JAAGTalk 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far all the living people on the list are ones who have been very public in their support of Moon, and have been reported as such in the mainstream news media. So I don't think they are going to sue WP for libel. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it's still kind of a random list. Out of the thousands of people who could be listed only a handful have. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not a useful list. So these five people support this religious figure? Who cares? And if their support is in any way relevant to anything, why does it not to suffice to say so in their articles or in the article about who they support?  Sandstein  21:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that WP is not censored. Reliable sources (in some cases major newspapers) have seen fit to mention these people's support of Moon. They seemed to think it was important. Borock (talk) 14:38, 7 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foomy[edit]

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

I've just viewed one of "Foomy"'s videos on YouTube, and there's no doubt that she's talented. I don't see notability here though, either under the "Foomy" name or as "Fumi Koyasu". I don't believe she meets WP:MUSIC at this point. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:50, 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. Withdrawn by nominator. tedder (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everest Public High School[edit]

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

Newly created local charter high school where all sources cover a battle over education, without going into significant detail on the school itself. Article has also been tagged for multiple issues including COI since August. Article is currently a stub with an infobox. Optigan13 (talk) 06:32, 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) 03:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dunay[edit]

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

Speedy tag removed by an IP. Autobiography COI biography, no third-party references. Has been speedied three times before. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the one who applied the last of many deletion tags. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does the fact that he was awarded the ITSMA Golden award in 2005 make him notable? I agree the article has NPOV issues, but let's not be hasty. PDCook (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that much of the article is referenced from pauldunaysblog.blogspot.com, I say the article fails WP:V for the time being. Given that he produced a for Dummies book, I'd say reliable third-party sources shouldn't be that hard to find, only when I click on News what I get is a lot of press releases and false positives. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should also be said that the ITSMA is a minor organization whose Wikipedia article is a one-line stub, possibly A7-speedable. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment - This article was written by the subject's son (he claims this on his talk page). So, it's not an autobiography, but a heavy dose of COI.PDCook (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable per WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, plus COI issues noted above. MuffledThud (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added more reliable sources from interviews and such, I will continue to update the page, give me any suggestions, or even help if you would like to. Dharokowns (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interviews cannot be regarded as reliable sources, since they consist of the subject talking about himself. What you should look for are third-party sources that are perhaps using those interviews as their source. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable person. The article creator has repeatedly created several other non-notable articles on wikipedia which were speedily deleted. A look at his user-talk page will reveal the amount of non-notable articles which he created that had to be deleted. Apart from deleting this promotional article administrators should also consider temporarily blocking the user's right to create new articles, since it is obvious that this user refuses to acquaint himself with Wikipedia's Rules. Amsaim (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That just hurts, I am trying to contribute. Dharokowns (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I have found many reliable sources, no interviews or blogs, and am adding them to the page after I finish writing this, if they work for you, don't delete the page please! Dharokowns (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added many more reliable sources, please review them. I cannot find anything on his childhood, I will keep looking, I removed the blog posts I had as sources because you did not like them and I made it so other people can add sources for that if they can find any. Thanks! Dharokowns (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, the sources do not strike me as especially reliable, nor am I convinced that this person meets notability requirements. Additionally, there are the serious WP:COI concerns. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:11, 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. While normally it'd be fair enough to let the thing run, the issues highlighted with the article by those who wrote below combined with the SPA and obvious BLP issues led me to conclude it should be wrapped up now. Orderinchaos 16:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven John Butt[edit]

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

Little in the way of actual notability, despite the size. Seems to fail WP:BIO; all sources are either him or unreliable. Ironholds (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 85 sources and not one of them appears to meet WP:RS. While he has had coverage on CBS, it was a story about polygamy generally in which Butt was a mere example. In my view, there's not enough independent coverage about Butt to make him notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a massive failure of quality for the biography of a living person. SPA creation with an agenda. Keegan (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, big article, little notability. Serious BLP issues, as well. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:51, 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 The Lesser Key of Solomon. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focalor[edit]

