Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 9

< 8 December	10 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator in favour of speedy deletion (non-admin closure). JamesBWatson (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jareed brown[edit]

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

Not notable, not accurate, not encyclopedic. ɳoɍɑfʈ^Talk! 14:32, 9 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 What da. This article seems to never have existed.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fields of doctoral studies in United States[edit]

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

No indication of notability of subject. Basically a list of subjects that can be used for doctoral studies -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 1 December 2009 (UTC) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 15:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Lutheran Church (Ellington, Connecticut)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While all churches are spiritually notable, there is nothing to indicate that this should have a page of its own on Wikipedia. WP:WEBHOST pretty well sums it up. Mandsford (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - I can't find anything useful from reliable sources after making a concerted effort to find such sources online. The only relevant references talk about it in context of the historic area of Ellington, Connecticut. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ellington, Connecticut. This is usually the best solution for local facilities. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Ellington, Connecticut. I do not think that this building is sufficiently notable on its own to merit inclusion, due to what appears to be a lack of non-trivial third party coverage on the topic. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 15:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backup Dwarf[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If Joe Chill can't find significant coverage, there isn't significant coverage. Non-notable. Nice name, though, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references. December21st2012Freak (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I only see a few hits on Google, and I don't think any are really related to this software. Thus, I am unconvinced that this subject is the focus of a multitude of non-trivial coverage by reliable third-party sources. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per CSD A7 and WP:SNOW. GARDEN 19:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pandemic (band)[edit]

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

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Joe Chill. Utterly non-notable. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good luck for the future but as of now they haven't made it, not in the media or in terms of notability. -WarthogDemon 03:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find in-depth coverage; appears to fail WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 19:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under criterion A7. --Shirik (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, A7, A7, A7 --Fbifriday (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plain ordinary Delete (IMHO schools and bands are not subject to Speedy A7) - but note they "currently only play at live performances (mainly in Uckfield), but are planning to release an album soon." Thus this band miserably fails WP:BAND. When they tour UK and release an album, I would favor re-creation. Until then, they are just not notable. BTW, Internet searches reveal nothing at all about the band, even after excluding false Ghits. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your argument that bands are not eligible for CSD criterion A7, especially given that {{db-band}} exists just for that purpose, but given that we both agree with delete perhaps this is a discussion for another time/place. --Shirik (talk) 19:26, 12 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. Secret ^account 15:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic frequency pollution[edit]

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

It is a fork, does not have the right title, no sources, and states controversial ideas as established facts Jc3s5h (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Electromagnetic frequency pollution should be deleted for the following reasons:

it is a fork of Electromagnetic radiation and health, and that article does not yet contain sufficient information about the health effects of power-line frequency fields to justify a separate article
there is no source given to indicate "Electromagnetic frequency pollution" is the correct term to use for the subject matter; indeed, that title seems more suitable for an article related to Radio frequency interference
the article has no sources and presents a very controversial and uncertain field of study as if harmful effect of power-line frequency fields were an established fact. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Delete as argued and in addition, the basic physics is all wrong (cell phones, microwaves etc do not have a frequency of 50-60 Hz), no sources, no sources possible, random collection of prejudices, OR, POV etc etc. Sussexonian (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator Jc3s5h (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic is important and is valid to some degree, but, it is sensitive and one may not speculate on it in a way it is done in this article. Materialscientist (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Electromagnetic radiation and health to match Electrosmog. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Area should be covered in existing Electromagnetic radiation and health article. States 50/60 Hz "makes the related electromagnetic radiation (EMR) harmful to us.", without scientific support. In fact References #1 WHO and #3 Health Physics Society (which appear to be the only reliable/science based sources given) appear to debunk the editors claims. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you want to see the Pseudoscience rubbish being put out about "Electromagnetic frequency pollution" follow this link to "Life Energy Solutions"in New Zealand. For a 'mere' $249 I can get "a stunning, easy to wear EMF protective pendant" that also "Balances the energy centers of the body (chakras)."!!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prajay Megapolis[edit]

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

Spammy article about a new township in India. No evidence that it exists, let alone that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find more information about this township at http://www.prajayengineers.com/projects_details.php?cat=Residential&catid=14&pro=Prajay_Megapolis&pid=14&PHPSESSID=e1e1ba3e810c1ae3100924b82a743d25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pals78 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral From a Google search I get the feeling it is still under construction. Once it is finished I think it would be a keep. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It's under construction but it exists. It spread across 22 acres of land at Kukatlapally IX phase, Hyderabad. I am not sure of Wiki policy but I think you can define something that exists in this world. There are so many IT people planning to live in this township so you can find someone is coming to create this page again if you delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.157.231 (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I own my apartment in this township. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.77.176.124 (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's built, then at the very least the article should make that clear. Also, the article is a lot longer than the text at the source mentioned, we need more sources to verify the information from the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been mentioned that this huge mega township is under construction. People can find the model apartments at the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W2earn (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike 22:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apparently a major housing estate, which I suppose is the meaning of "townshi[p" in this context. Under construction is real enough to beworthan article, .But better refs are needed. DGG ( talk ) 14:20, 10 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. Clear consensus to delete. If anyone who wants it userfied or moved to the incubator please leave a note on my talk page. Kevin (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Newmark[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newmark has been an influential figure in Bronx politics for over two decades and has helped politicians in both parties such as former Councilman Michael DeMarco, Councilwoman Madeline Provenzano, Assemblyman Stephen B. Kaufman, Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr.--all Democrats--and State Senator John D. Calandra and State Senator Guy Velella--both Republicans--win election to office. Newmark has been a candidate numerous times as an independent Conservative and as a Republican.

Wikipedia has profiles of unsuccessful candidates for office as well as third party figures.Bronxpolwatcher (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It's a little too early in this article's evolution for me to !vote yet (28 minutes from creation to AfD). To get me to want to keep the article, it will need to do two things

Show how Newmark is influential in Bronx politics. What's his role? Does he run the machine from behind the scenes, give persuasive speeches, or just command a lot of respect from residents? All the article says right now is that he's run for office.
Show that he's gotten significant coverage in reliable sources (see WP:GNG). Right now, the article cites zero sources.

As I said, I'm currently not making a recommendation one way or the other, though I'll make one in a few days. —C.Fred (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your opinion and desire to wait. My purpose was to create the stub article and expand it gradually, which I think will satisfy your two points. I may have started it, but it's not my article. Anyone with knowledge of the NYC/Bronx politics can contribute or someone who does research. Remember the best articles on Wikipedia--whatever they may be--began as a few sentences.Bronxpolwatcher (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. The article has obvious issues, first the lack of references, now the dubious independance and reliability of them. But we don't need to delete the article and scare off the editor. Userfying will allow them to continue work on the article, while keeping the mainspace clean until they've brought it up to snuff. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is to delete the article, I would prefer it be moved to userspace rather than deleted outright. —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator so improvements can be made by multiple editors in one central location. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike 22:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absence of secondary sources providing substantial coverage of Newmark. —C.Fred (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No coverage, fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 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. Secret ^account 15:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pandorapedia[edit]

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

Non-notable, non-existent site —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find really anything that would make this notable.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is not correct in its basic hypothesis - the website indeed does exist. It is as notable as a number of other articles about online encyclopedias that Wikipedia possesses, e.g. this short-lived one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AVATARia (talk • contribs) 22:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. First is that it is not yet existing, it is only on a "test" page. Second, it failed WP:RS where this was supposed to be covered into any news sources, which, we can't find any at least one. Third, it does not attain any notability. Pandorapedia can be considered as another Bulbapedia, that even though Bulbapedia is famous to Pokemon fanatics, it still does not attain any significance to attain spin-out. Most of the time, local wikis or wikis that covers information about a purely small topic comparable to large wikis does not need spin out. Furthermore, as this policy wanted to say about how does a website/wiki to be included in Wikipedia, is that the wiki must (1) be recognized into any printed media, which can be verified through the same newspaper or an online counterpart recognizing, in this case, Pandorapedia; (2) is that it has significant trivial coverage. The first website provided in the external links section is a test page for Pandorapedia, the second one is not yet existing. How come that it has a mentioning that it was "launched" December 9, 2009, if it is only on a temporary domain? We cannot assure that information is reliable, we can't verify that because there aren't news coverage. Finally, (3) the page about Pandorapedia seems to be premature, this also says that it must gain any recognition or an award from an organization or publication. In any of the three cases I mentioned above, the article failed all of them, especially that it failed one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, the RS.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 13:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JL 09. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like a case of WP:CRYSTAL since it is still in testing. I think JL brings up a good point about verifiability. Most of the stuff I am finding on it would not, in my opinion, qualify as a reliable source. Therefore, I do not feel that the subject merits inclusion at this time. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecolig[edit]

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

Disputed prod, seems to be original research. The article does not evidence or assert notability, nor have I found any via the web. There is a paper on the subject Ecolig - A semiotic protocol that uses neuroheadsets and CP-Nets; one of the authors of that paper appears to be the author of this article. The article may have been created in order to give greater credence to the paper. The article may consist of the contents of the paper for all I know, I haven't seen it. pablo_hablo. 22:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 22:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest troubling. I would say delete because of that. Qwerty786 (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreating in the future. Like Pablo, I can find only one article mentioning the concept. (Not to be confused with EcoLig, which appears to be either a bacterium or a protein produced by bacteria.) That paper is not identical to the Wikipedia article, but it is co-authored by Paulo Miguel, perhaps the same person who created the page. This bumps up uncomfortably against WP:COI, WP:OR, and possibly WP:FRINGE. At any rate, it is not currently notable. Cnilep (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the concept is new but very useful concerning the technologies being developed around the interaction between human and computers. The main reason for not finding more information about it, in my opinion, is probably the fact that the concept is being stablished recently —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo im (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) — Rodrigo im (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Not currently notable; neologism, borderline WP:OR. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 05:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is so confused as to defy any reasonable attempt to make sense of it, a typical blend of cod philosophy and cyber-utopianism: a communication protocol that lies at the study of both communication and signification in the human and environment through electronic world. Supported by concepts as Umwelt from Uexküll theorised that organisms can have different "Umwelteen", even though they share the same environment. The human perception, as part of the cognition process, can use the third wave of Human-Computer Interface, those devices can use high-spatial density array EEG, MEG and fMRI, for example, or even other signal processing techniques... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading it carefully, I have come to the conclusion that a) it's badly written b) it does not seem to be notable c) it's research that has not seen enough references to be important enough to be in the wikipedia d) it doesn't seem to be very much point to have here right now- it's basic research that is unlikely to be read by the users of the wikipedia.- Wolfkeeper 06:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, it is a great work. All objections should be done in order to improve it and really add some value to Wikipedia project. A technical background can help someone to understand it deeply. By the way, a professional comment about notability should explain the criteria. An important Wikipedia Project contribution is the ability to shows up new terminologies and technologies in Internet speed. The Semiotic concepts and Artificial Intelligence has been strongly improved with several innovations in the Human Computer Interaction. This article describes the concepts of a new protocol to improve the human computer communication, what means a break through with old paradigms as mouses, displays and keyboards, as well as wheels steering car and other mechanical tools. Therefore I strongly recommend keep this amazing contribution to Wikipedia project. Samiplis (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)— Samiplis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Completey unsourced, can't even verify that the word/concept exists. --MelanieN (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Keep Science has to be openmind; Ecolig seems to be a new approach for the old HMI (human-machine-interface) questions, that shall be kept in a wide discussion forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arevian (talk • contribs) 11:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC) — Arevian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as G11 (blatant advertising). Hut 8.5 11:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyebay[edit]

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

Article reads as an advertisement and is written by one of the founders of the company. It has been repeated recreated after being speedy deleted and the the speedy tag removed by the creator and an anon IP that has only made 3 edits all to this article. The article creator has ignored the instructions in the speedy notice about using hangon templates. noq (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article's subject also fails WP:N as it hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Them From Space 20:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, a non-notable student company and blatant promotion. Article has been speedied and re-created 3 times now, just delete this and salt it. A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as it would be if the author didn't keep removing the tags. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:37, 9 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. Secret ^account 14:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dilam[edit]

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

Obvious autobiography, no assertion of notability. Google search reveals only Facebook and Linkedin profiles. Lithoderm 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Lithoderm 20:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds of WP:autobiography, but the article also fails WP:GNG. PDCook (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn...Modernist (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this artist. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing I can find would allow her to meet WP:ARTIST, thus, in my opinion, she does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and does not merit inclusion. Her "make up on canvas" technique merits an impressive 2 Google hits, 1 of which is the article itself. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Wilkinson (U.S. politician)[edit]

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

~~Non-~~notable ~~midlevel~~ political functionary and businessman Orange Mike | Talk 20:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep - I have concluded that I was misled by the fluffy nature of what was once in the article, and that a good case can be made for keeping this. Can somebody close it? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep neutral - weak notability , article could easily be recreated... there hasn't been a lot invested in it, and it was a vandalmagnet. Unsourced BLP... these worry me.- Sinneed 20:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Changing to Keep... my brain caught up... my personal feeling is that there are certain things that "count" for notability... having bio at the White House page is one. Having Oprah invite you as a guest is another. These, to me, indicate that the individual has enough impact on our society to be notable in the sense I have from WP.- Sinneed 22:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this person. Nothing to be gained here and since this guy is a minor figure there is not reason to keep a page up that keeps getting vandalized. Not in the spirit of wikipedia to have that happen. No reason for this guy to have a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qazwsx54321 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: some notability as per [1], but I have no interest in this subject. As it stands the artcile should be deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, established as playing reasonably significant roles in important events [2]. Note, for example, this Google book hit, indicating he played an important role in organizing the Maliki government in Iraq, as well as the description of his background. [3] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this page. This person is innocent and keeps getting attacked and vandalized on this page. So please delete it. This person is a minor figure who shouldn't have to put up with daily vandalism and attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qazwsx54321 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Hullabaloo and Sineed.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to "Jim Wilkinson (presidential advisor)". I hate the blanket label "politician" when its used for an officeholder, whether a President or a city council employee alike. As I understand it, there are only two "Deputy National Security Advisors", the second one being designated for strategic communications, and we have a page for Deputy National Security Advisor. There should be a page for the other position, and until then, Mr. Wilkinson was more than a mid-level bureaucrat or a minor figure. Mandsford (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's definitely a public figure, so there's no way he's 'marginally notable', after serving in the Bush Adminstration he's received some coverage in the business press for his role at the Brunswick Group.[4] He wants this entry deleted (see Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Personal_Attacks), but I don't think we need to do so as long as we prevent attack material. I removed the link to Sourcewatch as that is not a reliable source. Fences&Windows 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable both as an advisor and as a hottie. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's sufficiently notable. BLP doesn't permit people to have their biographies taken down. ~~That said, I'm going to go request semiprotection for it.~~ - on further review, it looks like the attack is coming from a single editor. I've watchlisted the page. Ray^Talk 01:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's held several positions of influence in the US government, thus is notable. The stub needs semi-protection and a clean-up, but he's forfeited total privacy. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has enough media coverage, I'm afraid. Vartanza (talk) 16:19, 13 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/keep. Not much else needs to be said, thanks for updating WP:ORG. tedder (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Creek High School[edit]

