Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 22

Guide to deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Heron (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the numbers are relatively even the consensus needs to be jusged against policy not headcount and the keep side has not refuted the delete side argument that notability has not been demonsrated by multiple non trivial sources. Happy to review but would want to see better sourcing if I were to consider relisting or reversing myself Spartaz Humbug! 03:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Luke Heron AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Luke Heron Articles for deletion/Luke Heron (2nd nomination) Luke Heron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) This is the second time this article has been nominated and was previously deleted in August 2008. As with the original AFD, this article does not pass on basis of notability as per WP:BIO and potential conflict of interest as per WP:COI. The subject of this article does not meet notability standards. Nearly all references to this subject have been prompted by the subject himself (i.e., personal website) with only a trivial mention in a reputable news article as one of many professionals. As per his own website, there is nothing particularly notable about his career and he has not garnered any significant coverage from any real news source. Additionally, as with the previous article that was deleted, this article was created by a Single-purpose accounts whose only other edits relate to linking two articles to this one, prompting concerns over WP:COI. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Comment - Looking at a facebook group [1] ("We Think Luke Heron Should Mellow Out") and the fact that his biggest claim to fame is being sacked from Merrill Lynch, the inclusion of this article strikes me as particularly inappropriate for an apparently ambitious but non-notable individual. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Hi, it was me that published the article. I am wanting to develop a series of pieces on young and note-worthy pioneers in the junior venture capital and entrepreneurial space. Heron seemed an obvious first choice as he was a well-known share tipster (I couldn't remember or find out with which organisation so have not detailed as such - though his website references several). The reason he is interesting was the formation and development of a number of funds in the alternative investment asset space. He set up a company called Storyboard Assets Plc which invests in original illustrative art (I found one seperate link referencing his purchase of a winnie the pooh book which i detailed in EH Shepard page), is a director of alternative investment assets plc (which i found from companies house, again with no independent references so have not detailed it - but from printed media (antiques trade gazette) he has launched a Titanic Investment fund. My point is that you are clearly very experienced in venture capital, but this is not an advertisment (I am not sure what it would be advertising), nor have I included any references to his website (which I agree makes stupid boasts about Merrill Lynch), but he is a fascinating character that is pioneering an interesting area. The FT article mostly talks about his company Storyboard Assets Plc (www.storyboardassets.com - I see he founded it). I want to publish pieces of a similar nature on Tom Winnifrith, add further to Conrad Windham, Luke Johnson etc as my interest is young (I cannot define this, though at 42 I consider myself too old, wrong profession and, alas, too poor for inclusion) entrepreneurs and venture capital players. I read over the previous Luke Heron article that was deleted. I hope I have addressed your concerns. I will continue to add more as i can dig it up, but the four sources are all independent. I have checked him out on facebook - I agree he needs to mellow out too, not sure we can link that into wiki though - surprised facebook hasnt deleted as surely that is libellous. Needless to say, I am in no way connected to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MyraSendak (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete There is no significant coverage of this individual in reliable sources. The first ref (financial times) is just a passing mention; the second is nothing at all, just his name on a list. The third ref is self-published, and the fourth is also a blurb written by him. Nowhere is there an article about this individual. Plus, the article's self-congratulatory tone ("well-known", "winning a job", "forging a career") is inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Comment The article is currently being trimmed right back to the bare bones to remove all the peackock wording, and I am encouraging the editor to rewrite it in a more encyclopedic nature. I would ask that the closing admin gives this AFD the full length of time to allow for the rewriting, and does not speedy delete this article. Stephen! Coming... 16:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC) CommentI am a little perplexed at the strength of feeling about this. I have read through Wiki deletion information and notability guidelines and still nonethewiser about the specifics that are relevant with this individual. I think perhaps my contribution was not very well crafted and perhaps not deposited in the right place. I have cut it back to its bear bones and will now look to build it back up. Not that this is the right forum for discussion of his notability but in the UK, he is a fairly well known character. Heron was a presenter of a Net based TV game show called Trading Places (struggling to find links - he devised the show), he was one of the most quoted share tipsters (again not sure how to detail this short of finding links to articles that quote him) and was responsible for moving share prices on the London markets everyday for a number of years (I was one of many investors that both suffered and gained as a result of this). Again, I want to keep this relevant as I think the interest and notibility in this character is with his transforming unique areas of collecting into legitimate investments and vehicles. Following your comments I have re-read the Financial Times article. Lets be fair about it - I would say 30% of it is about Heron and his company Storyboard Assets Plc, the rest is on the wider collectables market. It is untrue to state that the FT piece makes only a passing mention of his efforts in this arena. If the FT has covered it there will be other papers too and I will try and dig these up whilst also working on other investors. As I say, I think the 30% of the article that talks about Storyboard and illustrative art and specifically turning the art into an investable asset class is clearly a breakthrough and most certainly notable. I am new to wiki - I have a genuine passion in junior venture capital and those in the UK markets that are developing it within the smaller company