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

This article is a content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon and fails to meet the notability criteria; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in the main article. The article is unlikely to ever become more than trivial as no other sources say more about this demon than Ars Goetia, and can be easily merged back to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Wikipedia does not benefit from having an article for every religious or mythical character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without Prejudice to Merging I'd advise cutting Focalor down to a redirect to The Lesser Key of Solomon and merging any reliably sourced and notable information into the main article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I've been planning on sitting down one day and merging them with the parent article, but I'm a horrible procrastinator (I should probably get a bot or something, but again, procrastinator). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You and me both. LOL. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with emphasis on redirect. Same as last time one of these was here, there is not enough outside interest to develop an article. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to a list per the Aim AfD.  Sandstein  20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (And this goes for all those other demons too). There isn't enough information on most of these guys to support an article. The goetic demons - barring a few big names - appear in 1 or 2 grimoires tops. Of those the only really significant one is the lesser key. Simonm223 (talk) 22:49, 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 redirect to The Lesser Key of Solomon. merge anything useful if you like Spartaz Humbug! 15:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aim (demon)[edit]

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

This article is a content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon and fails to meet the notability criteria; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in the main article. The article is unlikely to ever become more than trivial as no other sources say more about this demon than Ars Goetia, and can be easily merged back to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Wikipedia does not benefit from having an article for every religious or mythical character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this article some time ago with information found in a disambiguation page. I am not too bothered about creating a redirect to The Lesser Key of Solomon, but would that mean that Wikipedia loses info on this particular demon, as it is not covered in the parent article? Also, is it suggested that all 72 demon articles be deleted, or just this one?--Commander Keane (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same rationale applies to the other articles. I'm not going to blanket AfD but may chisel away at those for which no other unique information exists beyond that already included or easily merged into the main article. I have not checked all these articles so there could well be some demons for which a clear rationale exists to retain a split article (such as appearing in several other texts). As for non-trivial unique information, if suitably sourced then it should be merged into the main article - if the consensus is to delete the split article. Obviously a line or two of interesting description or background on a demon would be easily merged but several paragraphs of well-sourced relevant detail is probably a rationale to keep or improve rather than merge.—Ash (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I've been planning on sitting down one day and merging the figures not mentioned in any sources besides the Lemegeton and Pseudomonarchia Daemonum with the parent article, but I'm a horrible procrastinator. As for other articles, some of them do meet notability guidelines, such as Astaroth. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. These articles are probably going to always be slight stubs, since most of them are only known through brief descriptions in the primary sources. The descriptions of them in the sources are brief enough that they could all be included in a single article. He sets cities, castles and great places on fire, makes men witty in all ways... - wow, we have some of the same hobbies. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without Prejudice to Merge Anything notable should go to the main lesser key article. Clear content fork. Simonm223 (talk) 22:50, 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanesci[edit]

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

Possible hoax, possible neologism - either way, all I know is that there are no references to this thing via google. Ironholds (talk) 04:43, 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 = unverified = delete Spartaz Humbug! 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of consorts of Paris[edit]

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

Paris has not ever been the sort of entity which has "consorts". The Merovingian "kings of Paris" are called such out of convenience. They called themselves kings of the Franks, but since the Franks had several kings at one time, ruling from different centres over different territories, it is convenient to label those who made their main seat Paris the "kings of Paris". That's all. It is misleading to go from this to "queen consorts of Paris". The rulers of Paris under the Carolingians were styled "counts" often, but they did not have consorts in this regard. Then the list jumps from 1007 to 1864! Srnec (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, so does the list of Count of Paris! If you know your history the title was revived in the 1864 for Prince Louis-Philippe Albert of France after over 800 years of disuse! And what is the wife of a count? A countess! People will regard these ladies as countess no matter if they used the title in their lifetime or not. Same with Queens of Paris, obviously they never used the title (that can be added as a sidenote), but it would be of "convenience" for them to be called that since their husbands' ruled from the city of Paris, and there is still their counter-parts in Soissons, Reims, and Orleans.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" The list makes an interesting read, and would be unreadable if merged with other articles. Dimadick (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For a second there, I thought the article was going to be about Paris Hilton's love life. Googlemeister (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
The titles comes Parisiensis and comte de Paris have less in common than at first appearance. They do not designate the same office or rank. And do you really believe that the fact that few of the women in the list ever held the title "Queen of Paris" or "Countess of Paris" is an irrelevance that can be relegated to a sidenote? Seems highly misleading to me... Srnec (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we probably should be able to handle this with a title change-- "rulers of the region including Paris, perhaps?. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But to my knowledge none of these women ever ruled Paris. The list is a violation of WP:SYNTH if you ask me. There are no "countesses of Paris" in the eighth and ninth centuries, and the titles comes Parisiensis (7th-11th centuries) and comte de Paris (19th century) bear only an etymological relationship. Srnec (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. I'm no historian, but when a page whose content is contested is sourced only to a self-published website, which is no WP:RS, it has to go.  Sandstein  20:33, 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 redirect to Bentleigh, Victoria#St. Paul's Primary School. tradition is to redirect and any useful material can be placed in the main article Spartaz Humbug! 15:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's Primary School Bentleigh[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St. Paul's Primary School Bentleigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary schools are not notable as a class (unlike high schools) and this small local school does not appear to be notable enough to meet Wikipedia requirements. Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC) (Note - article has previously been PRODded by a different editor)[reply]