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

Per WP:ORG, this school is not notable. ɳoɍɑfʈ^Talk! 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is generally argued and overall community consensus that high school pages should be kept as they generally have verifiable and notable content, most specifically related to sports teams. --Shirik (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but shouldn't that be reflected in WP:ORG so that editors know? I mean, if consensus is established to the point that it becomes a guideline, then the guideline should be written somewhere, right? ɳoɍɑfʈ^Talk! 20:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, speedy close. As Shirik accurately points out, there's an established consensus, and the nominator has given no reason why an exception would be appropriate here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research on the consensus mentioned above, and found where it was written. I've updated Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations to reflect what I've learned about the consensus. Hopefully this will reduce the number of high schools being nominated. Admin, if I can withdraw the nomination, let's bring it to a speedy close. This has resulted in a wikipedia guideline being improved, so I thank everyone for bringing their knowledge to bear. ɳoɍɑfʈ^Talk! 21:02, 9 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. Secret ^account 14:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn D. Moore[edit]

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

Bio for a "small time college big time athlete" (non-notable) football player. Previously A7'ed, author re-created the article and added more grandiose claims. Proposed deletion tags added by another editor to the recreated article were removed by an IP address. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played in a fully professional league or equivalent, fails WP:N as there doesn't appear to be coverage in non-trivial third party sources. I wasn't able to validate any of the awards or honors he has received. 2 says you, says two 19:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Success if any appears to be at the high school level. CitiCat^♫ 19:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Non-notable person, this user also added this "player" to the list of 2010 NFL Draft players who declared for the draft with a reference that just copied Golden Tate's reference in which "Shawn D. Moore" was not to be found. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The IP who removed the PROD tag is obviously the creator of the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE; which was my prod rationale as well. Them From Space 21:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable. Arkansas Baptist College (where Moore apparently plays) is not at the top-level of college football, and I doubt reliable sources exist on him. I searched quickly on Google News for him, and the only Shawn Moore I found mentioned was a former Virginia quarterback, not the player in question. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

shawn d. moore went to a small college in arkansas baptist and declaring for the draft he is not a player that went to a D1 school but very much so a D1 athlete if you google him type in shawn D. moore and you will find him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.39.215 (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why when I type his name into google do I primarily get LinkedIn entries that are about an unrelated businessman with the same name? 2 says you, says two 17:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you type in shawn d. moore nfl at google you will see his name and will say shawn moore attended click on there and read the rest like I said before he went to a small college but a big time athlete stop hating on him he is working hard like all the rest of the athletes trying to make it to the big time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.39.215 (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - totally non-notable, doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. This is promotional and non-encyclopedic. Maybe if he does entry the draft and does get selected it might merit an article eventually, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no this player is just like any other college player that has articles on him I have told you where you can find his information and there is a picture on this article I strongly disagree with the deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.39.215 (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DONT DELETE - keep this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.39.215 (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just because he exists and just because information exists on him does not mean he is notable. In order to have an article on Wikipedia, it must meet our notability guidelines. Unfortunately, this player does not. The article admits that he played at a "small college," which differentiates him from someone who plays at a big school, in that he is not playing at the highest level of the sport. This is not to say, however, that he will never be notable. He could very well, as you say, get drafted and become a major star (I wish him the best). However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it is not our job to debate whether or not he will someday become notable. We can only decide right now, based on the information we currently have. Currently, he has done nothing to merit inclusion, since he fails WP:ATHLETE. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 14:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hooker (Kent cricketer)[edit]

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

An unknown cricketeer barely mentioned in some cricket archives with scant info and unknown achievements Mukadderat (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The subject was a first-class cricketer and as such meets the criteria laid down by WP:CRIN and thereby WP:ATHLETE. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ an odd case - there may be an indication that this individual could have satisfied notability guidelines, but it seems unlikely that references could be found that prove it (One of the refs listed in the article is an internal wiki-link). There would have to be some sort of reliable source that gives some meaningful information before this article would be acceptable. CitiCat^♫ 06:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As with the other cricket article, what reference is an "internal wiki-link"? And again, the two sources quoted are impeccable (Haygarth) and reliable (CricketArchive). Your comments seem to relate to another topic altogether. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My error, I was looking at the link to his Wikipedia page in the references, and overlooked the remainder of the citation. To clarify my position, if there were enough information to determine who the individual is if you wished to research the topic, I would vote keep, but I feel that as is the article is no better than writing an article entitled Person who played cricket for Kent in 1795. CitiCat^♫ 00:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I see more has been found on the individual, I now agree with Keep CitiCat^♫ 00:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRIN. Harrias (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This man played major cricket - the clincher for articles of players who played between 1697 and 1800. Bobo . 08:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRIN. I shall have a go at improving this article. SGGH ^ping! 09:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 20:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets the Cricket project's requirements for notability by playing first class cricket. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drew (Kent cricketer)[edit]

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

An unknown amateur cricketeer barely mentioned in some cricket archives with scant info and unknown achievements Mukadderat (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The subject was a first-class cricketer and as such meets the criteria laid down by WP:CRIN and thereby WP:ATHLETE. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ an odd case - there may be an indication that this individual could have satisfied notability guidelines, but it seems unlikely that references could be found that prove it (One of the refs listed in the article is an internal wiki-link). There would have to be some sort of reliable source that gives some meaningful information before this article would be acceptable. CitiCat^♫ 06:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are not making sense. Which reference is "an internal wiki-link"? The sources stated are both reliable, especially Haygarth who is the most reputable source of all for 18th century cricket. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My error, I was looking at the link to his Wikipedia page in the references, and overlooked the remainder of the citation. To clarify my position, if there were enough information to determine who the individual is if you wished to research the topic, I would vote keep, but I feel that as is the article is no better than writing an article entitled Person who played cricket for Kent in 1795. CitiCat^♫ 00:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the article is a WP:STUB because we have have only found a limited amount of data so far. If and when someone finds more, the content will be expanded. The important point is that he was a first-class cricketer and therefore he meets the criteria for WP:Notability as laid down in WP:CRIN and WP:ATHLETE. The scale of the article at present is immaterial. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no argument over notability, however an article still has to have meaningful content. An article that says "A man with the last name Drew played cricket for Kent in 1795" does not really tell you anything of interest. I see there is a bit more information now, and hopefully the potential for further expansion. CitiCat^♫ 05:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRIN. Harrias (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This man played major cricket - the clincher for articles of players who played between 1697 and 1800. Bobo . 08:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a poor article, however the subject is notable per WP:CRIN. I'll take a stab at improving it. SGGH ^ping! 09:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for doing the match-by-match coverage which is a good idea for a small stub like this. However, a lot of extra links were needed which I've now supplied. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets the Cricket project's requirements for notability per WP:CRIN. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:45, 13 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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown (Capital MetroRail station)[edit]

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

These articles do not meet notability criteria. They are each individual stations for the yet-to-be-opened passenger rail line in Austin, Texas. The stations are not yet open, and even if they are I doubt they are of more than local interest, if that. There has not been significant coverage of these in independent sources, meaning they fail the GNG. Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep all. Verifiable place of common public interest. "Local interest" is quite OK for wikipedia. At worst, they may be merged into the rail line, but keeping them separate does no harm either: wikipedia is not paper. Mukadderat (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although they may be verifiable, they do not meet WP:N; much verifiable information is excluded from having an individual article on WP because it is not notable under our definition. Karanacs (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wikipedia is not a guidebook. An article for the system, or maybe one for each major line would be valid, but each individual is not notable. Someidiot (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all', per User:Mukadderat. ----DanTD (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. I can't really say much more than what User:Someidiot has said already. --Shirik (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all per the comments below, of which I was originally unaware. Lesson learned. --Shirik (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. There seems to be an established consensus about such articles for major transit systems, and I see nothing to be gained by reopening such discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - There is an established consensus that all rail transit stations are notable. Just by government documents alone that are required on projects of this scale make these stations pass WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Government documents wouldn't be independent sources - most are required to get the line built. Our inclusion criteria require that other sources think its important enough to write about - not just the (partial) funding or regulatory source. Karanacs (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per pre-established consensus on the inherent notability of rail stations. oknazevad (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Oakshade. Mackensen (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed rail stations don't normally cut the mustard in terms of notability, planned stations are normally only notable in the context of the line/extension/system they are part of (which depends largely on the size of the system) while the plans are in flux. They are certainly individually notable when construction is complete, but when the transition happens is less clear. It is not immediately obvious from the articles what state the stations are in, and there certainly isn't much that is said about them at the moment (I don't know if that is because nothing much more can be said at the moment or whether the articles just aren't particularly complete). A merger into one article would, at present, be perfectly appropriate but it would almost certainly be split again later when they open and more can be said about them - if this is imminent there is no point in merging, but if it is years away then it definitely is (the main article says "postponed indefinitely" so it's probably between the two) So, merge all into one article or keep all. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record this image of one of the stations doesn't exactly convince me that these station articles violate WP:CRYSTAL. ----DanTD (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please point me to the "established consensus"? Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, Subway and railway lines are acceptable, but individual stations are questionable. . Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All AfDs of rail stations have ended in "Keep." The only exceptions being proposed ones.--Oakshade (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging from what I've read, this is more than just proposed. It's under construction. Orlando's SunRail project isn't even under construction yet, and that article makes it seem like the project is inevitable. ----DanTD (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Melungeons[edit]

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

This article should really be deleted. Not cited, entierly speculative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.63.60 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm good-faith submitting this AFD for the IP. tedder (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreation based on reliable sources. Mukadderat (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced list of "possible Melungeons" (I like that Abe Lincoln and Elvis Presley are on the list, with no reference whatsoever). I've never met an impossible Melungeon, but I hear that they complain all the time and there's just no pleasing them. Mandsford (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, I'd recommend prosifying and posting to Talk:Melungeon and giving them the opportunity to source and merge as prose (not a list) into that article. Source for Lisa Alther is right in her article. Source for Lincoln is in his mother's Nancy Todd. WP:BEFORE notes such things as "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing" and "Consider turning the page into a useful redirect or proposing it be merged" and "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, try to confirm that such sources don't exist." This shouldn't've had to come to AfD. Шизомби (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yosaky[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. No evidence Yosaky exists, let alone is notable. Dbratland (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no evidence neither for "Yosaky" nor possible typo/variant "Yosaku" to associate with any wheels. Deleted in de:wikipedia already. Mukadderat (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly thought an admin had removed yesterday's speedy deletion template. Actually Baffle gab1978 (talk · contribs) added {{hangon}} on behalf of 113.111.44.141 (talk · contribs), who then deleted the speedy template, twice. See the history. I don't know how to sort it all out now.--Dbratland (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability and clearly a promotional effort. Haakon (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty clear- advertising, nonnotable, possible hoax, etc. tedder (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising; non-notable. --Glenfarclas (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have buy one Yosaky Quad about two or three years ago.But i can't take out any evidence now.Because i resell it as a second hand quad long ago.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.68.133.126 (talk • contribs)

I created this page because i saw this when i was travelling in France.But i don't know this may lead to such an argument.I appologize.Sakkie1986 (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely fails WP:CORP. I can't find any news articles online, and nothing online about a "Yosaky Quad". Bearian (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grublits[edit]

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

WP:NN product. Unable to find any references other than twitter, download site, domain name registration, etc. Toddst1 (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no signs of notability. Haakon (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and you aren't likely to find any, either. As the template says - Stable release In development. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, also noting the probable COI of the creator. Them From Space 22:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage or sources, and the official website is 403 Forbidden. As noted above, there is no actual product either. Hard to be notable when you don't exist. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Or "nomination withdrawn". Pick one. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KSM (band)[edit]

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

Deprodded. No references, notability questionable at best. delldot ∇. 16:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely needs a lot more references. However [5] is interesting and leads me to believe the note of the song hitting 145 on the charts is actually true. If someone can find a source for that, then I would vote keep. The only thing stopping me right now is that I can't verify that it really hit 145 (I tried searching for a while but got nowhere -- this may honestly be an indication). --Shirik (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep: Meets criteria 1&2(if chart pos is right) of WP:BAND. Album reviewed by Allmusic and Billboard. Mattg82 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Allmusic bio and review, Billboard, and these: [6], [7], [8] should be sufficient to support a short article.--Michig (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Enough coverage exists to satisfy WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 20:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Michig. Agree about wp:before. Suggest that the nom agrees to it being kept, so we don't have more editors wasting time on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, nom withdrawn. I urge folks to add the refs they found to the article, it's still completely referenceless. delldot ∇. 20:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azania Committee[edit]

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

Non notable political organization; can't find anything in google news archive Mattg82 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, nothing to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete per google news failure. Polarpanda (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any evidence that it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial articles from reliable sources. Thus, I do not think it merits inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panthera Corporation[edit]

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

organization of questionable notability, part of a series of articles created by this same editor and his obvious sockpuppet WuhWuzDat 15:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 16:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the company as been mentioned in a number of 3rd party references. I would like to see more where the company is the subject of the article, not a specific project or collaboration. RadioFan (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Panthera is in fact the subject of most of the sources cited in the article. When an article is referenced in this way then is unhelpful for deletion nominators and their supporters to claim unnotability without explaining what is wrong with the sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. It may have started out as spam, but this is a notable charity. I've heard of it in any case. There are reliable soruces cited in the stub already, and more can be found easily online, see [9]. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem solid enough to establish notability, tone is reasonably encyclopedic. --MelanieN (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Electrum Group[edit]

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

organization of questionable notability, part of a series of articles created by this same editor and his obvious sockpuppet WuhWuzDat 15:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable company being spammed by suspected sockmaster. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 15:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Haakon (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable according to cited references or Google search. --MelanieN (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tigris Financial Group Ltd.[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No significant coverage in secondary sources. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 15:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Organization of questionable notability, part of a series of articles created by this same editor and his obvious sockpuppet. WuhWuzDat 15:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wuwuzdat. --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not supported by cited sources or Google search. --MelanieN (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Fixed typo ("Delete" vs "Deletre") for !vote purposes. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 08:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devakarma[edit]