scene. Heron, Duncan Bannatyne (Dragons Den, BBC2), Scott Fletcher (North England Entrepreneur of the year), Tom Winnifrith (Serial tipster, entrepreneur and fund maanger), James Caan (Dragons Den and venture capital) etc are investors that are changing the landscape. These are "celebrity" investors that are infectiously impacting how money is made (and lost!) in the UK and further afield. They have collectively developed the concept of retail venture capital. ie venture capital for everyone. Again, this is very difficult to substantiate, but I am hoping that other contributors will in time find the time and will to offer their input. Again, I am hopeful that some more experienced wiki users that know more about Heron's background can usefully add some value to the article. I have decided to join the Task Force that overseas this area on Wiki. I hope (rather selfishly) that I might be able to learn more about this area and contribute in areas where I feel comfortable. In the meantime I really would appreciate all advice and input in any way shape or form, to allow me to develop as a wiki contributor. I would like the time and help to develop this area of venture capital into a real hive of encyclopedic information for the benefit of all. Finally, I accept the comments made that it sounded overly promotional. This was in large part to the fact I read up a lot from sources that I accept provide an inappropriate slant. I have removed all of these. I accept Heron's sacking is not notable and I accept describing him as "well-known" is not acceptable - I have amended the article significantly and taken out these peacock expressions. Please allow me the freedom to develop it and add further pieces and contributions in this area. Again, feedback and advice is greatly appreciate. I am keen to listen and to learn from you all.MyraSendak (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC) MyraSendak: I appreciate your comments, but unfortunately my !vote will have to remain "delete" for now. The sources you have given say more about Heron's company than Heron himself, and also I should point out that his Storyboard Assets PLC is a company with only 3 employees. If he is a "celebrity investor" and is "revolutionizing" the field along with other young investors, there should be more written about him; if you can supply such sources, I will be willing to reconsider. I am leaving you another message on my talkpage with some editing tips. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Also, to the admin who closes this debate: if you do choose to delete, I would suggest userfying to User:MyraSendak/Luke Heron instead, so the user can work on it. If there is any doubt over the notability or any possibility that the individual might be article-worthy eventually, I don't see any harm in doing this. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Keep I easily found enough Ghits to establish notability and was able to quickly add a couple of small bits of sourced content. I think the real issue is that the original author is new, and wasn't aware of the notability guidelines. The fact that Heron is indeed a pioneer-investor means that most of our sources will be online, rather than in academic journals, however I have found what are clearly reliable sources that can be used to build the article. I hope that editors who have already commented will perhaps monitor the article with an eye towards reconsidering. Doc Tropics 16:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Ghits don't automatically confer notability, and you have to be careful using them to gauge it. I just did a search and most of the hits are either open wikis, Wikipedia mirrors, or social networking sites; especially with common names like this, you have to realize right off the bat than many hits you get will be for regular people who happen to have the same name. For instance, one of the hits on the first page is this twitter page (probably not our Luke Heron; his latesttweet is "2 more sleeps until I have to go back to school. Ah it's a toug life in Grade 1"); the closest to "notable" that I saw in the first page are this (a photographer's blog mentioning that he went to Heron's house, not notable at all), and this (essentially a link to Heron's blog, also not notable). That's it for the google web search; the google news search returned no hits at all other than Heron's own press release. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Comment BLPs are especially significant areas of concern, and COI can often be an issue, so I backtracked the original author's talkpage contributions looking for evidence of it. At this point I'm reasonably satisfied that the author is what we might normally consider an "enthusiastic hobbiest" writing about a new wave of investment pioneers, rather than some sort of shill or puppet for the article's subject. Also based on talkpage comments, I'm satisfied that the author is trying to learn more about our policies, intends to follow them, and has a high probability of becoming a productive editor if encouraged, rather than discouraged, to contribute further. Doc Tropics 17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Agreed, I don't think MyraSendak is the article subject; this editor has expressed interest in creating lots of other biographies as well, and has edited some other articles, so I don't think s/he is just trying to promote the one guy. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Comment I am trying to please everyone here with my first real effort. I have taken out the green references. He owns the largest stake in a retailer called Green Baby but I cannot find any published detail other than at companies house www.companieshouse.gov.uk - but its not linkable as its a subscription service. His own website references Green Baby but does not detail how much he owns. Its a shame I cannot reference that as most UK people have heard of Green Baby - I will keep looking though as there must be an article somewhere. He historically owned one of the largest stakes in Good Energy Plc - the biggest green power producer in Britain. Again, the only references are shareholder lists and it seems he now holds his shares in a nominee account to hide detail of ownership. Good Energy is NOT listed on his own website. I think the article is now un-peacocked (is that a correct expression?). I have found links to articles about his art fund in some major press outlets so I will upload those. I am not sure why we cannot say Heron is pioneering collectables as an asset class. But I accept the input of other more experienced wiki people. I am obviously keen that this article should be allowed time to develop at the very least. I sincerely hope the article will be allowed to stay. Its not orphaned any longer it has had peacock stuff removed. As for notability, I am quickly getting the impression it all comes down to ones view on achievement or significance or relevance to the individual casting judgement. Clearly Heron is not Warren Buffett, but is developing an entirely new asset class which is surely fascinating and deserving of an encyclopedic entry. Again, I am very grateful for all the feedback that has been given. I am really enjoying editing and adding input - I have also applied for a mentor...here's hoping! MyraSendak (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Weak Keep The Financial Times story has pretty substantial coverage of this individual and his company. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I would suggest you read the article - the subject is mentioned only briefly as a bit of color - this does not constitute coverage. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. The articles provide no significant coverage of the individual, and only the barest of the company. The FT story mentions the individual twice, providing exactly no information about him other than his role as owner of the company. Moreover, its coverage of the company itself is trivial--the story is on the business strategy. The other references have literally zero of substance about the subject. Coverage of a company without any reference to the accomplishments or actions of an associated individual do nothing to establish notability. Bongomatic 21:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Delete per rʨanaɢ, whose sig makes my head hurt but whose deletion rationale is spot-on. Fails BIO; not notable. No sourcing to speak of. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Comment - I appreciate the sentiment wanting to help the author here having gone through this myself. But focus on the subject himself. He is a young business person much like many others. His net worth, at an impressive GBP 6 mln for a venture capitalist is nothing of particular note. He owns some businesses, so do a lot of people who fail WP:BIO. He was once mentioned briefly in an FT article to provide some color, there are people profiled like that in the FT and the WSJ every day who still fail WP:BIO. And aside from that most everything else on the web about Luke Heron is self promotion and clearly Wikipedia should not be a platform for promotion (WP:SOAP). I never want to discourage a new user but I am concerned that even putting this article in the userspace just means it will reappear sooner or later but still fail notability. Remember notability is not a reflection on the quality of the article but on the subject itself. Having been the founding member of the Private Equity Task Force, I am more than happy to help the author find other venture capital related topics that are in dire need of help that are far more notable for an enthusiastic hobbyist. I would look on it as a privelege to work with a new user but still I stand by my nomination to delete this article, now for the second time |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Comment - Whilst I am in total disagreement that the subject is not notable and believe him to meet WP:BIO I accept all constructive comments. I will continue with this and other pieces in this space of investment pioneers. More importantly, I am very encouraged by this debate - this process is so very important in legitmising all articles and it is comforting that such care and attention is spent with all entries. I hope I can make an important contribution too. I am looking forward to working with you Urbanrenewal on the Private Equity Task Force and would be delighted to accept any suggestions for where to devote some time on this important topic. MyraSendak (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - Insufficient coverage to establish notability. The FT article is a brief mention, and done as a writing hook in the lead paragraph. The article in not about Heron or his company and quickly move on. The business week items are just directory entries. And rest are just mere mentions. There is no coverage of any significance. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Keep and *Comment - I have exhausted this process now. The subject matter is notable and I will continue to add to it as I am able. When this thread started there were several question marks around it - was it promotional - was it an orphan article etc. These issues have been resolved. I think an unneccessary amount has been deleted - the bits that make the subject notable (calling him a pioneer and using some of his tips as references - this does not discuss him it discusses a specific subject matter) have been seen as an advert. Advertising what I dont know. I have deleted anyway. I do not understand some people's focus on the Financial Times article. It is just one reference and in this case is mostly about Heron and his alternative investment concept. But it is the fact (and I sound like a broken record here) that he is pioneering these unusual alternative investments into a seperate asset class that I have focussed on. Those that have said the article hardly talks about Heron haven't read the article. But I have added other references now so there shouldn't be such a focus. There are thousands of media quotes which all relate to his career as a tipster though I have not focussed on these. I have deleted claims about his wealth (gleamed from Sunday Times Rich List, the 2006/2007 edition (http://www.amazon.com/Sunday-Times-Rich-Philip-Beresford/dp/0713672366/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1248907113&sr=8-1). I amended wealth down from £13m to £6.5m (I found a different claim in a magazine) and then deleted altogether as wealth in this case is irrelevant. My interest in investment pioneers and "celebrity" investor types is genuine and this seemed the obvious person to start with as all the other principle ones are somehow connected. Tom Winnifrith (presenter of Channel 4's Show Me the Money and editor of t1ps - heron used to be an editor within Winnifrith's organisation. He also owns a declarable stake (cant find exactly how much) in Rivington Street Holdings, the influential publisher). Duncan Bannatyne (one of the Dragons on BBC's Dragons Den, was a speaker at an event with Heron on more than one occasion - Master Investor). Conrad Windham (there is already a Wiki article about Windham which I have added to, but WIndham used to work for Heron at a tipsheet). My interest is in a totally different area to those that are commenting about venture capital and private equity (I may have filed this article incorrectly) - I have joined the private equity task force.....I notice it is all about big wealth and big deals as opposed to those that are changing the landscape. My interest in Winnifrith, Scott Fletcher, Conrad Windham, Luke Heron, Simon Cawkwell, Peter Jones and others is how they have popularised investing in venture capital among mere mortals by leveraging their celebrity. Heron's move to make alternatives a legitimate asset class is a very interesting one and the wider alternatives market needs more substance on wiki. Again, another area I am interested in. MyraSendak (talk) 22:47, 29 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian American Library of Chicago