I will convert the existing page into a redirect. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:30, 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 delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia, Haiku'd Adventures in Oz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Australia, Haiku'd Adventures in Oz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 03:34, 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Legrand[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. ttonyb (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm only finding a different (I presume) Roland Legrand who has nothing to do with astrology. Nothing to indicate that he passes the notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:ab}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bombshell#Comics. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bombshell (comics)[edit]

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

This information is a duplicate of Bombshell, next to no incoming links. Bombshell is not sufficiently large enough to merit a separation under WP:SETINDEX. Labattblueboy (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge or redirect but not a keep, as per my previous comments. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question - And would the refs be kept with such a merge? - J Greb (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to include the references. The target is a disambig page, not a list. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:48, 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 Los Angeles Area Council. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Log Cabin Wilderness Camp[edit]

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

Non-notable camp without any references to establish notability or elevation. Content overlaps significantly with Los Angeles Area Council#Log Cabin Wilderness Camp. Merger discussion initiated at the start of this month (Dec 2009) has only generated two opinions up to this point, mine and one user opposing. Article should either be deleted, or redirected to relevant section on other article. Optigan13 (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge back again. Major content was a copyvio that I deleted a month ago. The LAAC article needs lots of work before any camp articles are spun off. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant information and set this title up as a redirect; if the content becomes too unwieldy, I suppose we can discuss it at that time. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:56, 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 delete. There is evidence that this is a film that will be released in March 2010, and there are Wikipedia articles on other animated Barbie films, so it is likely that there may be an article on this topic at some point. However, for now, the consensus is that this particular article does not follow our guidelines. When the film is released, and reliable sources have written about it enough to establish the film's "notability" (as opposed to mere existence) it can be recreated. SilkTork *YES! 23:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie in A Mermaid Tale[edit]

Barbie in A Mermaid Tale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article for film that either will be or was released, depending on how you read it. Sources show a book by that name for January 2010, but nothing else. Article created by editor|Special:Contributions/Chistopher_John_P.K._Sacedor who has since disappeared. Article now defended by editor Special:Contributions/Bianca_Anne_Martins with curious relationship to creator and history of creating similar articles. SummerPhD (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A weak keep. The whole article needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view and the speculation need to be cut out. But as the film apparently exists, we shouldn't delete the whole article. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see nothing to indicate this movie does exist. The author who created it has done nothing else. Several minutes after it was created, another editor (in theory...) came along and created the image for the article and started defending the article on all fronts. The second editor's edits include adding media reception info for a completely different movie, copied from that article, with only the release date changed. I've been unable to find anything showing this as a released or planned film. I submit that the creator is a sock of the second editor and the article is a fiction. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources. If they show them, it's a keep. Otherwise delete. NativeForeigner (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular T · C 05:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found and added a ref to a cached page that shows the project is by Universal Home Videos, and several online fansites showing trailers. So okay... I can believe it's not a hoax. But how notable is Barbie stuff? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You had to add the cached page for a reason. The page you were citing is user generated and the specific page is now gone from their site. Released Barbie movies seem to be notable enough. This one, though, is either entirely illusory, canceled or forthcoming but non-notable. There are no reliable sources, so Wikipedia should not have an article on it. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup... a cached page. Note that hoax or not, I did not opine a keep. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, this film hasn't even been released yet according to the article. So we're probably in WP:NFF territory. I'm not seeing significant coverage by reliable, third party sources. Merely existing doesn't make it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - More support for the hoax theory: Until recently, the plot description for this supposed movie included this "Enjoy this brand new Barbie story and then use the stickers to retell it, or even create a story of your own!" Couple that with the only sources I can find being for a book by this name... - SummerPhD (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SummerPhD. Upon reflection, if Barbie films are notable enough to get coverage, then this one's lack would seem indicative of it being either A) non-notable in the extreme, or B) a blatant hoax. Both are suitable reasons for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not a hoax, it's listed on Amazon [41]. I think the main issue is notability, is it really worth an entry apart from publicising it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perspeculum (talk • contribs) 00:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I could not verify that this is a film. It seems to be one of those "Little Golden Books". Abductive (reasoning) 22:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of reliable sources. While this film appears to exist (see this Google Books search), the lack of coverage means that the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Cunard (talk) 22:57, 7 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 G7 by Fastily partway through the debate. NAC for cleanup reasons by —S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Dim Effect[edit]