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

Can't vverify this; google hits seem to be about somehting else Polarpanda (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Wrong name. Name of architect of gods is Vishwakarma. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all searches indicate that the statement of the article is false. Mangoe (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here Winners[edit]

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

Article speedied twice, once as a test page, and once previously under A10. Third speedy when the page was recreated minutes later was declined under suggestion of formal AfD. Article does not add anything to the page that already exists (this one), and the information in this new article is the coloured bits in the tables under the "Series" heading--which makes it seem almost redundant to merge it. Tehae (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tehae (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, it's much more convenient than scrolling through the main page. Polarpanda (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liking it is not a valid reason for keeping. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I completely agree with the nom: it's all in the I'm a "Celeb" page (the quote is mine), so is completely redundant (and a merge is also pointless, as it doesn't add anything bar pretty colours). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant. Not enough info for a separate article. --skew-t (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nicely coloured, but duplication of existing information. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 10 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. Secret ^account 14:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Moore[edit]

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this pornographic actress. Joe Chill (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: Appropriate references could be found out for the actor, Also since actor belongs to Genre pornographic actress significant coverage is optimum ( Abu Torsam 11:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet current notability requirements. If that changes, we can always recreate... Tabercil (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Griswold (Singer-Songwriter)[edit]

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

I am nominating this article because I do not believe it meets the notability guidelines as specified in WP:BAND. It contains extremely detailed coverage of the subject's life, yet falls short on mentioning any notability on the subject's significance as a musician (the lead in states that the subject is an 'American singer-songwriter'. Furthermore, as indicated by a tag already placed on the article, the article may have WP:COI and WP:NPOV issues as it seems to be an autobiography based on the creators username (user:grismj). Aka042 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be self published. Only studio album on CD Baby, released by Mg Music group (=Matthew Griswold Music). No significant independent coverage. Seems autobiographical. --skew-t (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding in-depth coverage for this singer-songwriter; does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 23:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nursing in pakistan[edit]

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

WP:OR. Ironholds (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It only takes a second or two to click on the Google Scholar and Google Books links above which show us that this is a topic that has been subject to plenty of previous research, so the topic itself is not original research. Issues with the article content can be dealt with by normal editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appropriate topic for inclusion. There are plenty of similar articles. See Category:Nursing by country (I would have used an internal link, but I don't know how to link to categories).

I'm sure references could be found to improve it. Article isn't very good in it's present state, but it needs editing, not deletion, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just put a colon at the start of the link, like this: Category:Nursing by country. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I agree that the topic is not original research, I see too many POV problems in the article. Removing them would leave us with a contentless stub; it's better to start over. I quote: " Nursing is important in every part of the world. In the countries like Pakistan special focus and attention has been provided on the health sector. [Pakistan nursing council]Pakistan nursing council always acts responsibly and professionally wherever the matter of health and medicine occurs." and "Pakistan’s government is striving hard to improve the medical and health care services in the country. Many possible measures have also been taken. There is a need of more nursing schools in Pakistan to ensure the quality nursing care."- Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep and rescue. This is yet another example of violations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:BEFORE. I am certian that this can be rescued quite easily, with a barely minimal effort. I've started fixing it a bit. Literally thousands of reliable sources are available online with very simple searchs. Take a look at this, that or yonder. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If keep, move to Nursing in Pakistan. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article discusses healthcare and is clearly encyclopedic. Strong keep or merge into Healthcare in Pakistan article. As for POV, hell most articles are threatened with POV and OR. We just find reliable sources and expand the articles not nuking the entire thing. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic, needs some rewrite, but this is how newcomers write articles, and WP needs to encourage them. Some refs have been added. Novickas (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, this is a notable topic, with plenty of coverage easily found on the topic. Topics aren't suppose to be perfect at the time of their creation. Things are worked on over time, and even then, there will always be someone out there who doesn't like the quality level. Not a reason to destroy what others have labored to create. Dream Focus 00:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per db-author. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theroom35[edit]

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

I declined the speedy G11 myself, as I don't quite see it as blatant spamming, but I feel, due to lack of reliable sources establishing why this may be notable (after doing a quick look at a couple of engines of course), I think a deletion discussion is in order here. MuZemike 20:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Muzemike,
Thank you very much for the time you took to revise this discussion and for all your explanations.

I have read all the different links to the pages about creation/deletion of articles that you kindly attached to your explanations and I would like to share with you why, nevertheless, I support this article meets Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion.

As I already had the opportunity to state so to a Wikipedian more experienced than me who warned me about this article (GSD 11), I thoroughly understand the need to regulate the creation of new articles. In this frame, notability and reliable sources constitute of course important criteria. Yet, to me, the way used to verify this notability might not be completely relevant to the subject covered in this article, whose place is, I think, in Wikipedia.

I wrote this article precisely because I consider Wikipedia as the closest model to an ideal encyclopedia.
I wrote this article because Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia that enables immediate access to knowledge without waiting for the next edition of a book or the referencing of other sources in search engines
I wrote this article because Wikipedia has the ability to work at variable scales: Wikipedia articles do not only reflect the most significant achievements of the human being but also its more modest attempts.
I wrote this article because my ground experience as a writer combined with my attentive experience as a Wikipedia reader shows me that its sphere of interest is permanently growing and that many people – but, indeed, not everybody – expect to find this article on Wikipedia.
I wrote this article because this collaborative encyclopedia gives access to encyclopedic information (neutral, objective, descriptive, enlightening...) about a subject without waiting for this subject to be of universal interest.
I wrote this article because I think Wikipedia offers a unique opportunity to anyone convinced that he or she can bring something to the common edifice to do so.
I wrote this article because I think the internet is not just a place to state one’s own point of view but, above all, a project where anyone who wants to make the mankind brighter has the ability to do it.
I wrote this article because I am convinced its place is in Wikipedia and nowhere else.

Of course, a search on engines usually enables to evaluate the level of notability of a universal subject that is eligible for a article on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I tend to support that this logic can show limits when an encyclopedic subject is not relayed by internet-format sources. In this case it might be reducing to restrict oneself to reliable sources available online.

Regarding the everyday-growing attention generated within my community – whose information sources do not necessarily stem from the Web at the time being – and out of it, I think that this article contributes to an enlightening effort about this project.

For my first article created on Wikipedia, I did my best to keep its ton and content neutral, trying this way to bring an unbiased piece of information and an impartial synthesis of what is being written or said by people aware of this project.

Anyway, I want to thank you again for having launched this discussion. I feel confident this will enable a collaborative improvement of this article which, I believe, is in line with Wikipedia’s genuine spirit.

--Roger Elie (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When you look through the apparently impressive "references", one thing becomes apparent. They're all about Facebook, or Twitter, or "cloud computing" (now there's a red flag phrase) and other things this website wants to analogize itself to. None of them are about "Theroom35". This is a non-notable web startup. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis article contains no information on the subject from outside sources, thus none of the content regarding the subject can be confirmed per WP:Verifiable. The notable sources listed in the article do not refer to the subject but rather to other, notable groups and organizations. Whatever the creator's intent in producing the article might be, consensus on this project has concluded that content must be reliable to be encyclopedic, and if there are no 3rd-party sources to provide information, then there is no way to know if the information is credible. If it becomes common procedure to allow content without requiring proper sourcing, then the credibility of the entire project suffers. Mrathel (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convinced I have been convinced by your points. Thank you very much for your time and explanation. As creator of this article I will ask for its speedy deletion and work on more notable subjects. --Roger Elie (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Huskies starting quarterbacks[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list of statistics. WP:NOT#STATS Grsz¹¹ 01:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Huskies starting widereceiver.

Please provide some additional guidance, as every NFL team has this type of page as well as many (and a growing number of) college football programs. Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_Sooners_starting_quarterbacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Detroit_Lions_starting_quarterbacks

Ideas for improvement including context for achievements of significant players and associated teams (bowl game participation, final rankings, etc).Pasadena91 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Showing how many of their starting quarterbacks ended up in the NFL, is something of encyclopedic value. It counts as an almanac, one of the things Wikipedia wishes to be. WP:ALMANAC Dream Focus 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with the list of Huskies' rushing leaders, I don't like the precedent of having a page for every position of every sports team that ever played -- whether its the stats of the UW quarterbacks, or Chicago Cubs shortstops, New York Giants' punters, etc. Other than creating a fansite of one's own, I don't see the purpose of having this type of page. This is WP:NOTSTAT, not much more than a listing of passing statistics with no context. Mandsford (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such a list does not need to exist for every position or school. But, in this case, the sheer number of NFL players from one position or one school is of value. Jeff (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Jeff. Rlendog (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#STATS sets a poor precedent. Secret ^account 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per WP:NOT#STATs, "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". While the current article has insufficient text, there is plenty of scope to write reliably sourced text about the Huskies' starting QBs. So WP:NOT#STATS is a reason to expand/improve the article, not delete it. Rlendog (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did not notice originally that List of Detroit Lions starting quarterbacks was included here. That is particularly distrubing, since virtually every NFL team has such a list and the universe of NFL teams is much smaller than for college teams. Furthermore, at least one such list, List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks, is a featured list, meaning there is consensus that the list meets all Wikipedia content guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the more notable NFL level. Grsz¹¹ 16:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that NFL is "more notable", but not sure college football is non-notable. That said, my comment was in response to List of Detroit Lions starting quarterbacks being included here, although rereading, that wasn't part of the nom, but a comment by another editor. Rlendog (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now, and made a break to avoid further confusion. Grsz¹¹ 21:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - Author request Ϣere SpielChequers 12:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Assessment vs. Self-Enhancement[edit]

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

This has been deleted underCSD:A10 as a blatant fork of self-assessment and self-enhancement. But since the author persists, I will allow him an AfD. Student essay and fork. (And it might be useful for someone to check through Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Self and Identity for similar forks.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as someone's essay. Material might be used elsewhere to the degree it isn't OR. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, creator blanked it. Anna Lincoln 11:12, 11 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. Secret ^account 14:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Mansfield biographical timeline[edit]

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

Absurd article that mirrors data from the Jayne Mansfield filmography against irrelevant trivia relating to others films -- including The Pawnbroker and 2001: A Space Odyssey -- that have absolutely no connection to Mansfield. There is nothing to redirect -- anyone looking for information on this actress will go directly to the biographical Jayne Mansfield article and not type out "Jayne Mansfield biographical timeline." Warrah (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is based upon content that is OR to say the least, picking and choosing which facts from "Sex and Censorship" and which aspects of the "Film Industry" somehow relate to the subject at hand. It is OR to even have the three right columns on the chart without sourcing the connection. There is nothing here that suggests it is notable enough to be separate from the Jayne Mansfield article. Mrathel (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restating If not OR, which I think is inherent in suggesting that these events are linked, it is at least "Connective Trivia". But the point is that you can't have an article with a sole purpose of showing that one event in a year, say 1960, happened at the same time as another event in 1960. That is understood by anyone who understands the concept of dates. Without text describing why these are linked, the reader has to take the word of the person creating the chart that there is a valid connection. I tried to view the sources, the first two appeared dead, but I saw nothing that would fix the overall issue by showing that outside research has been done to prove a real connection between the subject of the article and the choice of facts to connect to her. Mrathel (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OR? Did you even check the sources given? No. Obviously you didn't. No connection to Jayne Mansfield? This almost exactly is what they said about Jayne Mansfield in popular culture. But, on that occasion I had some time on hand to show how invalid the argument was. Content forking is a perfectly good way to develop the Wikipedia. But, the collaboration that we call Wikipedia has degraded so much that people collaborate only to destroy nowadays, instead of trying to create or develop. Anyways, go ahead and do whatever you deem fit. I have userified the article. So that when I have some more time I can come back to work on it and make it AfD-proof. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Jayne Mansfield filmography. Entertainment articles, like sports articles, have a lower bar when it comes to original research, but even under that double standard, this should list available sources. Mandsford (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - last I checked, WP:NOT was still policy. We have her biography; we have her filmography; that should do. This sort of experiment showing how someone's life was going on simultaneously with events that were wholly unrelated (and yes, they are; do review WP:SYNTH), and condensing it to give one Wikipedian's view of what "really" matters about it, is not something we do around here. As to your theory about content forking being "perfectly good": long-established consensus disagrees. And note that two of your links are dead, two are for self-published sites (Wikipedia relies on reliable, third-party published sources, in case you were unaware); and one is to some TV programme (see above). Let's just stop this while we're ahead. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Men of Christmas[edit]

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

Very recent movie. No evidence of notability, indeed no evidence at all. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep with serious clean up could find no significant coverage of this film at all, other than the reprints of Lifetime's initial press release. Despite its starring a "Tony Award winner and Emmy nominee", as they state, no one seems to have noticed it at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep per below and goes to drink more coffee as my Google-fu failed me today. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]. All found on the first two pages of a Google search. Joe Chill (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Chill. Based on the amount of reviews by different people listed, they clearly noticed thus making this pass WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the references found by Joe Chill have been incorporated into the article, meets WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage of this. Dream Focus 19:43, 13 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) 13:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Patrick[edit]

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

Prodded with rationale Player who fails WP:ATHLETE by never having played at a fully-pro level, no sources to suggest general notability, or indeed to suggest the person exists. Prod endorsed with comment that date of joining a club postdated that club folding. Anon editor changed date and removed prod. Struway2 (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played football at a fully professional level, no sources found to pass GNG either. In fact I'm struggling to find anything to prove this kid even exists - see for example Google search on "Ashley Patrick" "Blue Star" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible hoax; even if he does exist, he certainly isn't notable. Giant Snowman 13:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per GiantSnowman. Kosack (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is it hard to make a case for this article, the club he is supposed to play for ceased operating in June 2009--Egghead06 (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a Google search for ""Ashley Patrick" Chesterfield" only returned Wikipedia and mirrors with any reference to this Ashley Patrick. Inclined to believe this is a hoax. Article tagged as hoax. And how is "cultured" relevant anyway? DarkAudit (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if he does exist, the best level the article says he's made is the fourth level on the English Football pyramid. Not enough for WP:ATHLETE Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, as Football League Two, the fourth level of English football, is a fully professional league, it is in fact enough for WP:ATHLETE. However, this player (if he even exists) never played at that level -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops. I thought the fourth level was semi-pro. My bad. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's why I did that Google search. Since there's no evidence that he was ever actually a member of the Chesterfield squad, their standing in the league structure is not a bar to the swift deletion of this article. DarkAudit (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if he does exsist he easily fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Steve-Ho (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted, it is either a hoax or the subject clearly does not pass WP:ATHLETE. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listverse[edit]