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. notability requires sources that discuss the subject not simple assertions Spartaz Humbug! 03:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Bosnian American Library of Chicago Bosnian American Library of Chicago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Zero Google hits for this organization apart from Wikipedia and the Library's own web page (or cached copies/excerpts thereof). This rather strongly implies it is both non-notable and non-verifiable. Where is the independent third-party coverage of this institution? —Psychonaut (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Firstly this article has been in place for one week. It might have been appropriate to wait a little to see whether the text was expanded with other material and references. Secondly it is surely not unreasonable to try searching on "Bosnian-American Library" or "Bosnian Library" and "Chicago" before pouncing with your request for deletion. You're starting to give the impression of lying in wait for Bosniak. Opbeith (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC) This is not the place to question the motives for this proposed deletion. Please stick to discussing whether the article meets Wikipedia's policies for notability and verifiability. If you have evidence that the subject of the article is covered in independent third-party sources under another name, then post it. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Reasonably notable events organised by and at the Bosnian(-American) Library http://www.mfa.gov.ba/HTML/Arhiva/Eng/DKP_09/D090309_B.html http://www.bosnianlibrarychicago.com/past-events.html (pictures) http://www.cgbhchicago.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=38&Itemid=12&lang=en&limitstart=6 http://www.cgbhchicago.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108:saopenje-za-javnost&catid=38:vijesti&Itemid=12&lang=en (Bosnian Consulate-General site) http://www.genocidepreventionmonth.org/overview/genocide-prevention-month-pledge.html Dream for Darfur's Genocide Prevention Month - programme of lectures and cultural education "Educating Against Prejudices" Section http://www.bosnjaci.net/prilog.php?pid=31610 "Educating Against Prejudices" Section http://www.bosniaks.net/prilog.php?pid=34702 CHICAGO: REMEMBERING THE DAY OF THE SREBRENICA GENOCIDE event presented by the Bosnian American Library in Chicago and American Music Festivals with speakers including Jonathan Moore, prospective Deputy Head of Mission, US Embassy in Sarajevo, Semuel R. Harris, Director of Holocaust Museum in Skokie, Philip Simmons, Founder and Music director American Music Festival: Personal remarks on Holocaust and prominent Bosnians There is a large Bosnian community in Chicago. This is a respected community institution housed in the Conrard Sulzer Public Library. You could do worse than contact Sanja Seferovic Drnovsek, director of the "Educating Against Prejudices" Section, an organiser of events involving US and Bosnian personalities. Opbeith (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC) If these events are notable, then they themselves may qualify for Wikipedia articles. However, notability of the events does not imply notability of the venue. (However, it would be highly unusual for a locally organized lecture series to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.) —Psychonaut (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I was simply mentioning these events and the participants as evidence that the Library is "adequately notable" for inclusion. But you knew that. Opbeith (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Improve Thank you for inviting me for this discussion. I opened the article and I did not have time to expand it. I hoped other people would join and help me improve this article. Bosnian American Library of Chicago is central to the cultural life of Bosniaks in that area, and probably in that state. It hosted some high profile guest speakers, one of them being Holocaust survivor Mr Sammuel R. Harris (aka: Sam Harris) (see http://www.bosniak.org/report-remembering-the-day-of-the-srebrenica-genocide/ ). I believe this article deserves a chance and would appreciate if we could expand it as part of cultural life of Bosniak diaspora in the United States. I thank you all in advance, and I will be contributing more to that article over the weekend. Bosniak (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC) As I understand it, this is a wing of a regional branch of the Chicago Public Library. Neither of the two regional branches (Sulzer or Woodson) even has an article. Leaning toward delete.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (i) Re the original nomination: from WP:AfD "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator or notifying an associated wikiproject, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." So why was this article nominated in the first place? (ii) Tony the Tiger, if the absence of an article about the higher elements of a hierarchy means that an article about a lower part cannot be included, article creation must follow a systematic programme, and one which imposes one-dimensional hierarchies. However helpful that might be, it is not reconcilable with an open access principle that allows editors to contribute articles based on interest and enthusiasm. It's common sense that allows a reasonable compromise to be achieved. The Bosnian American Library, although housed in the Charles Sulzer Library, plays a specific role of wider than regional interest and the references now cited indicate that. The Charles Sulzer library may well justify its own article but no-one has yet created an article, or at least a substantial enough one to survive. And even though the Bosnian American Library is in any case of more than local and minority interest, the history of the last fifty years has shown that it is inappropriate for a majority to adopt a model of systematic disregard of minority community interests and values. (iii) (Personal comment) Wikipedia is seen and used as a useful resource in the real world. I hope I don't need to cite references in support of that assertion. I don't think that's just a value judgment on my part. In the absence of a "wider picture" perspective Wikipedia risks becoming weighted towards a demographically driven Trivial Pursuits resource whose rules give well-crafted articles about video games and TV-serial and comic-book characters de facto a greater right to existence than less-complete articles about institutions and events with a substantive relevance to real lives. Wikipedia is something more than a post-modernist virtual concept. Wikipedia rules have developed as a safety-net with one over-riding purpose - to ensure that the democratic principles/operation of Wikipedia don't risk damaging its real-world usefulness/credibility. That constant tension is mediated - albeit imperfectly, as in real life - by common sense. Properly validated articles about video-game characters are part of Wikipedia democracy. But rule-heavy policing should not be used to evict information whose presence a reasonable person would consider beneficial rather than harmful. And above all it should not be used in a way that deters editors who use expend personal time and energy in good faith to share that information. Opbeith (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I can find no sources. The ones offered consist of self-published information, press releases, and event announcements. It doesn't matter is if an editor spent personal time in a good faith effort if the material does not meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC) For purposes of establishing notability, however disparaging you may be about press releases issued by the Bosnian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Sarajevo and the Bosnian Consulate General in Chicago, surely those bodies are eligible to count, in this context at least, as reliable sources according to the Wikipedia guidelines you direct me to? "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - it's difficult to see why straightforward reports such as these should be vulnerable to challenge as coming from unreliably sources.Opbeith (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I can't argue against unyielding rules, I can only suggest that their interpretation could take account of the implicit acknowledgment of notability indicated by the support for the BAL of the State Department, the Bosnian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the organisation representing the Bosnian community in North America. If establishing the notability of an institutions whose primary focus is on providing a specifically native language service to a minority community is dependent on English-language sources, it is not unreasonable to give some consideration to alternative English-language evidence of its activities. If the rules don't allow that sort of flexibility, then you just have to kill off the article. Opbeith (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC) There is no prohibition against non-English sources, nor has any editor here stated a deletion opinion that excludes non-English sources. For that matter, nobody has even offered up any non-English sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC) At the Srbrenica massacre/genocide article it was insisted that the twelve words of Bosnian that accompanied 8000 names on the list issued by the Federal Commission for Missing Persons made it unacceptable as confirmation of the identities of the victims. Is it the case that non-English sources are allowed? Opbeith (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I have no idea what the issues at that article might be, but per WP:NONENG, non-english sources are acceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks, that's a helpful reference.Opbeith (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Merge? If, as Tony the Tiger states above, this is a branch of the Chicago Public Library, perhaps we can merge Bosnian American Library of Chicago into Chicago Public Library. I'm not sure about the Wiki policy regarding mergers, but perhaps that can be an approach that is a better alternative then deletion. --Pink Bull (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid I disagree with the helpfully intended suggestion to merge. The significance of the Bosnian American Library is not simply as a library, it lies in its role as an institution serving the specific social, cultural and linguistic needs of a large exile community. Opbeith (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Just to be clear, I support keeping the article. I was only suggesting a merge as the worst case scenario. Sincerely, --Pink Bull (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC) On what basis would the article be kept? I can see a case for a merge (although I don't agree), but I don't really see a case for keeping a stand-alone article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The library is notable enough to be mentioned in wikipedia. The article needs to be improved, so instead deleting it, let's improve it. Bosniak (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Owen, can you please put your position in "bold" so we can have an overview of all votes. Thanks. Bosniak (talk) 02:04, 30 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsrail

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @957  ·  21:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Newsrail Newsrail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) A non-notable magazine with the sources provided to date only demonstrating its existence, not its notability. The article and the sources provided do not demonstrate the magazine's significance to anyone other than the members of the Australian Railway Historical Society (Victorian Division). This is a contested PROD, reasons for contesting are provided on the article talk page. While I concede the article may be of some use, being "useful" is not a valid argument for keeping this article. Being the 37th most cited publication on Wikipedia's merely reflects the extremely large contribution made to this encyclopedia by railfans rather than being an intrinsic measure of a publications notability, i.e. it is selection bias. Mattinbgn\talk 23:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Objection withdrawn. Clifflandis (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I'd argue keep. This magazine should be measure for what it's scope is: Australian train-related stuff. Verifiability is met, and I consider "serious" magazines to be inherently notable. The article can be massively improved though, and Wikipedia will not have improved if we delete this article. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Keep. Topical journal that's been running for decades, one of the central publications in its area. Clearly notable. Rebecca (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Keep per sound comments above by users Headbomb and Rebecca.--Pink Bull (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Delete Non-notable, it will never be significantly larger than it is now, so it isn't even really useful. Jonathan Hall (talk) 18:53, 29 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @059  ·  00:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheaper by the Dozen 3

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Cheaper by the Dozen 3
• Articles for deletion/Cheaper by the Dozen 3 (2nd nomination)