Dim Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. The article is based on a single comment made in the quoted paper and does not appear to have entered into science lexicon. It does not meet WP:GNG. As the article currently stands it is highly incorrect, although that can be removed by editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at best this is a protoneologism, but I doubt it. Most likely it is Headlinese. Abductive (reasoning) 02:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What I personally ask myself is where this bug could have seen the movie and what convinced him develop this hon in eight years, when evolution needs thousands of years to do so. I think the whole effect we're talking about is highly doubtable and speculative. If you ask me the bug existed before the movie or the horn structure wasn't as unique as the developers have thought, but that's speculation ;) --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This term actually resurfaced in my mind a few weeks ago, and I realized the term hasn't been used once since the discovery of the beetle resembling Dim. Since it failed to become a useful phrase, I'd say there's no good reason to keep it. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:52, 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.  Sandstein  07:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pcsp(emulator)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Prod removed by article creator without any indication of notability. noq (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry I thought it was correct. Could you explain what I need to add/fix. If you tell me i will fix it. extreme64 (talk)
    • Response to this on user's talk page. Jujutacular T · C 05:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular T · C 05:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A PSP emulator that only fully supports one game; Puzzle Bobble Pocket. Many games show some screens but most games still only result in a black screen. Seems to have some crystal ball qualities as well given the state of the project. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete software that doesn't seem very far along at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of the software. Jujutacular T · C 20:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • im pretty sure this should still say though. There is only 1 psp emulator that even allows more the one game to be played and thats jpcsp which is this projects sister. Would adding some articles like this and this be of any use to add to the notability extreme64 (talk)
The problem is that there does not appear to be any reliable secondary sources to verify notability. It may achieve this in time and if it does then the article could be recreated. At the moment it is too early. noq (talk) 20:32, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon "The Master" Chan[edit]

Simon "The Master" Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-referenced article about a seemingly obscure Canadian personal trainer; the article may be a vanity piece. Does not meet WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References added to article. 18:38, 23 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.8.75 (talk)

  • Delete: Nothing notable about this user, also just crossed the border to it being a vanity article (where did "The Master" nickname come from, no source from that neither it appears to be given by somebody else). Read the article and you will realise that user:Atlasottawa is him, therefore clearly a WP:COI WP:SPA user. Donnie Park (talk) 12:45, 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) 01:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unreferenced BLP, probably vanity. Gosox5555 (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete* Apparently someone tries to promote someone here. The sources used in the article are retrieved from Mister Chan's website or prove Johnny Chan plays poker. All of them lack neutrality. The whole influence of this man is doubtable. I see no notability in this article. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 02:48, 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 wikt:smidge. Soft redirect to wikt:smidge SilkTork *YES! 16:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smidge[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable neologism, appears to be little more than a dictionary definition. TNXMan 21:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is just a dictionary definition of a legitimate and recognized English word, even though the article represents the word as being a neologism. I disagree with the nom about the word being non-notable and a neologism, but nevertheless this article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No transwiki to Wiktionary is necessary; see wikt:smidge which already exists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:25, 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) 01:00, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  07:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alonzo Hawk[edit]