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

This is a website with two minor controversies and one book. It is largely sourced to itself or the site principal's website. The article appears to be here to promote the author's book. ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This site fails WP:WEB. Angryapathy (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The site is cited in a number of books (this can be verified by searching at Amazon.) It has been cited in a variety of newspapers. It was featured in the BBC Click television program and has been featured on a number of US radio stations. The article isn't there to promote the book - it is there so that people who read the book can find more information about the site. It does meet the criteria for WP:WEB under category 1: Basis for Foxnews Article dated Jan 29, 2008. Basis for New Zealand Herald article dated Jan 7, 2008. Cited on page 313 of In Search of Time: The Science of a Curious Dimension, cited on page 9 of Season One: Episodes 27-39: Participant's Guide, cited on page 14 of The Sustainable Network: The Accidental Answer for a Troubled Planet, cited on page 302 of Nerds on Wall Street: Math, Machines and Wired Markets, cited on page 250 of The Great Science Fiction Trivia Quiz Book!: Trivia Questions From The World Of Sci-Fi In The Visual Media. All of these books and papers are independent of the website. 121.73.151.5 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:N. --Ragib (talk) 20:12, 10 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 between keep and merge. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folie à Deux (winery)[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. No sources given at all (except link to company's own website). Web searches provide abundant links to the company's own site and various promotional sites, but a lack of significant independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Trinchero Family Estates after unredirecting it from Sutter Home Winery. If I understand it correctly, Trinchero Family Estates is the parent company of Sutter Home and other smaller area vineyards such as Folie à Deux. There's at least enough coverage ([19], [20], [21], [22]) to justify inclusion somewhere, and google is likely incomplete in coverage of specialty publications that cover this sort of thing. Jfire (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The winery is notable with their Menage a Trois series being named Wine Brand of the Year by leading wine industry analysts. And there are plenty of other WP:RS that could be found as well. I'm neutral at the moment because I think Jfire's idea of merging into Trinchero Family Estates may be the most worthwhile but someone needs to do the grunt work of turning that redirect into a full fledge article. (Something I personally don't have the time for). Just taking the content of the Folie a Deux article, as is, and moving it over to Trinchero Family Estates without greater content and context in that article wouldn't make sense. If someone took the initiative and fashioned a full fledged Trinchero article, I would switch my sentiments to wholeheartedly supporting that position. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is merely a vehicle for publicity for an otherwise non-notable entity. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep or merge Based on the coverage and the accolade of " Wine Brand of the Year", this is notable enough for inclusion. Whether it should be kept as is, or merged is something for our expert wine editors to decide. The sources provided by other commenters address the nom's concerns. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of my favorite wine labels and is widely distributed, at least in California. So I have expanded the article (did you know that one of their wines was the top-selling red wine in the country in 2009?) and added references. Please take another look and see if the article now passes muster. --MelanieN (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Law & Order: Criminal Intent. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 9)[edit]

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

Procedural Nom. Disputed prod by IP who is a suspected sock and has been adding unreferenced information to various Law & Order related pages. Concern is that this violates WP:CRYSTAL as all that is truly known about the season thus far is that D'Onofrio, Erbe, and Bogosian will depart after the first two episodes and that the name of the episodes will be "Puntland." Other than that, sources come from less than reliable sources. As this is a procedural nom, I am neutral at this time. Redfarmer (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything reliable or verifiable at this time about the new season. Redirect TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are sources out there for D'Onofrio, Erbe, and Bogosian leaving the show....ya just got to search for them and that is pretty easy, only took me 2 minutes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I found those, and other similar ones, but this is just one line. It could be added to the main TV series article. Not much is known about the actual season yet, besides characters leaving. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where did all the episodes and descriptions come from? Yes, there are a couple of good cites, but most of it is from blogs and fan sites. 24.176.191.234 (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the series article, 2010 is rather close upon us. If the season happens it can be rebuilt, if it doesn't, it can be used as a mistake by people who think the show lasted more than 8 seasons. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Pretty likely to happen, but at this point mostly speculation. Of all the sources we've got only Movieline and the Hollywood Reporter are reliable. SpoilerTV accepts submissions, there are several blogs and the twitter account doesn't appear to be anything official. There's simply not enough reliable information to build a full article yet. Anything verifiable can be mentioned in the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - inappropriate WP:CRYSTAL violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Robin Hobb#The Realm of the Elderlings. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Realm of the Elderlings[edit]

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

This article was deleted by prodding on 9 April 2009 "non-notable no apparent third party coverage except for Wikipedia mirrors", but the subject seems to be important enough science-fiction to warrant a full AfD discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 12:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info. 10 other articles link to it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect per my discussion with Quantpole below) Per prod/nom. Seems to be written "in-universe". Orderinchaos 14:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I know the books well, and really like them. However, this is a random article, with its long discussions on 'concepts'. There are already articles on Characters in the Realm of the Elderlings and Places in the Realm of the Elderlings, and I don't really see what this adds to the mix. As fairly normal in these cases, I could not find reliable sources discussing this, but that often doesn't make a difference to fictional topic AfDs. As such my !delete, is based on the usefullness of the article. Quantpole (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to make it a redirect to one of the above? Orderinchaos 16:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best redirect would probably be to Robin_Hobb#The_Realm_of_the_Elderlings. Quantpole (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vehicle for unencyclopedic content. Abductive (reasoning) 18:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robin_Hobb#The_Realm_of_the_Elderlings. The current version discusses all sorts of unverifiable stuff. The suggested target is where I would expect to land if I entered the title. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:59, 10 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) 13:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tre' Newton[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:ATHLETE. No reliable sources provided to support notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete College athletes, even those playing at Division 1-A (I refuse to use the "FBS" crap), are not automatically notable. There will be coverage, especially as Texas prepares for the title game. But Wikipedia is not a news source. DarkAudit (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was the SUBJECT of significant articles in the Austin American-Statesman, Dallas Morning News, and ESPN -Drdisque (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he has been in many articles even especially featured in Sports Illustrated, he gets plenty of media coverage, and is significant.--Jumpman Jordan (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:ATHLETE. --bender235 (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain how? The coverage he is receiving in the here and now is typical for any top level college program. Much of that can be discounted because Wikipedia is not a news source. Otherwise he does not meet the standards for college players, at least not yet. No All-America honors or postseason awards. That is the usual standard expected of a college player. Starting running back for Big State U. does not in and of itself make one notable. DarkAudit (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to not understand WP:NOTNEWS. It means that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news reports. However, on the contrary, when a person has been the subject of numerous articles in large publications it supports the fact that the subject is notable and passes WP:BIO. You seem to be claiming that a subject being covered by news reports automatically disqualifies him from notability because of NOTNEWS. -Drdisque (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it fine. We are in the middle of a college football season, and naturally there will be an uptick in the amount of coverage of players and teams. It is very similar to active political campaigns, where the coverage is much more intense leading up to the election. The guidelines at WP:CFBPLAYER is not clear on active players, but the amount of coverage today, in the middle of the season may overstate the notability simply because Texas is headed for the BCS championship game. DarkAudit (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't expire. If he's notable now based on media coverege, he's notable. End of story. -Drdisque (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the problem. He's getting more coverage now because a) he's the starting running back for Texas, and b) Texas is in the BCS title game. The amount of coverage is way out of proportion to the actual ntability for just those reasons. You plug anyone into that same spot and they will generate just as much coverage, especially in the Texas newspapers and on ESPN. You have to look past the weekly game summaries and previews of upcoming games. There's a lot of chaff out there that people will look at and declare "coverage". What has he done himself that makes him stand out more than the next "starting tailback at the University of Texas"? DarkAudit (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to you to decide what's proportional. It's up to society and the media. The media and society have decided that this guy is interesting and notable and we should abide by that. Go look at the articles I posted. He is the subject of those articles. They aren't "game summaries or previews". -Drdisque (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And those articles are typical of the coverage players for the big schools get during the season. The ESPN article is especially trivial, because although Newton could be said to be the subject, the real story is who will start at RB for the following game. That is not encyclopedic coverage, that is just this week's news. Same really for the Austin story. It's news coverage about how he did that past Saturday. I will definitely accept that Dallas article. More of that and less game reports is what is needed. DarkAudit (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tre Newton has been covered by the media since his junior year in high school (here's a 2006 Dallas Morning News article, for example), because he played at Southlake Carroll (3x state champion 2004-06), because Carroll faced Miami Northwestern in that epic battle in 2007, because he's Nate Newton's son, etc. etc. etc. He is notable. --bender235 (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And absolutely none of that matters. High school athletes are inherently non-notable, and being the son of a famous athlete means even less. DarkAudit (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"High school athletes are inherently non-notable". You're not up to date. Check this discussion on the proposed deletion of Arthur Brown, then at Wichita East High School. Also, take a look at Harrison Barnes, Seantrel Henderson, Bryce Harper, Kirani James, Cam Fowler, and so on. All notable athletes, despite their age. --bender235 (talk) 16:17, 13 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. Secret ^account 14:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuggerah Lakes Golf Course[edit]

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

Not notable. Doesn't pass WP:CORP. A similar article with different capitalization (created by the same editor) was already prodded. SnottyWong talk 22:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —Mattg82 (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Not being very up on Australian land use laws, I have no idea how significant this is, but there appears to be something unusual (and undocumented in the article) in how the land was transferred to the club. Now, I may be completely off-base here, and this sort of thing may happen all the time, but there is a little more there than meets the eye. However, they only get a weak keep because even the club's own website seems incapable of properly adding the par for the course...Vulture19 (talk) 22:46, 2 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) 11:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 11:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not a notable golf club but deserves mention in Shelly Beach, New South Wales, in which it is located. Orderinchaos 14:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 05:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would support a mention in the article on the locality, but not an article on the golf course itself, unless reliable, published sources can be provided demonstrating that the course meets the Wikipedia:Notability inclusion guidelines. -- saberwyn 00:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bad Boys II#Sequel. Note that AFD is the wrong venue for merger discussions. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Boys III[edit]

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

Not enough info is available on the movie for a stand alone page. All the same info can be found at Bad_Boys_II#Sequel. Merge back to there till more details are available, ie a plot. CTJF83 chat 09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect You don't need AFD to merge and redirect a page. Just include the information about Smith and Lawrence in Bad Boys II and make the redirect. If the merge is disputed, Wikipedia:Requested mergers is the place to go. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, usually I am bolder about these things. CTJF83 chat 19:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 9 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. No no no no no. Unverifiable, BLP landmine, POV fork, unencyclopedic, I could go on. If you do object to the early closure, please feel free to contact me, but common sense is telling me that we're just wasting time discussing this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tiger Woods' lovers[edit]

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

An unnecessary fork from Tiger Woods#Personal information, and virtually guaranteed to fill up with potentially libelous negative BLP. A borderline attack page, from the very title "lovers." I thought something like this had already been deleted, though I can't find it. Seems like a terrible idea (no offense to the author). Glenfarclas (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Will never have any sources that are considered reliable, aren't paid, or actually have anything serious to say. Lock this mess up and leave it to the US Weeklys and RadarOnlines of the world. Nate • (chatter) 08:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the topic of the unwanted public attention towards the private life of a living person is inherently tabloid material and could not conceivably meet the scope of a general interest encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 08:41, 9 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. Concerns that this article meeting reliable sourcing weren't properly met in the AFD, or was rebutted. Being kept once before isn't a reason for keeping if the article doesn't meet current guidelines. Secret ^account 14:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable webcomic, the sources provided do not meet WP:RS and notability is therefore not established. This was previously deleted and has been recreated at a different location. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi. No traces on Google books and scholor and one trivial mention in books (3 entries same book) as part of a wide topic and the information looks like it might have been lifted from wikipedia anyway (wp) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Article was already found to satisfy WP:WEB last time and it now has even more sources than the previous discussion. Dragoneer (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the sources dont seem reliable and the approach to sourcing has tightened up in the last year. It would be much more helpful if you could address the sourcing in detail. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two of the original sources were newspapers (I've restored one that was deleted by accident). New Haven Register, for example, is that city's main paper. It was on the strength of those plus the publication by a major educational institution (Hess) that it was kept last time. Now it has an additional newspaper reference (Grand News), a reference from an anime news blog, and two presentations at national conferences (which are peer-reviewed). I think given this combination of sources, satisfaction of WP:WEB is met. Dragoneer (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are the "references for the subject and the basic inclusion requirement is that they are reliable and substantial coverage. Shall we see what they are like shall we?

1. ^ "Bored this Summer? Try Webcomics!" Tech News, 2002-04-23.

Not entirely sure what Tech News is. Its an ancient reference and doesn't appear to be specifically about this subject. Its questionable relevance anyway as its not got a wiki article so I doubt its a RS reference.

2. ^ Baird, John. Picturevoice: Health Communication Through Art." Presentation. Society for Public Health Education 60th Annual Meeting. Philadelphia, PA. November 6, 2009.

Presentations are not reliable sources. They are essentially primary sources. Was the presentation reported anywhere? that might count but the actual presentation? no.

3. ^ Baird, John. "Healthy Holidays: Lessons Learned from a Community Education Event." Presentation. American Public Health Association 137th Annual Meeting. Philadephia, PA. November 11, 2009.

See 2.

4. ^ Baird, John. "Create a Comic." In Language Learning Games and Activities Volume 3 pg 14-15, edited by Gary Bosomworth and Sheryn Williams. Taipei, Taiwan ROC: Hess Educational Organization, 2005.

Exactly what does this say about the article? is it a mention? is it in depth? Slightly surprised this didn't figure in the google books search.

5. ^ McLoughlin, Pamela. Cartoons propel creative process. New Haven Register. Published: 2007-03-19.

Not clear that its substantially about this comic strip. How detailed is the mention?

6. ^ "Comic Tournament in New Haven." Grand News Community Newspaper. April 2009.

Community paper? is that a freesheet? These are rarely accepted as solid reliable sources and again the coverage needs o0t be substantial and this article looks tangential to the subject

7. ^ Tei, Andrew. (2002-07-05) Anime Expo 2002 Convention Reports. AnimeOnDVD.com.