Cheaper by the Dozen 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deleted via PROD, subsequently contested and restored. Bringing it here for further evaluation. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no evidence here, and I can find no evidence from reliable sources using Google, that this film will ever go into production; doesn't meet Wikipedia's future films policy. I would have no problem with recreation if reliable evidence was provided that the film was actually in production. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I would regurgitate Accounting 4 taste, but its simply no sources, and no verification that the movie is even in production or entering. Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above: shooting hasn't started yet, and it doesn't look like pre-production has either. Cliff smith ^talk 15:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to the first movie article, it has stated that the film will be two years away and it is currently pre-production. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 21:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • What reliable sources say that? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Nothing. I just decided to vote redirect. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 21:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources that this film will ever exist. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 25 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @059  ·  00:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

SilverNet

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

Not notable, even if real. Google News archive search gives no hits for "Silvernet" in the time period specified in the article. A Google search for "deh469" gives exactly one virus-related hit, a page on a hacker wiki that was created on May 27. —phh (^t/_c) 21:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ——phh (^t/_c) 21:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no sources to establish verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 28 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @059  ·  00:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Alexander piano

Alexander piano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unreferenced article about the authors home-built piano...no assertion of notability WuhWuzDat 21:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Completely un-notable. South Bay (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per substantial coverage in reliable sources. May be the largest piano in the world. WOrth including in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Previously deleted under the titles of Worlds Largest Piano and Worlds largest piano 2009- (both times as speedy, one of them by me after the creator blanked the page). This has clearly gained some media coverage, but it's trivia, and more appropriate for a world records site than for here. Delete.-gadfium 23:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable and COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 23:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. My heart tells me this most ambitious project which produced such a superb work of art deserves shouting from the rooftops, but unfortunately, it's not truly encyclopedic. Yet. If Michael Houstoun or some other classical pianist road tests it and endorses it in the media, then maybe we could have something to base an article on. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:00, 24 July 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 keep. (X! · talk)  · @059  ·  00:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tyler Faith

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Tyler Faith
• Articles for deletion/Tyler Faith (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Tyler Faith (3rd nomination)

Tyler Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not seem to comply with any of the WP:Pornbio criteria KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This article does not seem to comply with any of the criteria of WP:Pornbio. The single award she has apparently won was issued by a local Houston, Texas-area print publication, Nightmoves, which wouldn't seem to comply with criterion #1, while there doesn't seem to any question she doesn't meet criteria #2 through #5. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:Pornbio is not the only deciding factor. From Additional criteria: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Article itself lists other criteria for notability. Biofase ^flame| stalk  22:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Same rationale as the keeps in the first AfD. Lots of coverage by AVN which is considered a reliable source on pornography. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Still notable since last time. Dismas|^(talk) 01:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Passes GNG easily. This shouldn't have been nominated.Horrorshowj (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per meeting WP:GNG for coverage in genre-specific sources. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, winning an award satisfies the notability criterium enough. -- fdewaele, 28 July 2009, 14:27.