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

The article is entirely WP:NOR. I checked amazon, google books, and google for information but was not able to find anything. I didn't think a simple redirect would work here. Peppagetlk 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To what are you proposing this be redirected? The article asserts that three movies between two separate Disney franchises have featured this character. I really don't see a redirect as a viable option on that basis--it should either be sourced or deleted, I'm afraid. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination seems to be entirely wrong as Amazon, Google and Google books all contain numerous references to this character. I have cited one in the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not about the character existing, the character exists, I said the article is original research. The source you added doesn't give support to the article. Peppagetlk 05:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-trivial coverage does not exist for this article at this time. JBsupreme (talk) 19:30, 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, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There is coverage from independent news sources for this character, as shown here [43]. At worst a redirect to The Absent-Minded Professor should be considered. Just-An-Average-Guy (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 115 Google Books hits have to mean something. Note also that he appears in three very different Disney movies. I would be pleased if the nominator would nominate any of the hundreds of characters with zero Google News or Books hits. Abductive (reasoning) 06:09, 7 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) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barracuda atomic[edit]

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

I am nominating this as I have attempted a CSD in the past, but have been told this article is ineligible for a speedy delete, even for a stub article that does not indicates why this bicycle is notable.

Nominating this as individual bicycles are rarely notable unless for some reason, such as retrospective culture or have won a major sporting event, which in that case are highly likely to be custom bikes. In this case of this bicycle is none of these as when have a cheap full suspension bicycle ever became notable. Donnie Park (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete I see no particular evidence of notability myself. I removed the speedy tags because this was not without context, and does not fit the quite narrow confines of WP:CSD#A7. Therefore it should have wider community consensus for deletion. I don't quite agree with "when have a cheap full suspension bicycle ever became notable" -- "Schwinn" is sufficient answer. But that is perhaps covered under "retrospective culture" and is surely a somewhat exceptional case. Unless sources indicate some particular notability for this bike (and there might be printed sources not on the web for all i know) it should probably be deleted. DES (talk) 20:40, 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) 00:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I have also been unable to find that the article has had significant coverage outside of advertising or buyer's opinions on the cycle. No mention of anything exceptional that distinguishes it from other bikes. At this time does assert notability. Calmer Waters 02:23, 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 no consensus. "keep" or "no consensus" would both be valid calls here. I'll pick "nc" so that if someone wants to renominate in good faith, they can do so. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One shot (music video)[edit]

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

Non-notable element of cinematography, complete with an unsourced list of examples. (WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:LISTCRUFT) WossOccurring (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The nominator of this article has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of User:Dalejenkins. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins for details. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:37, 2 January 2010 (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) 00:52, 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. Malformed or not, the original discussion had 2 "keep" !votes. Therefore, I'm going to IAR and treat both discussions as one relisted discussion without any delete arguments aside from the original nom. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wet Dog[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Article had an AfD nomination dated 8 September (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet Dog) which I closed because it was a malformed nomination. Original AfD nomination rationale was as follows: "Nothing actually establishing their notability. has been tagged as such a substanital amount of time — TheBilly(Talk) 09:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)" —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:38, 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) 00:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, according to their website, they've been in Q magazine. There's also some coverage, but it's all in German. They might also arguably meet criteria #6 of WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:02, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  06:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sto k odnomu[edit]