Apparently a primary source. not at all an RS

8. ^ a b Ushicon Panels - 2003

Ditto 7

9. ^ Shepherd, Jeremy. "Otakon 2009: Manga, Literacy, and Children." http://anime.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=5565

website? published? reliable source? looks like a fan site not a RS

10. ^ Snodgrass, Emily. Happy (late) Thanksgiving ^^;;

primary source and self-referantial

So, reviewing all these references in detail, none of them obviously meet RS and there are outstanding questions on even the better looking ones. If this were a noteable webcomic there would be a sunstantial news, scholor and book presence but what we have is nothing really realiable or substantial. This is why the notability is in doubt and I invite you to spend some time clarifying these sources and demonstrating notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Tech News newspaper article is a list of 4 in-depth webcomic reviews, of which this webcomic is one, so it meets the "significant coverage" criterion. Grand News is not given away for free as you suggested and has a formal editorial board; it's the third/fourth major paper of that city. I'm not sure of your comments on the presentations. Since they are peer reviewed ahead of time for content before being allowed to be presented, they both have the same standing as a journal article in terms of academic notability. Please clarify your distinction. Dragoneer (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Advanced Media Network is not a one-person blog, but an online media news site with staff, editorial board, etc. They've qualified for press credentials at multiple major anime conventions (including Otakon), giving them further standing. Dragoneer (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews has also got itself accredited to report stuff but still isn't a reliable source and what kind of fact checking does it undertake? I looked at the staff and they all looked like amateurs. Tech news seems to have no online presence. Does it still exist. can you point to the article online or provide further details of Tech news' back ground. Unusual for a technology paper to have no online presence is it not? Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMN is a corporation with paid staff, so they qualify as professionals. As for Tech News, I'm currently digging into where their website and archives are or if they're still in business. Fortunately, current business status has no impact on reliability of a news source when it was in print. Dragoneer (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've done what I can to improve the sourcing, but unfortunately the sources are still totally inadequate for an encyclopedia article as they really do not deal with this topic. The very best sources are at best passing mentions in small local newspapers covering small local library events and not this topic. They lack what our Wikipedia:Notability calls "Significant coverage," so we're left with just a lot of original research. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The newspaper and presentation sources, at least, appear to satisfy WP:RS. As to notability, to quote WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The newspaper sources, as they satisfy WP:RS and are independent of the subject (the presentations were by someone connected to the comic, and so are arguably not independent), appear to establish this (it is a judgment call on what is "significant", but the substantial majority of Web comics have received no news media coverage specific to the comic, so anything that's more than a mention would seem to qualify in this case). This appears to counter the argument for deletion. Winged Cat (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
please see my detailed assessment of the references in this article. being mentioned in a newspaper does not = notability. having substantial coverage does and the coverage has not been shown to be reliable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Read Wikipedia's Policy,particularly that on Deletion Review. Either to Deletion or Undeletion, renominations should not be given without good cause or new arguments. This is still the same basic arguments as before, notability of sources. Give it a rest guys...Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Spartaz & Starblueheather, the sources don't need to provide "substantial" coverage. Any subject that is notable through some other criterion can be referenced using sources with "minor" coverage as long as the important facts are verified. For example: if all but one source on Niels Bohr were to disappear this instant, he would still qualify for an article if the one remaining article mentions his Nobel Prize. Please judge the sources on their actual content rather then their "substantial-ness". - Mgm|^(talk) 13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, because that seems to have been the reason to keep in the last AfD (i.e. coverage in two papers plus the Hess publication). If that's still the case, then it seems you're calling into question Spartaz's assertion that the sourcing rules have changed since the last AfD. I think it would be a good idea for Spartaz to provide some explanation on what he meant by "the approach to sourcing has tightened up." Especially since WP:WEB, the notability criteria at work here, has not been significantly altered since the last AfD. Dragoneer (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The content of the original article Okashina Okashi has been temporarily userfied per request at DRV can currently be found at User:Starblueheather/Okashina Okashi. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the same reasoning as Starblueheather: the given sources are very weak and do not establish the notability of the subject. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem to be reliable. I'm personally fine, for non-contested material, with taking free newspapers and the like if they aren't self-published. Depth of coverage looks a bit unclear, but not having on-line version of the articles isn't a good reason to delete. Those with access to the articles claim coverage is fine (and yes, being one of 4 topics reviewed in an article can be quite enough). I'm good. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it was kept in 2008. I think the deletion in 2006 is a fairly minor point given that... Hobit (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have information on all of the sources but one, the "Tech News" article. None of the others provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Which ones do you believe meet WP:GNG and why? Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bennie Bedford[edit]

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

Had a minor league career of less than ten seasons and a minor league managerial career of five or so games. Alex (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why did you create it if you were going to delete it? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've done a few minor league managers but upon further review some may not be notable enough for Wikipedia. Alex (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not just use G7 Speedy deletion? Mrathel (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well in that case, I would have to say delete. I was just confused because you seem to make a pretty good case in your rational:). But I have done a search of ("Bennie Bedford" + baseball) and got 37 hits, none notable. I would have to say its not looking likely that there will be enough sources to create an article that meets notability standards. Mrathel (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because I would rather have the opinions of multiple people before a subject is deleted, rather than the opinions of just one person (he who decides whether to delete it or not). Alex (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are two cited sources—a statistics site and an unreliable wiki. That's not sufficient to establish notability for a minor league baseball player; see WP:BASE/N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BRMo (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am constantly reading that Baseball Reference is an unreliable Wiki, when that is in fact erroneous. In fact, that site often has correct information while Wikipedia lacks the correct information. Alex (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My comment that the baseball-reference wiki is "unreliable" is not a comment on the accuracy any particular information contained in the wiki, which may or may not be accurate. The comment refers to the fact that wikis are self-published and so—according to Wikipedia's verifiability policy— do not qualify as reliable sources and "are largely not acceptable" as sources for Wikipedia articles . Please note that Wikipedia itself also is not considered to be an acceptable source (see WP:CIRCULAR). BRMo (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnie Baggan[edit]

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

He may or may not be notable enough. His managerial career is not terribly notable, and his minor league career--well, that's up for you to decide. He had a long minor league career, but is it notable enough? Alex (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Minor league players are not assumed to be inherently notable. But in my view, this guy's verified career stats strongly suggest notability (more as a player than a manager). Note I consider my argument to have been refuted. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you lead us non-baseballers through the stats? If he's got some sort of record, it could be a viable article. Unfortunately, I can't make heads nor tails of the stats. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing I can see in the article even claims notability. Never called up or considered for the major leagues, and considering even major leaguers had off-season jobs well into the mid-20th century, being a minor league player was even less likely to confer notability in the early 20th century. I might be convinced if somebody found a reason to claim notability, but I don't see it right now. Frank | talk 11:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a long career in the minors is just that, a career in the minors. Stats are not proof of notability. They just show he played long enough to amass them. DarkAudit (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single citation to a site that shows his statistics is not sufficient to establish notability of a minor league player. See WP:BASE/N and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BRMo (talk) 03:39, 11 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. Nomination has been withdrawn. Mgm|^(talk) 11:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carman (singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, only reference is the artist's homepage, and the article is written like a promotion and contains outright lies (whoever said that this guy was nominated for a Grammy doesn't know the difference between Carman and Carmen Electra). I predict this will be a no-brainer. SuaveArt (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shameless self-promotion of a plainly non-notable "entertainer". His album and TV show pages should be deleted as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep. This person appears to meet several of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria, where only one is required. He's had many charting albums, has had more than a dozen gold or platinum certifications, and as of 1995, he won six Dove Awards and two Billboard Awards for Christian Music Artist of the Year. Seems plenty notable to me. Gongshow ^Talk 08:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A rewrite could possibly work (if you add those refs you found), but the vast majority of the article will still have to be removed. If you'd like to rewrite it, then feel free and I'll have another look. Thanks.--SuaveArt (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that unreferenced, unverified material should be removed. In this case, the musician is clearly notable even though the article needs help, such as the addition of sources (I'll add the above sources to the article after this edit). Per WP:ATD, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Gongshow ^Talk 08:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 08:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Incredibly well-known Christian singer who is a constant fixture on the TBN family of networks. Can we please have some AfD's where nominators actually do some research, please? Could do with some hyperbole reduction certainly, but as always, AfD is not for cleanup. Nate • (chatter) 08:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google search on "Carman grammy" and three Carmans popped up on the front page, none of which were this guy. He's definitely not well-known outside of his circle because I only heard about him today on a forum. This article has also been here for 2 years in it's current state (no refs and a lie about a Grammy nom), so I don't see how you can blame me for wanting to junk it. Personally I don't care as long as the spam and false info is gone.--SuaveArt (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdraw - A user provided sources establishing notability, so we'll just remove the spam and keep the article.--SuaveArt (talk) 08:54, 9 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. The nomination was closed by Cyclopia. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spin the bottle[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. I realize this topic is probably as notable as those plastic stacking chairs, unfortunately, there does not really appear to be anything to support this. A gnews search doesn't help anything, in that most, if not all the results are passing mentions. Nothing discussing the topic explicitly. The other results are ads for 'spin the bottle' like games. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 07:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The one source cited in the article appears to establish notability (obviously we can't read the source online). There are quite a few Ghits that have independent sources referring to the game, generally by comparing things to it (do a GNews search). This suggests the obvious - that this game is very well known and notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Hundreds of Google Books references indicate this as being a notable game. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No amount of passing mentions will make it pass WP:N Polarpanda (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know for sure all the hits are passing mentions. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A passing mention in a place like Newsweek shows that this is well enough established to be taken as obvious in a reliable source. --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Keep: Is this a joke? This is one of the most famous of party games, with tens of thousands of references going back a century - the earliest reference I found was in the Chicago Tribune in 1914. Does anyone seriously think this article can't have about twenty reliable sources per sentence if we wanted to add them badly enough? RGTraynor 10:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per RGTraynor, Glenfarclas, Mkativerata. Seriously, guys, someone trout the nom, please. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. At the moment, the article is lacking in sources, but if someone spends enough time on this, it can easily be expanded. The hits mentioned before are not all just passing mentions. This is an established part of culture in the US and several other countries. Also the subject of the 1994 short film Action vérité. Nominator made poor judgement by only searching GNews as that is not the likeliest of places to find information about a game primarily played by teens. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you recommend searching, then? Secondly, Withdrawn.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 11:48, 9 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) 13:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young American Virtuosi[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSIC. most of the 9 gnews hits refer to concert listings [23]. no real peer recognition. almost looks like an ad given the complete lack of reliable sources. note that 2 of the 3 members had their articles deleted. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more substantive evidence of notability is provided. --Deskford (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnotable group for which there is no WP:RS establishing significance. Eusebeus (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more substantive coverage added. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if their extensive touring can be documented by reliable sources. Touring national and internationally is a factor of WP:BAND. The article claims "New York debut at Carnegie Hall. They have performed as soloists and as a trio throughout North America, Asia, Middle East, and Europe...." Playing at Carnegie Hall, (which can be verified here, does not create notability with one gig, but a major tour would make this trio notable. I've found proof of their tour in the Northeastern seaboard: to Maryland, DC, DC again, and ~~a NY Times review of a concert north of NYC.~~ Is that enough? I think so. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the wording and added the cites as noted. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note the policy is worded, "4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Bearian (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's not third party coverage, 3 of the articles you cite are by the very institution that hosted this group, so it's not very independent and it seems relatively small run of the mill concerts that universities run regularly. references you cite like [24] is hardly indepth if anything it just verifies rather than establishes notability. it's not a major tour unless you can find some genuine third party coverage. there is a complete lack of coverage in independent media like major newspapers of this musical group. let's not pretend they are anymore than a minor amateur group. we don't have to host every group in WP because they've done a few amateur concerts. LibStar (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing I can find that makes them pass WP:BAND. Thus, does not merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Secret ^account 14:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games cancelled for PlayStation consoles[edit]

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

Unnotable list of non-existent games or those supposedly intended for the various PS platforms but unreleased; almost entirely unsubstantiated, unverified rumors sourced almost entirely to a single site. Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a trivia site, and games being canceled on a platform is generally unnotable. Prod, which was endorsed by the original list creator[25], was removed by Bmhs823 (talk · contribs) with note of "Removed deletion template (only comprehensive source for this information) (consider merging with "List of cancelled video games")" who apparently removed similar prods from several similar articles.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same basic reasons - none of the lists are notable, and with little to no sourcing to reliable sources (some are sourced almost entirely to personal websites on Tripod). The games being canceled for release on one platform is neither significant nor notable. These were all coincidentally prodded by another editor at the same time I was prodding the PlayStation one. His original prod reason for each was "No notability asserted for any of these cancelled games, no substance, and completely unsourced. As it stands, it's merely a trivial list intended for gamers exclusively." All of the prods were removed by Bmhs823.