• Comment No, I'm sorry, but that is not correct. You have to win some sort of major, notable award, as per the WP:Pornbio criteria, which it may be helpful for you to review before voting on whether to retain porn star bio articles. A minor, obscure award issued by a local, Houston, Texas-area, "alternative" print publication is not sufficient to achieve notability. That is a fact simply not in dispute. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:04, 24 July 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 00:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ted David

Article reads like Ted's résumé combined with an advertisement. If someone can fix it then keep it, otherwise, delete. IceKarmaॐ 04:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio from his CNBC page complete with email address at the bottom.It has been reported. Would vote to keep a legitimate article though. Capitalistroadster 06:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs rewording and sourcing to remove copyvio. – AxSkov (☏) 06:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even though a non-copyvio version is needed. And I see that the temp page that was just added also contains the copyvio material. ErikNY 00:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs cleanup not deletion. ··gracefool |☺ 18:29, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

I am unclear what would be a copyright violation about me posting something here that was written by ME and appears on MY OWN website and that I have in essence licensed to NBC. td

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @059  ·  00:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

FOB (movie)

FOB (movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A prod tag was removed without apparent improvement. A film that has not yet begun casting doesn't meet Wikipedia's new film policy; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Accounting4Taste:talk 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, as per nom. Doesn't appear notable as a film at all, let alone notable as a future film. Based on user name of creator, I would say this is self-promotion. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above: notability concerns outside of the fact that shooting hasn't started yet and a possible COI as noted by DragonHawk. Cliff smith ^talk 15:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as being a tad premature. Perhaps a simple mention in the director's article that he is planning a film? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Leave it. If media outlets from China and multiple local arts papers think enough to interview the creators, then it's notable. It's also about a topic not often covered in movies: the asian immigrant experience. In addition, it features Asian-Americans in most of the lead roles, which is notable in itself, considering Hollywood's propensity for keeping Asians out of the film world (see the movie 21, where the real life characters that the movie was based on were all asian, and in the movie, only a ditz and a kleptomaniac were asian. Everyone else was recasted as a caucasian. Finally, its notable because of the community involvement in the project. Only local groups from the San Gabriel Valley will be featured on the Soundtrack. The director is a San Gabriel attorney and the writer went to high school out here. No crystal ball is necessary. The script is done. The casting is done. The filming starts next week. Movies like Spiderman 4 and other future movies and albums get pages on here all the time and they are less notable, as they are usually formulaic hollywood pieces of crap that are sometimes cancelled prior to fiming (see Moneyball). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.158.42 (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC) — 69.237.158.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Actually Spider-man 4 didn't have an entry until pre-production was confirmed, by multiple reliable sources. Your complaints about 21 need to be addressed to the producers of that film, and you are confusing WP:V with WP:N. You may be able to verify this film is shooting, that does not make it notable. Once it is finished and released then it will be easy to judge its notability, and you, or anyone involved with the production, will not need to create the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, and take a gander at Long Z. Liu. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I've also initiated an AfD process for Long Z. Liu; thanks for the pointer. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:24, 27 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Sweet

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Too Sweet Too Sweet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Seems like a load of nonsense, and fails WP:NEO GW… 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Comment - Nominated for speedy deletion. Speedy delete Non-notable Neo and the articles creator seems to have a COI. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Comment - What do I need to change to keep this on the site? This was an actual gesture noted by WCW. Msuplayer212 Find reliable sources that prove the gesture is notable and add them to the article. Greg Tyler (t • c) 22:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Speedy delete non-notable wrestling trivia, merge to an existing article if reliable references per can be found- existing refs fail WP:RS. Per Ardua (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Redirect to New World Order (professional wrestling) youngamerican (wtf?) 13:20, 23 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @059  ·  00:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

JLS (album)

JLS (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Crystalballing. No doubt it will be notable when released, but this might not even be the title of it yet. Too much not known, and the article admits as much. – B.hotep •talk• 20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. – B.hotep •talk• 20:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & . Once you remove all the unsourced info, all you're left with is the AfD tag.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 13:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above; title, release date and track list must all be verified before it qualifies for a separate article. Until then, info about this should be in the artist's article. Cliff smith ^talk 15:20, 23 July 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 Nomination withdrawn. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 19:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Subodh Khandekar