Sto k odnomu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete: non-notable Russian television show, only reference is in Russian, and is to a personal blog Newt (winkle) 18:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put the article into better English (seemed to have been translated by a bad robot). A game show that's been around for 15 years, and survived many switches of channel might be notable, even without any following in English media. Sussexonian (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources found by a Google News archive search in Cyrillic for the program title with the presenter's name.[44] I don't have time at the moment to sort out which ones to add to the article, but I'll try to get round to in in a couple of days. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only two references are to the Russian equivalent of YouTube, and there are no English-language references. This is English Wikipedia. Newt (winkle) 07:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "English" in "English Wikipedia" refers to the language in which the encyclopedia is written, not the language of the sources on which it is based or the nature of the subject matter. I agree that the references currently in the article are unreliable, but many of the sources found by the search that I linked above are reliable, and notability depends on the existence of sources, not their citation. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that you've claimed there are sources, but they are not in the article. The two YouTube-like cites are clearly not WP:RS. I can't tell whether the Cyrillic sites are RS or spam, but I have my doubts as to whether an obscure Russian TV program is notable. Newt (winkle) 17:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the sources are in the article is irrelevant to the notability of the subject. I will get round to adding some to the article, but my Russian is rather rusty (it's about 30 years since I last used it in anger) so it will take me longer than it would if I was working with a language in which I am more proficient. The search results that I linked above include articles about this show in such sources as Российская Газета (Rossiyskaya Gazeta), Комсомольская правда (Komsomolskaya Pravda) and Аргументы и факты (Argumenty i Fakty). What makes you characterise a programme that has aired weekly for fifteen years on major national television channels in a country with a population of over 140 million as "obscure"? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 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, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article "smells" good. If the info is correct then it seems notable enough.Northwestgnome (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Phil Bridger. We wouldn't be having this argument about Jeopardy or Wheel of Fortune.—Chowbok ☠ 09:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This includes a TV guide-type listing of what time it is currently on what channel. violating WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. That could be edited out. But evidence of notability seems lacking. Not every TV program ever shown in any country has some "inherent notability." The two refs are to a Russian version of YouTube and are not reliable sources.Edison (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could you please respond to the discussion above? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentA Google search in a non-English alphabet is no evidence of notability, since few can tell what any of the results say, or if they relate to the article subject. Do, say, three or more of them relate to the specific program, with significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, which goes beyond ads, TV listings, or press releases, and which are not tied to the TV show such as TV channel websites? That would be more convincing than hand-waving claims that "It's notable!" or that it "Smells good," or that someone likes someone else who argued for keeping it. Edison (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have already explained above that many of those sources are focused on the article subject, and have linked to the Wikipedia articles of some of the publications with such coverage so you can check that they are reliable independent sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nonetheless, it continues to have precisely zero reliable source citations in the article. What it might have is another thing entirely. Newt (winkle) 21:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSome of the coverage may be in the publications Phil identified, but that does not prove that it satisfies WP:RS, since it could be a programming listing, an ad, or a press release. That is in fact the case if I run a similar search for a US game show, since it will turn up ads, tv guide listing or press releases in notable US papers and magazines. Stating that a Google search for a topic produces some results from well known publications is not enough to demonstrate notability, without some idea of what those publications actually say. I would like to see 3 or more refs which meet the request in my previous post, to screen out the Google results which do not attest notability. Reliable sources for either a US or a Russian TV program are more likely to come from a news archive search or a book search. If people want us to have articles about TV shows in non-English-speaking countries, they should be prepared to find and translate references from those countries, both to satisfy verifiability and reliable sources. Edison (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The search that I posted above is a news archive search, and I'll repeat, because you don't seem to have taken it in yet, I have read more than three of those search results and they are not programming listings, ads, or press releases, but articles with significant coverage of this show in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So I will also repeat. Please identify which of the reliable and independent sources have significant coverage. I am not denying that they do (my Russian was never as good as your rusty 30 year old Russian, so I cannot prove a negative), but it is up to article supporters to make the case. Mere hand waving, assertion of notability, and insult (as in your "you don't seem to have taken it in yet") are not sufficient. Please identify the specific articles which you feel establish notability. That is a basic requirement for any article. In a comparable Google news archive search for a US tv game show, the first several pages are fansites, blogs, ads for games related to the show, or sites deriving from the tv network or production company. Please help us to separate the wheat from the chaff. Please spare us comments amounting to "Trust me, it's really notable!"Edison (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[45][46][47] Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! We're almost there. Now we need someone who can read the articles Phil cited, and who can explain how each of the three is an independent and reliable source, and that each has significant coverage of the specific subject of the article. Google Translate yields only mangled English, and one of the three is behind paywall, with a $13 fee to view the article. Gogle Translate cannot tell us whether the sites are newspapers or blogs. For a non-English TV show with only non-English references, it is highly desirable to have more than one editor attest to the quality and nature of the references presented to attest notability. Edison (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried Google News archive for the English transliteration of the name and found a Estonian article [48] which Google translates as [49] into mangled English. Part of it may be about the show. Maybe its just about the Estonian version of the show. Edison (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to ru.wiki. I need to see coverage in English-language sources before I'm inclined to believe a topic should be included in the English-language wikipedia. Yilloslime TC 00:38, 7 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) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double Texas Hold'em[edit]

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

lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Only references that have been uncovered to date are press releases or blog entries. Contested prod RadioFan (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like a recently invented commercial game that has not received coverage beyond press releases or very brief repetitions of the rules posted on the inventor site. Previous "references" were a worthless. We don't make articles just because someone invents a game one day. Additionally article created by a single purpose account that almost certainly has a conflict of interest. Maybe someday it will qualify for an article, but as of now does not. 2005 (talk) 00:11, 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) 00:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons explained by the nominator - we need third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete per nom. Yet to make a splash in the poker world. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Generally we don't have an article that just gives the rules of a game, although it does sound like fun.Northwestgnome (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually we do... ie Rules of chess (Category:Game rules). The difference being that no one in their right mind would dispute the notability of chess. Not to mention there are so many sources on the subject it would make your head spin.  ;) JBsupreme (talk) 07:18, 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 no consensus. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KSquirrel[edit]