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category of cancelled video games should cover any notable cancelled game or video games that were cancelled on other platforms or revived at a later date. Listing video games that are neither of those just makes this an index of trivia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sourcing to a single site would be less of a problem if we knew where the info came from and who added it. I'd rather see announcements of the actual companies announcing the release and cancellation of said games. I'm not sure whether a list of such games is viable yet. Without the added information about why they were cut, I don't think it lives up to our encyclopedic needs. After all a cancellation in a series is more notable than one of a single game and cancellation because of gamer backlash is more notable than one caused by financial problems. At the moment I'm leaning towards a category for such games if they can be described in more detail. But I'm open to being convinced. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - this is exactly what the categories are for. Any relevant prose on these games can be added to each game's article, should that game itself be notable. --Teancum (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep per Lugnuts's point. I didn't know that policy existed. --Teancum (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories and lists go hand-in-hand, per WP:CLN. The lists have defining criteria. Lugnuts (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can go hand-in-hand, not they have too. Further, just because there is a category for these does not mean the list itself is automatically notable and must be kept or is valid. Please evaluate the list itself, not the categories or need for categorization. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is notable, it just needs cleanup. WP:AFD is not for cleanup. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Its a perfectly acceptable list. It shows just how many games were canceled, and you able to see if they were released on another system instead. I'm curious as to the reasons why they were canceled, that a category that should be added if possible. Low sales on another console, exclusive deal with another company to only release on their system, made more money with this other system so wanted to support it, got rejected from one system for whatever reason, etc. Dream Focus 17:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The games were not cancelled, they just were not released to these platforms. There are no sources even confirming any of these were every intended for those platforms. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. They have plenty of references to where the games were announced as being future X-box games, then not released. List of video games cancelled for Xbox consoles Dream Focus 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they all have a single source, IGN, which is not the same as "plenty of references", most of which have only a single news item claiming the game might be released and based on rumor, with no actual source stating it was canceled. Further, the topic as a whole has no significant coverage in any source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an announcement of the game being released on a console, then IGN would list it. IGN would NOT list something not officially mentioned by the game developers. Dream Focus 17:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commandos 2 [26] "Once in development for Dreamcast, this version was eventually canned and never released." Sounds like a notable reference to me, from a site which is seen as a reliable source. Dream Focus 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I click on the first entry in the List of canceled video games and read that article, it stating, "The game was released on all major formats of the time except for the Amstrad CPC, which was announced but never released." The list organizing information found in other Wikipedia articles. AFD is not cleanup. If you have a problem with any entry in the list, honestly doubting its accuracy, then you tag it with a reference needed, and discuss on the talk page. Dream Focus 17:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. An unverifiable list of games that by definition don't exist? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Someidiot (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How exactly is this unverifiable? 90% of these games are easily verifiable via a simple search on sites like IGN, Gamespot, GameSpy, etc. --Teancum (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I have worked in the game industry for many years and assure you that the percentage of projects that are proposed by companies and/or discussed in the press but never actually produced is alarmingly high. To be encyclopedic we should use a similar criteria to WP:N (films): "films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." It follows that a list of non-notable topics is itself not notable. Someidiot (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may be Someidiot, but you've got a point there! *badumtish* But yes, I do agree - if a cancelled game is only notable by exception, then this list is a list of necessarily non-notable subjects. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - And in specific response to verifiability, I'm not sure that websites like IGN really meet WP:V's standard of "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." While independent, they're essentially mouthpieces for the industry, which lives and dies on hype. Game companies continually make "announcements" to the press about upcoming titles, often accompanied with screenshots that a competent artist could mock up in an hour. A lot of these projects get canceled or never even make it into production. Something like Duke Nukem Forever is certainly notable, but an announced-but-never produced PlayStation port of Aliens versus Predator, not so much (especially when the base article doesn't even mention the canceled port). Someidiot (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why would the main article mention a canceled port? Each item listed got news coverage, even if it was just people commenting on a press release from the company, and showing screenshots provided. And I do believe IGN has always been considered a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Dream Focus 17:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see why. Like he said, being a video game is enough to be included on IGN. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm a bit confused by your comments, Dream Focus. You say that all items on the list have coverage, but the majority have no cites at all. In reference to the example I mentioned (just the first one on the list), you also seem to agree that a canceled port is not notable enough to be mentioned in the Aliens versus Predator article, but you think that a list of canceled titles is notable. It's also a claim that isn't cited at all, though I don't find most of the existing cites at all compelling. I'm not gong to argue vociferously about websites like Ign or Gamespot as verifiable resources, but assuming there information is correct, why should wikipedia mirror it?
      - I haven't seen any response to the main reason for deletion, that it's an indiscriminate list of trivia, and therefore not encyclopedic. I'd also like to know why video games should be treated so differently than films - there is a clear wikipedia policy that unproduced films are not intrinsically notable. Some certainly are, and some unproduced video games are notable, but on the average, they're not. And I don't see how lists of items that are not notable themselves can possibly be notable. Are there similar list of unproduced films, tv series, plays, books, or other creative works? Not that I can find. I just can't see any compelling reasons why these lists, or categories like "canceled (whatever system) games" would need to exist. Someidiot (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Trivial listcruft and just clutter at best. Move to a video game wiki if necessary. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Providing that each and every element in the list can cite a reliable source stating that the game was cancelled, this is a viable list. Whilst there are footnotes galore here, I've examined a dozen or so on each page, and none of them have linked to any kind of "cancelled" news. Probably best gut this and start again with correct referencing. If there are enough entries in each list to justify an article, then this is a keepable topic. Marasmusine (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Masasmusine. If these games are verifiable and substantive for stand-alone lists, then they would be viable lists to have here. MuZemike 19:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, and for being Listcruft. Peridon (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under BLP and WP:SNOW. I realise that this may be somewhat controversial, so let me explain. Whatever we do here, the current article must be deleted as the history contains any amount of problematic material - so I'm deleting it. It may be that snow-closing this AfD has the downside of preventing a discussion of where the subject is notable enough for a neutral and disinterested article, so I'm closing this without prejudice to the possibility of a properly referenced recreation by regular editors, under admin supervision - but with extreme prejudice against a recreation by Bubwater or any other editor with a perceived agenda. Any improper recreations should be speedied as illegitimate recreations of deleted material.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Bane Gallery[edit]

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

I don't know what policy or guideline I could pull out of the box to describe this mess. It's not only my doubts about the notability, it's the fact that it self-references to include some controversy and whatnot. If there's somebody who believes this "article" to be salvageable, give it a rescue-tag... I'm lost. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you think the current article is bad, check out its history. this is really, really ugly. also check out Hajime Sorayama and its history. i did some minor fixup months ago on this article, and more of the same legal crap is being battled out there as well. I would be happy to see this gallery article deleted and salted, and any and all editors involved in this weird dispute warned or blocked, and the artist article protected. i'm not sure if any of the legal matters are worth having in his article at this point. thanks for catching this one. i hope we can get to the root of this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-reply: Did fight myself through the entire history. Agree, complete mess. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as far as I can tell. The gallery doesn't seem to meet WP:COMPANY, and this article is about 1/3 gripe, 1/3 unsourced negative BLP, and 1/3 advertisement. For the life of me I can't tell what this is trying to say. --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~ There is nothing here worth salvaging. This isn't an article, it's a rant. DarkAudit (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a couple of comprehensible sentences on the dispute might be worth adding to Hajime Sorayama. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy delete and salt due to some WP:BLP issues. This doesn't satisfy WP:COMPANY and as others have said, if something could be salvaged from this mess, there wouldn't be much left. I agree with Johnbod, send what's left to the other article. freshacconci talktalk 16:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete non-encyclopedic mess, art related dispute - take it somewhere else...Modernist (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Collective: I would examine the critics of this article in regard to their relation to association to Tamara Bane Gallery and in particular to the factual substance concluded by no less than 5 federal judge over 4 years. It was made a mess by someone who went in and added Fabian Perez promo data that did not belong. It is now clear and surely could be edited a bit better but deserves to stay to be favorable to historical fact in context of the arts in our society. (see my co-track). I believe what may be best is to bring an expert eye that is totally objective to study this case and its truly historical importance to the Bern convention, VARA and title 17. While at bringing on some art experts to study the importance of art fraud and embezzling in the context of a flourishing society, one may bring in three legal experts (like the BAP and 2 federal Judges who made conclusions)---Oh! Another idea would be to research and read PACER--there are three decisions and rulings by at least 5 federal Judges on this baby.Bubwater (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Be real!Bubwater (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You've been at it since February with at least three different accounts (User:Bubwater, User:Bubblewaters, User:Bubwatermaster) and made it continuously worse, the latest of your many stunts is this one. Indeed: "Be real!" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Collective: In reply to Choyoo who I will refer to as Fuuuu(I know you). You have been at this for 4 years of vexatious nonsense. It is concluded as fraud, fraud, fraud. That is the words of the last major ruling that also had No Discharge of Debt--a 24 month Chapter 7--enuf said. Details please on case...not on edits. These are the facts from no less than 5 federal Judges, reported on by at least three news firms and three forensic reports.Bubwater (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Fuu (Choyoo)---arhturbane was cited for vandalism of the wiki site just this week. That ya boy re-writng history and getting vandalism added to federal court rulings of frauds and embezzling... Nice piece of work, Fuu.

Clarification request: Let me get this straight: after the long rants you've posted on this discussion, you are now making unwarranted accusations of sockpuppetry? If so, would those be directed at me, or at all of us? (Just making sure I understand your comments correctly) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request to you: I will not take your bait like the Judges suggest. Get the details of facts...the audios, the ruling transcripts and the findings of fact, the three forensic reports and do not leave out the last BAP encounter in front of 3 federal Judges. Then go throguh the lines of this WIKI page and show where the facts are a rant. A tome I do not deny--it needs a bit of editing. Ted Koppel may come out of retirement to help us too. Show the details and facts to refute. get the detail on arthurbane in too---cited for vandalism by wiki just this week. And I used two names forgetting one. The vandal though is clearly arthurbane Bubwater (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Bub[reply]

Snowball Delete - This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for legal disputes. Perhaps the article could be developed in userspace. At present it's a mess and while the editors are actively fighting over the page, it will stay a mess. No prejudice for recreation in mainspace after the drama dies down. That's providing it meets Wikipedia standards for notability, verifiability, and reliable sources, of course. Plvekamp (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Snowball, I take no pride in authorship and agree editing can only help. Deletion is highly unfavorable and not at all required as well. The elements of this history, in particular arts and art of crimes, are eternal in society's that fight for their arts and literature. This world is better than that and deserving of a great wiki encyclopedia of fact. BTW, the history of this art fraud is nothing new. It dates back from the 200os to the 1980s, and it is part of the police record at those times (many of the same players under different business names). To allow it (fraud) to rear its head under different facemask (sets of business names) from one decade to the next is to learn nothing from an encyclopedia of fact. It allows you society and courts to waste time and money. Find me an editor and contact me. Wiki will be judged historically favorable to keep it and its vital facts.Bubwater (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Bubwater[reply]

The legal dispute was over some time ago. Detail to me where it remains open ended.Bubwater (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Collective:' Thank you for upgrading this to the area of visual arts (Gene ty). I would suggest again, and admit guilt of repetition, expertise on the Bern convention, VARA and title 17. These areas are why the specific Tamara Bane Gallery facts here are quite important in context of the courts and society. All parties mentioned in this article are not griped at but lauded in helping to present these issues. Promos are not sought in any way shape nor form except the time when Perez name was added by interests of Tamara Bane Gallery attempting to market itself and an artist. It confused it all for a time.Bubwater (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Bubwater[reply]

(copied from project-page's talk page)
In reply to # Delete, as far as I can tell. The gallery doesn't seem to meet WP:COMPANY, and this article is about 1/3 gripe, 1/3 unsourced negative BLP, and 1/3 advertisement. For the life of me I can't tell what this is trying to say. --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The amazing thing here is that no one has noted the inordinate numbers of deletions requests with no countering viewpoints of detailed facts at all. That is except one person who researched all the relevant facts and cited rulings of at least 5 federal court Judges over four years. Hmmmmm.... could all these people yelling for delete, speedy delete etc etc possibly be friends of art fraudsters in our society. Do they want fraud to grow and abuse over 4 years of high court level work. This is not to mention a number of professional news organizations that wrote about this case that were also researched as well as scholarly books on art shows and marketing. I interviewed at length two forensics staff people too and studied the accounting forensics that no one bothered to do here. All point to fraud well beyond the art fraud and methinks that is the point of the Judge repeating it (fraud) many times over---PS there is an audio record of it. That too is publicly available to those who want to reply in detail---get it study it.

I looked up those few that cited WP and this particular wiki page reviewed and read the Judges' rulings and the findings of fact. This researcher also read the LA Times report, the Dunn & Bradstreet Report and the Los Angeles Business Journal reports. Just to be certain I went to the court in Dec. 2008 to hear the bankruptcy Judge (1 of the 5 or more federal Judges that have heard aspects of this case), state repeatedly that there is "fraud, fraud, fraud" ---her exact words about the ownership interests of Tamara Bane Gallery. In Dec 2008, a Chapter 7 (that is now over 24 months old---a very important point to those in the know about Chapter 7), ruled No Discharge of Debts and added another charge "embezzling". So all the criteria of wiki WP is met. The case is over and is history too. I requested details about it not being over and concluded. Details, please.Bubwater (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Bubwater[reply]
(end of copy)

Delete Unreferenced with a nice helping of a negative WP:BLP. It just doesn't appear to cross the threshold of encyclopedic notability. AniMate 09:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I have turned the article into a bare stub as there are potential BLP violations there and I have no time to go through all of the claims. As it stood it was purely an attack article. I've also protected it, so any changes will have to be requested on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change endorsement to neutral With all of the irrelevant material excised, there is enough news coverage about and involving the gallery itself to make the stubbed version more worthy of a keep. But since much of that coverage is in passing as the location of an exhibition by an artist, I'll stay neutral for now. DarkAudit (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Hi Dougweller and DarkAudit, It is not needed to go through all the claims to fact find on this simple fraud case. The federal courts summarize their rulings in terse phrasing found in the rulings on PACER ( a few pages long), an official public archive of the courts. The intent of this history - now erased from public view and buried here-- is exactly the bait that was being laid by art fraud supporters. I cannot fight the good fight alone without your help and others of wiki. Also, every day a Judge can make a wrong decision if such facts are excised; buried here under the rug. In the worst case victims can be further victimized by a legal system as well when one sees DNA facts showing people to be innocent of convicted crimes. Here the DNA is PACER and the concluded cases of bankruptcy and federal trial court by one of the most prominent female Judges, highly regarded in California. Note that the long list of dozens of artists over decades of Tamara Bane Gallery history have all abruptly left as your excise shows factually. Now the article does not point this out, leaving only two artists in your edited version--AN AD for these artists BTW. By wiki taking the bait and excising the page facts is highly unfavorable to unwary trusting art collecting public and artists. There is no favorable warning danger beacon. Of the shouters, not a single one put the facts to a real world test based on official records--many PAID associates of powerful legally related professionals that prolong crimes and a buyer beware mentality. They do not want Tamara Bane Gallery ownership interest' art and financial frauds to be known to public as Bernie Madoff frauds were covered up for years. They have done this too, before. This may likely embolden those of malicious intent in society and legal professions seeing that they can now contain WIKI via a group of shouters never presenting facts. Bubwater (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Bub[reply]