KSquirrel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(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) 17:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep There's an article in Polish PC World magazine on it here (I've linked to the google translation). Also this Vietnamese page: [50], translation: [51]. Download page at PC World Canada: [52]. Download and description at PC Welt: [53], translation: [54]. TecChannel.de: [55] --JN466 18:02, 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) 00:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'm not sure about the current coverage, or if it really meets the definition of "non-trivial" since they are effectively curt download pages. My feelings on the matter are... ambivalent I guess on this one. JBsupreme (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — ækTalk 02:50, 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) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jetki[edit]

Jetki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(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) 16:53, 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) 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot locate significant coverage for this band. JBsupreme (talk) 00:48, 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) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Lilley[edit]

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

nowhere near notable enough per WP:BIO for sportspeople: an entirely amateur tennis player (of the present day) and lowly ranked at that; purpose of page seems very much to promote, although somewhat subtlely, the company he works for. Mayumashu (talk) 15:44, 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) 00:42, 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) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Space[edit]

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

No apparent notability. A short page on IMDB, but not much detail. No box office figures available, no sourcing available aside from sales and Bittorrent sites. No independent reviews that I can find. —Kww(talk) 23:58, 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) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability, no references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DasallmächtigeJ (talk • contribs) 02:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (A7) No notability and no claim to notability either (at least not by article as it stands now). --A1octopus (talk) 16:48, 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) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Youngblood[edit]

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

This is a contested prod where the reasons given were Non-notable musician. See this Google. The prod was supported by the comment I can't find a reference that he has "5 National Number 1 hits and 9 top 10 singles." Furthermore, there is probably a COI here, as User:Duotonestudios created the article.

Based on this, we clearly need to discuss the article even though the prod can be overturned by request. Since I am simply the restoring admin and have done no due diligence I an offering no comment on the merits of this article. Spartaz Humbug! 09:40, 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) 00:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have never heard of this guy, and if he had so many hits, I wonder why I didn't. And this clearly seems to violate WP:COI. Let's just delete this article and let the well-known Mister Youngblood promote himself elsewhere. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:BOLLOCKS. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable at best, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Hoax. No way anyone could have that many top 10 hits (or even 1 hit) without any news sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 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. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Kupper[edit]

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

Delete this unreferenced BLP article please. This article has been tagged as BLP unreferenced since May 2009 and someone keeps re-introducing the same unsourced material over and over again. While I'm trying to assume good faith, I do have reason to suspect a WP:COI going on here. Google News did reveal a whopping 3 hits for this person [56] but nothing of substance at all. Not even close. JBsupreme (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You're searching the wrong database; a Billboard magazine search returns 109 hits dating back to 1993. Kupper is referred to variously as a "young Turk" and a "studio heavy". I am sure there is something enough in there to source a stub-class encyclopedia entry. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have just added some sources. Please review. Echillwp (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 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) 00:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As well as all the Billboard coverage, he has a section devoted to him in the Rough Guides book House:The Rough Guide [57]. The list of artists that he has recorded with, produced, or remixed is also impressive. I would suggest that this version of the article is restored, and an effort made to source what appears to be a completely true but unsourced version, rather than judging the article based on its current contents.--Michig (talk) 07:45, 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. May be restored (but would need a throrough rewrite) if she becomes notable e.g. as an MP.  Sandstein  07:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Alexander[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:POLITICIAN doesn't consider all mayors to be notable, let alone deputy mayors. Just being selected for a safe seat doesn't qualify there either, so perhaps this could be userfied until the subject is elected to a notable post. MuffledThud (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as although the subject is mentioned in several available news articles, she is only brought up in passing and not as a main focus. Quantumobserver (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plainly a vanity page: "She believes in equality, fairness wants everyone to have equal chances". I could only find a single local newspaper article actually about her. Wikipedia should not fill up with local councillors and PPCs. As for it being a safe seat, who knows with Labour's polling, and it was a Tory seat in 1987. Fences&Windows 00:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An unreferenced vanity page that fails WP:POLITICIAN. If she gets elected at the next General Election, she qualifies. If the Mayor keels over and she gets promoted, she probably qualifies - but not yet. --Saalstin (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- at leat until after the 2010 General Election. She is Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Labour Party for a safe labour seat. This means that after the election, she is likely to becomne notable. If we delete this article now, it will have to be re-created after the election. We can delete it after the election if she loses. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - doesn't appear to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN; wouldn't oppose recreation when/if she meets it in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Snappy (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this person does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN right now. JBsupreme (talk) 07:48, 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. Cirt (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics[edit]

AfDs for this article:
International Journal of Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's been over a year and a half since the last AfD of this non-notable journal, which ended with no consensus. Created by the now indef-blocked User:AiritiPress, the article is, to put it bluntly, spam. No sources for notability. The spammer inserted this journal into List of academic journals and List of scientific journals, and I am sure that other spammers have done so. ‎Abductive (reasoning) 01:28, 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) 00:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to be indexed/reviewed by any indices such as WebOfScience, JCR, MathSciNet, Scopus, etc. I looked around in Worldcat and could not find any libraries subscribing to this journal there. Doing GoogleScholar searching also did not produce any evidence of citability (let alone high citability) of papers published in this journal. So seems to fail WP:Notability (academic journals) on all counts. Nsk92 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the publisher Airiti Press. I am very reluctant to delete an article on a Chinese (or Japanese) journal (or publisher) on the basis of finding no or almost no hits in Western indexes. The Chinese and Japanese have their own indexes for their own publications, and I doubt they index much from the English speaking world. The journal is in Ulrichs, and published by National Chengchi University, a major university. So I'd say it's appropriate to keep the basic information. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 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 by User:Fastily. Non-admin close. Jujutacular T · C 05:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ic mobile music institute[edit]

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

Blatant advertising, unreferenced, non-notable per WP:GROUP, clear WP:COI by creator, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, external links provided are all broken. Speedy delete tag removed by anonymous editor from IP address in Johannesburg. MuffledThud (talk) 00:19, 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 Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Definition of Real[edit]

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

The prod was contested. I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Joe Chill, this is a significant hip-hop artist, several mainstream hits have included samples from his work. If you search for A.D.O.R. you will find many videos etc. I remember being shocked that there wasn't an article on A.D.O.R. a while ago. I think with a bit of help I can have a tidy little article.

I found videos, but videos that people upload do not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whats 'notability' then Joe? You can see he exists, you can see he's an influential. The amount of shit thats on wikipedia, obscure bands etc, shameless self promotion, and your telling me this guy doesn't deserve an article? I can find a dozen articles with less than two paragraphs in them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisomie_21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldbeat). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs)

Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Joe Chill (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fatcud, you may want to read the WP:BAND guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 00:50, 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. SilkTork *YES! 16:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren mckinney[edit]

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

The prod was contested. She fails WP:ENT because she has only one role. Joe Chill (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, probably could have been speedied. Fails WP:ENT and probably violates WP:COI. Article creator's only other edit is a removal of Joe Chill's deletion notice, which to me indicates an obvious bad faith actor. Şłџğģő 00:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It couldn't have been speedied because having a major role in a film is a claim to notability. Joe Chill (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No news coverage or roles since that I could find. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Single significant role, no significant coverage. Jujutacular T · C 05:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular T · C 05:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, would have been a valid A7, but I'll echo everything said above here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Just plain not notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO: WP:ENT Mkdwtalk 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: few reliable sources covering her; most are gossip sites. —EncMstr (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to add. Perhaps not speediable, but a clear delete case. tedder (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A1. No context. and A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content) if possible. Otherwise, delete as NN, lacking RS, V, etc. Relatively few reviews appear to address her performance. Of those that do, ABC Online's At the Movies, for example notes that in the "young inexperienced" cast, her performance stands out as "disappointing."[65] Ouch. Creator would have done better to spare her from this AfD by not contesting the prod. Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article isn't a slam dunk speedy, as there are a lot of sources. The challenge is finding reliable sources. —EncMstr (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite so many sources as that [66]. But indeed, how many are RS, i.e. more than trivial is an open question, though the apparent answer is none. Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 22:03, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_December_30&oldid=1142645295"