At the very least, and to public benefit, I suggest removing all artist names and noting the art fraud case and No Discharge of Debt Chapter 7 bankrutpcy that added "embezzling". You can ask lawyers, police and terrorism type investigators and Judges why this would be OK and vital for public to know of. Bubwater (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you are really overestimating the interest in art-related articles on Wikipedia. freshacconci talktalk 17:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Comment I am may underestimating it too. Art, literature, music and our museums are the fabric of any flourishing society. This is article is related to arts but it is much more about art frauds, counterfeiting and financial crimes which are not only newsworthy but also timely to learn about here.
Reply Comment BTW, for those who are techies, the cyber aspects of this matter are most vital about Tamara Bane Gallery as it related to the internet of which WIKI is a subset make up the majority of this case where frauds were founded and used in an accelerated way via the inter global aspects of the internet. Tamara Bane Gallery transferred their decade old websites abroad to an island off of Portugal during the trial to hide it and then deleted about a decade worth of Tamara bane Gallery cyber websites / links to worldofpinup.com, rbeditions.com and taboogallery.com from the waybackmachine archives. These were put onto a mac.com server also deleted a few months ago and onto auction websites to hide the frauds. Now WIKI is being another cyber tool to victimize others and may likely be another tool of clever fraudsters who shout down facts without any reference whatsoever to records. They know what happened today----and they will take advantage to be sure. I suggest removing all artist names and noting the art fraud case and No Discharge of Debt Chapter 7 bankrutpcy that added "embezzling". You can ask lawyers, police and terrorism type investigators and Judges why this would be OK and vital for public to know of. Bubwater (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Bub[reply]

Bubwater, can you please read our conflict of interest guideline? The more I look over your edits, the more it appears that you have some sort of real life involvement here that is making you extremely biased. I'm sure everyone who is involved in legal dramas feel that they are notable, but most do not rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. Until you can demonstrate that this rises above a normal legal dispute using reliable sources, this is just another minor gallery that doesn't meet our notability standards. AniMate 18:35, 10 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 and special kudos to Schmidt for the excellent work in rescuing the article. Non-admin closure- --Cyclopia ^talk 11:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haunting Sarah[edit]

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

I've been watching this article, and debating with myself about the films notability, for the last two months... I originally prodded it, but the prod was removed by another editor, stating "plenty of notable actors"... cool... but I've since been watching it and thinking that while it does involve a few (technically notable) actors, it's still just a Hallmark Channel made for TV movie, with no signs of any awards, or mentions outside of the Hallmark website... I have finally decided that other than a couple of two-bit actors (no offense to said actors), this movie comes nowhere close to passing WP:NF, and also fails WP:RS... Adolphus79 (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What part of WP:NOTFILM does this meet? Zero. RGTraynor 10:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are some gnews hits which lead me to think that could possibly pass WP:GNG. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:NOTFILM. In the news search above, I looked at about half of the hits and they were all excluded as sources of notability under WP:NOTFILM. Mostly one-liners and short reviews. Shorter than most capsule reviews. I could find no significant coverage.Dethlock99 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATD and source per available reviews. That no one has improved the article is not a valid reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has said to delete the article due to lack of activity... the question is whether it passes WP:NOTFILM or not... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In appreciating how you yourelf went through the article to do some cleanup in October, my thought was toward the fact that no one had bothered to expand or source the article since then. Had anyone done so, we might not be here today. However.... I am now on it and will report back. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN BY NOM - Due to the recent work of User:MichaelQSchmidt, it now appears that this article passes notability concerns... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:37, 11 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) 17:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brink of Disaster![edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There isn't much there but it meets WP:NFILM#4 "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive." It is part of the Prelinger Archives which is now also part of the Library of Congress. More can be found on this page and the archive link already in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Deluxe[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Article is unsourced and can't find any proper sources at all. Working with non-notable people who worked with notable people doesn't even come close to being notable in any capacity. -WarthogDemon 03:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How di you know the band isn't notable if you can't find sources? Rather than throwing around the word notability, you should be worrying about verifiability. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you can't well verify what you can't source, unless I utterly fail at understanding the definitions of those words. (Wouldn't be the first time.) I tried to google with various magazines and their name, another admin even checked. The only thing I could find was a quote on the band's myspace page from a magazine, that wasn't linked to any article. -WarthogDemon 18:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and verifiability are two different things. Related, but different. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any in-depth coverage; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 07:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Deskins[edit]

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

Non-notable minor leaguer, didn't make the majors as either a player or manager, and nothing stands out in the minors or college. Wizardman 03:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he worked for the major league club and spent time as a minor league coach, which may make him notable enough. Alex (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clean-up A news search gives you quite a bit to work with. The article itself doesn't site these sources but the coverage is still there. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current pitching coach in the Dodgers organization. Spanneraol (talk) 23:48, 10 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.

Alex Jacobowitz[edit]

The result was Nominator withdrawn. Call it mind fart but it never occurred to me he would have his own press section. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's been three years and still unsourced BLP. It's possible that a mix of albums from Sony record company, a nomination for a German Grammy and his books are satisfactory but I haven't been able to find a source on him. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this?--Chaser (talk) 06:49, 9 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) 08:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DigiTech Bad Monkey[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Has not received non-commercial coverage, has not been used by famous artists, makes no assertion of notability. Conical Johnson (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gets a lot of google hits, are you sure there is no non-commercial coverage there? Polarpanda (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this for example? Polarpanda (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just having been reviewed isn't enough to be notable enough for a WP article. If it was, every single musical product ever introduced would need a WP article. Conical Johnson (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just promo material (WP:SPAM). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musical recordings have the advantage they can chart to gain notability. What do you expect here? A 2-page essay in the New York Times? I don't think it's fair to exclude a topic merely because it's a product. If it is widely favorably reviewed or widely sold, this could be a viable topic. Of course, evidence helps a lot. Has anyone asked the original creator to fix this? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think think the guideline at WP:PRODUCT supports deletion. Conical Johnson (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:PRODUCT section actually makes more of a case for merging. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to DigiTech. I appreciate Mgm's concern, which is certainly very valid. But we do have a notability guideline for products, WP:PRODUCT, and so far as I can tell this subject fails that guideline. No third-party reliable sources are cited in the article, nor can I find any significant coverage; it's a shame, because this is a fairly well-written stub. Per WP:PRODUCT, if the product is not notable on its own, information about it belongs in the company's article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, we do expect coverage in the New York Times or some such other reliable, third-party, published source. There's nothing "unfair" about expecting this article to pass the same verifiability and notability standards as any other. Ravenswing 10:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used the "2-page essay in New York Times" quote as an example of extreme stringent criteria, when a half page in another less well-known but reliable publication would do. The idea that it needs non-commercial coverage is what I object to most. The reason publications would cover it is the commercial angle. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you object to the standard for sources set out in WP:RS, I recommend dropping in on the talk page there and give changing consensus to your POV a try. Ravenswing 19:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 10:30, 9 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) 08:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADsafe[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this programming language. Joe Chill (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this http://pro.01net.com/editorial/402130/microsoft-invite-la-communaute-open-source-a-jouer-dans-son-bac-a-sable/ which is just a mention. Polarpanda (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the web ADsafe is usually mentioned at the same time as Caja, and there are lots of comparisons of ADsafe to Caja. So I think ADsafe is well-known and significant, and has been influential, even if there are few tech articles covering it, on its own, in depth. The criterion should *not* be "Does a Google search for 'ADsafe' return lots of relevant hits?" as the links above suggest. Google is not the sole arbiter of importance and it happens there is something else called AdSafe which has wider coverage. If you search for "adsafe caja" you will find there are many results. -PGibbons (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 24 November 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) 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom Shadowjams (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources in the article show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to have enough reliable, third-party sources to confer notability. The sources in the article are very unimpressive (Yahoo! Groups, Google groups, a link to the project's website, etc.) and I haven't really seen any other significant coverage to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:13, 9 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 nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Science High School for Region III[edit]

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

Article has been proposed for speedy deletion back in January, there are no references/reliable sources in the article some with WP:LISTCRUFT violations. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no valid grounds for deletion have been specified; all the nominator's concerns can be met by editing. Not only is this a high school but it has been the subject of a published study. Filipino schools traditionally have a poor internet presence in English so local sources need to be added in due course. We should be wary of systemic bias. TerriersFan (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination seems like systematic bias. I don't see any WP:LISTCRUFT or WP:COI issues that would require the deletion of the article.--Abusing (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.

—TerriersFan (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the listcruft cleaned up and the scientific study referenced, the issue the nominator raised has been resolved. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn as now. Mgm said that the references are now added in the article. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 10:52, 9 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. Secret ^account 14:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marketcetera[edit]

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

A nonnotable business software company - Altenmann >t 01:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is some promotional tone in the lead of the article, but unless the nominator provides further explanation, I don't see how this is non-notable. It has been covered by 6 reliable sources (of course, excluding the official company homepage), at least one of which is VERY reliable. That clearly meets WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And what notable facts are described in the sources besides "business as usual"? - Altenmann >t 16:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no facts mentioned which speak of notability. Moreover, the NYT bit says "Marketcetera has just four customers right now" - a promotional piece about a startup which much hype about opportunities, but nothing about achievements. Mukadderat (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Just four customers" isn't necessarily a bad thing. have you considered who those customers might be? There's a whole gamut from 4 random family members to Google, Microsoft, etc. Where those customers lie on that scale clearly makes a difference as to how important that bit you mentioned actually is. Also, if they can survive on four customers, it's clearly a bad reason to use it as a put down. And finally, why did you focus on just NYT when there are 5 other sources for the article too? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And have you considered that if Google were customer, it would have been mentioned at least three times in every their advert? I don't have to focus on anything: my focus is on the wikipedia article, which declares no nonability whatsoever. Mukadderat (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the partnership with NYSE Euronext's technologies division. Can you get a much better partnership than that in the development of financial technologies? Wikiphile1603 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the user who originally created this article. I did not create it for any commercial reason and I have no COI; I created it because I had heard about it and thought it was a notable project/company. I had meant to develop it further, and I hope that it will be developed further by other users. That said, perhaps it is better short and snappy, I don't know. Note that with regards to a low number of 'customers', please remember that if the project were completely non-commercial — i.e. no support contracts etc. — then it could still be notable and have zero 'customers'. Remember also (as mentioned) that the 'customers' are not just your average users — they are financial companies, and the contracts are likely to be of very high value. The software has far more downloads — and thus users — than it has 'customers'. Regarding the tone, I have re-read it and don't personally feel it reads promotionally, but please give more details if anyone thinks this is a significant issue. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Neither the article, nor the keep-voters provide any arguments what this company is better than any of multinumerous startup which pop up and then pop. Not a sinlge recognized achievement mentioned. Twri (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...apart from the notable coverage from places like the NY Times... and Reuters... and a partnership with NYSE Euronext... This is not possible for just a random 'mulinumerous startup'. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every startup has lots of spin. - Altenmann >t 21:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SenseiTW[edit]

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

Running a blog does not satisfy the general notability guideline on its own. The games themselves may have substantial coverage from third party reliable sources, but this person does not. ~YellowFives 16:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. He's one of tens of thousands working in the UK games industry, but not one of the few notable ones. JohnBlackburne (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG fail. Dale 22:47, 2 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 00:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable figure in the video games industry. Reliable sources in this article are only there to support the game history section and do not mention the subject of the article. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Al-Qamar[edit]

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

Their official website (http://www.alqamar.org/) is a parked (for advertisement) page on GoDaddy Inc. IMO this article should be deleted or cleaned up. If they want to prove their claim to be "one of the Largest Urdu News and Literature Network", they obviously need strong references. Abanima (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. No sources and the official website is not functional. Deganveranx (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that this newspaper is notable or perhaps even exists -Drdisque (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cartel de Santa[edit]

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

Delete. There was scant news related to one member accidentally shooting and killing another, but beyond that event I'm not finding any recognizable notability in terms of WP:BAND. JBsupreme (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:35, 2 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 00:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In fact, there are many sources about the accendatlly shooting involving members of the band, such as El universal, Las noticias México, Reuters and Milenio online. However, one can find other sources about the band itself and its member. In CMTV and Doggs Hiphop, there are profile and texts about the group. There are two other sources about shows and songs by the band in Conciertos 10: [27], [28]. In Clarín, one can find a review about a compilation album about Cadillacs in which Cartel de Santa participated. At least, I found an enterview with MC Babo, the vocalist of the band, in elsalvador.com. So, I consider all these sources sufficient to satisfy WP:BAND#1. Victor Silveira (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources have been added to the article to meet WP:GNG, plus they meet WP:BAND criterion 5 as shown here, it can be argued that they also meet criterion 7 from the first sentence of this review in Allmusic. J04n(talk page) 20:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Good J04n! I also added some sources to the article. In fact, I expanded it and organized some pieces of text. Victor Silveira (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two above me have found plenty of news sources confirming notability. Dream Focus 19:35, 13 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. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WBQK[edit]

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

Non-notable internet station. I may be wrong that it is an internet station, but that is what a search told me. There are no gnews hits, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Other than that, all a search turned up for this station is are sites that list links to the station. Directory site do not make something notable. Lastly, take note when discussing here that notability is not inherited. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 00:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the above, withdrawn per below. Here is a diff of me doing so.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doesn't appear to be an internet only radio station. And I think we usually keep licensed radio stations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how becoming licensed makes it notable.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 01:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how being in the Olympics in and of itself makes someone notable. But I try to follow consensus. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First of all, it's not an internet station but a 4000 watt FM terrestrial station that also simulcasts on the internet. Even if it was an internet-only station, it still could be notable. For the nom's second rationale for deletion - "There are no gnews hits" - that's false. It has gnews hits under its current call letters and under it's former call letters WPTG [29][30] (I found the first article by the link above provided by the nom.) --Oakshade (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification, I did not provide the link above, it is auto-loaded by a template/preload setup. When I did my original gnews search, it came up with nothing. However, I based this search on the call-sign depicted in a logo. I must have not seen that they were different.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. General consensus has been to keep the licensed AM/FM stations. Mr Radio Guy !!! 02:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and MrRadioGuy. Powergate92Talk 03:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and comment A licensed radio station serving fringe portions of the Richmond and Hampton Roads markets and which likely has a loyal audience, and because all radio stations are notable. I'm also growing concerned with how Daedalus969 is coming to the conclusion several obviously notable articles should have AfD's; for instance a nom on Monday regarding the obvious box office hit film Kangaroo Jack. I'm afraid that he either needs to read the guidelines for notability and bringing nominations, or he should brush up on his research skills, or (judging from the last few edits this article has received) needs to learn better ways to build consensus (asking for a speedy of this article because of an image license conflict is not a proper action in the least). Daedalus, you've been around a long time and you should know better. Nate • (chatter) 04:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: FCC licensed station, long standing keep is consensus.--Milowent (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: per above and speedy deleting this would open up a can of worms to delete other radio station articles. FCC license says its notable.--milonica (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - I could not find any independent sources that would support an article. It might well be the case that there is a consensus that licensed radio stations are notable, but then without independent source there is nothing we can write about a notable subjects. Pantherskin (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you could not find the independent sources shown above, that doesn't mean they don't exist. The Daily Press is independent of the article topic.--Oakshade (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to withdraw this, but per the above delete vote, I can no longer do such. I am not allowed to withdraw as long as there is an unstricken delete vote. However, I will post by opinion of withdrawing it above and below, so that when all delete votes are stricken, it can be withdrawn.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken, feel free to withdraw. Note that I still stand by my point, without any significant coverage there should be no article on this radio station (I would prefer to combine this station with other similar stations in a list). But obviously there is no chance that this article will be deleted, so to make things easier I have stricken my "vote". Pantherskin (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're kidding me right? [31] [32] [33] I would think links from the FCC and Arbitron hold more water than most links on Wikipedia, just saying. Why don't we delete other radio station articles eh? --milonica (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdawn - I wasn't aware of any such consensus concerning licensed radio stations being notable. When I looked up the relevant guidelines, I didn't see anything that had been made applicable about radio stations, except for an essay which had not been accepted yet. That aside, I withdraw per the already formulated consensus referenced. This note is for when all delete votes are stricken.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Snow keep. Call signs, format changes, and ownership changes over the years can be verified through newspaper searches. (As a side note, more than 100 UHF TV stations went out of business in the 1950s, and virtually nothing is known about many of these stations. Nothing was documented or preserved, and television historians have lamented this major loss to early television history. I'm so glad WP is around, because despite the occasional deletion, it is preserving broadcasting content for future generations). Firsfron of Ronchester 08:07, 9 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. Secret ^account 14:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Kuvin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable biography. The freely viewable GNews hits I get are about legal cases themselves, not focusing on the lawyer himself, thus he lacks the significant coverage necessary to merit an article. Cybercobra (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rework - Mr. Kuvin is mentioned is about 70 news stories. As noted by the nom, the stories are mostly about cases he was the lawyer for. However, it is my opinion that being part of notable cases makes a lawyer notable. A possible alternative to deletion would be to rework the article to be about the law firm he partners (Leopold~Kuvin) rather than Mr. Kuvin himself. Either way the material should be kept in some form.--ThaddeusB (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am skeptical (though quite open to being convinced) that any of the cases besides the Epstein one are notable. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, as has now been pointed out, notability is not inherited. I would not have a problem with some sort of merge though (perhaps to the case), but there probably wouldn't be much appropriate content to merge after trimming for relevance anyway... --Cybercobra (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even working the Epstein case does not make the subject notable as the case had no effect on the practice or definition of law. -Drdisque (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Thaddeus may opine that being part of a notable case makes a lawyer (or his firm) notable, but that's explicitly contrary to WP:N and WP:V ... quite aside that a large enough case may have many attorneys involved. Sources must still be substantially about the subject, not merely mention or quote him. RGTraynor 09:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. You're mixing WP:GNG and WP:V. Substantial sources about the subject are required when the sources are needed to establish notability. When for example you're writing about a subject that is notable because they won an award, you only need to verify that that particular claim is true. The rest of the information can be then come from fragments of brief mentions all over the place, but still make the person notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. It's true that all you need to do is verify that a particular claim is true when there's an explicit prima facie notability pass. Which would that be in this attorney's case? What element of WP:ANYBIO, for instance, do you claim that he meets? RGTraynor 10:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Unlike a very limited subset of awards, we're dealing with a lawsuit here, and lawsuits do not automatically make those involved notable; we are thus indeed in need of sources to establish notability. None have thus far been shown. Per the GNG, many merely passing mentions don't confer notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ThaddeusB. Being constantly featured in notable cases to me satisfies WP:ANYBIO part 2: a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. --Cyclopia^talk 10:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence that any of the other cases is notable? --Cybercobra (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So many editors make that claim without reading the footnote to #2: "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." Could you cite such books for us, please? RGTraynor 19:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence of "notable cases," just routine stuff. The phrasing of some of the case descriptions also raises BLP issues -- how, for example, can the funeral home operator be described as "unscrupulous" when the reference since neither the court case nor the investigation is finished? Borderline PR. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing I can find would indicate that he did anything really significant in the practice of law to make him particularly notable (i.e. new precedent, new technique, etc.). Notable cases, in my opinion, do not confer notability since notability is not inherited. Thus, in my opinion, he does not qualify for inclusion. As a side note, the article itself is also kind of spammy. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ervin Hallunaj[edit]

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

fails WP:ATHLETE. No caps, no article. Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't happen to be able to find him on the roster for the first team, so I'm puzzled ... maybe somebody will explain ... Until then, leaning delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:10, 2 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 00:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Wind Symphony[edit]

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

WP:N, no context. fetchcomms☛ 21:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of google news hits, not sure if any of them go into detail about it. How about the claim made in the article itself? Polarpanda (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BAND and WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:08, 2 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 00:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:13, 9 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partizan Press[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a short article about the parent company Caliver Books is a better idea? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is a specialist publisher of books on military history and associated topics and is at least as notable as many of the publishing houses listed in Category:Book publishing companies of the United Kingdom While there aren't many reviews of the company going around there are numerous reviews of it's books, enough to satisfy WP:COMPANY. NtheP (talk) 10:57, 4 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 00:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per a specialist publisher of books on military history and associated topics. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This company seems to be fully part of Caliver Books. Perhaps keep it as a piece of that entry. They don't have their own website - merely that of Caliver Books. Nedenchase (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as there is no evidence of notability in accordance with WP:CORP. The article itself makes no claim to notability, and as such, should have been subject to WP:CSD#A7 on account of there being no third party claim of significance or importance. The fact that the company is a specialist publisher holds no weight. Notability to come perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ article with Caliver Books, Ikip (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article for Caliver Books. Is there enough information to create one for them? Did Caliver Books buy them out, or where they always a part of them? We can just rename this article Caliver Books, and add to it from there. Dream Focus 01:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Dream Foucs. Is Caliver Books a notable company? It seems to me that some editors are treating deletion discussions as a game of Musical chairs. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I was not aware there was no Caliver Books article. I have struck my !vote. I based my comment on Nedenchase comment above. Ikip (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable publisher of historical works. I have created a redirect for Caliver Books. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:18, 10 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esto Es Lo Que Soy[edit]

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

nothing notable here, and after a year, problem wont be. can be merged to main article. Alan - talk 04:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, it's an EP, in Mexico it wasn't popular and commercial, that's why this Ep got "nothing notable"Tbhotch (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it also fails WP:NALBUMS as an article by itself Alan - talk 19:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the main article, the EP charted in the Mexican Top 100 album charts. Its 51 position isn't exactly stunning, but it does meet the notability criteria, provided someone from Mexico can help me confirm it. I've found no evidence of this particular chart in our badcharts list. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If for some reason, I missed something here, there's still the option to merge verifiable information (for example from the allmusic entry) to the main article in prosified form. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems fine. I don't think an AfD is necessary for that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason R. Johnston[edit]

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

The subject of this article is the writer/director of a minor, recently released short film, The Bench (which is not the same as The Bench). He has only one other, minor credit, according to his Imdb profile. All in all, the subject fails WP:CREATIVE. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete here, as well. One minor, small-time release indy film does not make one well known as an indy film producer, necessarily - and one sign of notability as far as a film review points at a failure for WP:N. For what it's worth, I hope mr. Johnston finds great success in the industry, and this is a good start - unfortunately, it's not enough for here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:15, 2 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 00:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom and DTT. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I suggest that merge/rename/redirect discussion be held on the article talk page. Kevin (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diwe[edit]

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

Mythical creature, limited references, should probably just be a redirect to Iranian folklore. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 17:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - after poking around some more, should probably be redirected to Daeva. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 17:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note that "Diwe" is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hotlist of Mythology & Folklore/D3. LadyofShalott 02:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you have a source or expert saying this is a form of daeva? It seems very plausible; I just want to be sure. --Chris Johnson (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - I do not. Pure OR/guessing on my part. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 19:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we have three significant sources on this article. Nominator's rationale sounds more like a merge proposal than a delete proposal, and merging is best proposed away from AFD. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and sort out what it is and what is should be called. We need more coverage of Iranian folklore. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OWASP O2 Platform[edit]

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

While the article's references possibly may imply notability, the article as it stands presents almost no NPOV information on the subject. Instead, it includes a number of external links with lead-ins such as "To gain a better understanding of what is O2? start with this presentation [...] and then read this presentation". It also includes a 'Try O2' section with a list of links to download locations. Removing all this content would render the article essentially empty, so I am nominating it for deletion. Aka042 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article has a certain advertisy tone to it, but it is not unsalvagable. The topic itself presents some refererences, but someone could clean this up to a reasonable article. Based on that, it should be kept and cleaned up rather than deleted. --Jayron32 00:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or weak merge into OWASP article. Not notable to warrant own article. References are blogs and are not from mainstream publications. Fails on NPOV and ADVERT. Mattg82 (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources presently in the article are all blogs. Surely the authors could have found two RS before writing the article. Miami33139 (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an advertisement. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Tuben[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable actor. Having a job, even a cool one like "actor", does not make one automatically qualify for an article at Wikipedia. This one does not pass the general notability guideline nor does it pass the minimum requirements for a biography. Jayron32 00:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while some jobs do make one automatically qualify for an article about Wikipedia, he doesn't have any of them. Nyttend (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO criteria because the links provided are either unreliable or not independent. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nyttend. 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 11:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motema africa[edit]

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

De Prodded. I can't find notable coverage. Has a myspace page and some polish language references, but a google news search comes up blank, including within a month. Shadowjams (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see 27 google news hits. Polarpanda (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None in english. Most are the polish sources I ref above. I still didn't see notability among the non english sources. Shadowjams (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to meet baseline notability standards. --Jayron32 00:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Dahlgren[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. Racing driver who never competed in a professional series. Only competed in homebuilt cars at local short-tracks. Drdisque (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find much in the way of reliable sources for this topic, so there doesn't appear to be much here. Reads more like an autobiography, or written by a close family member, so most of this information is likely original research anyways. --Jayron32 00:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Actually, I don't see any assertion of notability in there. Ravenswing 09:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are claims of driving Speedways, championships and seasons. I'm not an expert on the validity of the claims, but they sound like notability claims to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errr ... "speedways" are tracks. A "season" is the time tracks run races. Ravenswing 10:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He competed at a local track, that's it. Only a claim of a championship at that track precludes a Speedy. And even that is marginal. DarkAudit (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:15, 9 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. Secret ^account 14:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Horse[edit]

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

Non-notable play by a non-notable author. Originally appears to have been created by the playwright to promote a London fringe production that opens tomorrow. I have removed the cruft and the copyvio already. Nancy ^talk 12:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Non-notable, self promotion. Angryapathy (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [34], [35], and [36]. ~~By the way, my searches show that Bryn Magnus is also notable.~~ Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the reviews Joe, however those sites will typically cover everything that is put on in London from the National Theatre to the back room of a pub so are not a great statement of notability, barely a step above a listing in fact. What we really need here is a review from a national newspaper such as The Times or even the Daily Mail or a piece from a recognised critic. Nancy ^talk 12:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Nancy put the words together that I was unable to. I didn't really find those sources to be indicators of notability, as Nancy says, they will publish reviews of all productions. I would also like to see some more reliable and independant sources regarding this play. Angryapathy (talk) 16:24, 2 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 00:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero hits on Google News archive for "Love Horse" + Magnus. While Magnus himself is a noted playwright, this particular play seems to have come in well under the radar, and notability is not inherited. RGTraynor 09:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the playwright. Notability is not inherited by simply being related to a person (which is where it originally came from), but a play that is the work of a noted playwright is notable itself because it is CREATED by them and not just randomly connected. If a plays that "come in under the radar" aren't covered, we wouldn't even have complete coverage of William Shakespeare. Even the Bard has written obscure plays. We also have notability guidelines that state films with notable people working on them and bands with notable members are notable. Plays are just another creative work these rules could be extended to. In this particular case, there doesn't appear to be enough information to write an article yet, so merging the single line is the best solution. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, i think you will find a large amount of academic criticism on even the most obscure of Shakespeare's. But there are only a few authors for whom that can be safely assumed. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn Magnus is currently a redlink so at this moment there is no article to merge/redirect to. Nancy ^talk 06:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That can be dealt with by making the article, using this as a start. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously! I didn't intend my observation to suggest otherwise hence use of words "currently" and "at the moment" :) Nancy ^talk 15:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhileshwaranand[edit]

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

Unsourced article with redflag claims; even possibly a hoax. I didn't find any sources verifyng the claims of the article. Note too that the name "Swami Nikhileshwarananad" is relatively common, so not all sources you find on googling refer to this person, and we need to be careful not to create a chimaeric biography. Abecedare (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete looks like a hoax to me -Drdisque (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

↑No speedy deletion for hoaxes

Delete -- No reliable sources to be found. Yes, it looks like a hoax to me too, but the name comes up frequently on Google. Many of the sites seem to be talking about the same thing as this article. Not that they're reliable sources, but it might be best to avoid labeling it a hoax and deleting it just because of that speculation--Abusing (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, no evidence that this is true, even aside from notability issues. By the way, we can speedy hoaxes sometimes; that's what G3 is for. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it it's blatant vandalism. This is suspected to possibly be a hoax.--Abusing (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax article--Sodabottle (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason why most hoaxes should be AfD'd or prodded is that a reasonable percentage of the suspected ones turn out to be real, but unlikely or unfamiliar, and 2 people are just not enough to see them. Even something self-contradictory on its face may just be badly written, or fancifully embellished, or even vandalized. ."Looks like a hoax to me" is not a safe basis for judging. It might also turn out that something totally absurd is in fact an actual fiction, that might sometimes turn out to be notable. I learned very quickly from a few embarrassing mistakes with these that the extent of my knowledge was considerably more limited than I had thought it was. This particular type of subject is a tricky one, because--on the one hand-- how can a non-specialist tell if it's real? and on the other, it's so absurdly easy to fake. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax or not, the article contains no references and consists of religious claims stated as a fact - it has no place on Wikipedia. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This suggests that this is not a hoax. I have no opinion on notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that book before nominating, but don't think the source is talking about this Nikhileshwasanand. The book is on Tantra and the available snippets say that he returned to domestic life and (if I understand right) reverted to the name Dr. Shrimali. Those details don't match the biography of "our" Nikhileshwaranand. Abecedare (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Abecedare. Nikhileshwaranand is one those generic "Swami" names. More than one could have it. and our swami is said to be 10000 years old. So the gbook swami is not ours.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if real, just not notable as not enough sources can show notability. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unverified, quite aside from some statements that strain credulity. --MelanieN (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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