Subodh Khandekar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, possible hoax. Can find no evidence of this person's existence (as asserted in this article). RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I knew there was something I forgot to do, and that was check Google News. I hereby withdraw my nomination per the given evidence of notability. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 19:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Google news search (all dates) and Lexis search bring up articles about this sportsman (notably in the Indian Express) which seems to assert notability. The article itself could do with a clean-up though. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per the Hindu he played for the Indian national team and qualifies WP:ATHLETE, although his Olympic career would have been prior to online archives of Indian newspapers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Added another ref to show that he did play in the Olympics. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Article is sourced, subject clearly meets notability guidelines for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Edward and Spaceman. --L I C 03:01, 23 July 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 Speedy delete g5, article (and this AFD) both created by same banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

AmbiTEXTrous

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

Not notable and no sources Deitrohuat (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom, and WP:NEO. I42 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Somebody made up a new word and thought it sounded really cool. Good for them, but it's not article material. --bonadea contributions talk 20:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above: apparent neologism with no reliable sources. Cliff smith ^talk 21:45, 23 July 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 Speedy keep. Notability does not expire. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Joshua Pellicer

Joshua Pellicer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject no longer notable since no longer employed by The Art of Charm or Sirius Satellite Radio Discostu96 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @059  ·  00:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(bah)

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

This is a non-notable input command. Apart from Communicator, it means nothing to anyone, anywhere. We should not include every input command for every program ever, and this one is hardly notable. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This would be WP:TRIVIA even in a parent article. Wikipedia is not a manual. I42 (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: There is no possibility of this being notable and I found 0 sources. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 20:04, 22 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Brass Tacks Press

Brass Tacks Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have no idea about music, but there doesn't seem to be an obvious claim of notability here. Ian¹³/t 16:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, you don't have to know about music to search for sources, and I came up with nothing that proves notability. I am happy to retract my !vote if something comes up, however. Tavix |  Talk  17:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 20:13, 22 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardbag

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. can b merged at editorial discretion but no consensus here except to keep Spartaz Humbug! 03:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Hardbag Hardbag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) No references. Searching for any of the supposed "classic examples" along with "hardbag" receives very few Google hits, none of which approach reliable sources. PROD was removed with term has enough usage to warrant inclusion, including making The Oxford Dictionary of New Words (see also: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Hardbag%22&btnG=Search+Archives&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a); however, I don't think that appearing in the Oxford Dictionary of New Words means there's enough information to have an article on it (even if it is true, I have no idea - googling yielded nothing) and the Google News link has only about 50% actually related to this genre and they just mention it in passing. Wickethewok (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Keep - not the most widely used term, but there are sufficient sources to establish the notability of it as a sub-genre. The Oxford dictionary reference reads "A related term is hardbag, recorded since the mid nineties, which denotes a popular electronic dance music derived from techno and incorporating elements of..." which is where the free snippet ends. This doesn't establish notability by itself, but does show the term is well enough defined to enter into a respectable dictionary. You are also right that the news search returns mostly passing mentions. This was intended to such that the term is used by reputable sources - usually without explicitly defining it (which means they expect the reader to know what it means, again showing it is reasonably well-known term in certain circles.) Sources to establish notability include: Books with some info rave Culture Generation Ecstacy The Guinness encyclopedia of popular music (no free preview online) House: the rough guide‎ (no free preview online) Newspaper articles The Independent - a bit of history Other Used by Allmusic: [2][3] Now, I would say to merge it with the very closely related "Handbag" genre, but that genre doesn't appear to have a page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Weakest of weak keeps - Thaddeus beat me to it - I was going to suggest a Merge to Handbag House but that doesn't appear to exist! If you look at a definitive source such as Simon Reynolds' Generation Ecstasy, Hardbag is referenced only briefly as a subgenre of Handbag (here). Practically every other reference to it is based on the existence of this album, and there appear to be very few reliable sources which actually discuss the genre itself. Still, it verifiably exists, and rather than merge it to the next best target (Styles of house music), it might be best to try and improve it with a few sources. Black Kite 19:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Edit - Handbag house does exist, under the American name Diva house. There's not much there, though I've created a redirect. Black Kite 19:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC) There is also an article for Hard_NRG, which might be another candidate for merger. That;s something probably best handled post AFD. Also... "Diva House"? Who the hell calls it "Diva House"? Artw (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Perhaps, since there is relatively little data on both, that "hardbag house" should share a page with "diva house"/"handbag house"? Even given all of the links above, there's barely enough for a dic-def sized article, as most of them only mention the genre in passing. Wickethewok (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC) keep - needs some sources of course, I've added the rescue tag to help with that, but yes, it is an actual genre of music. Artw (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Merge to Diva house. I found the same sources, and there's just not enough in them to make a stand-alone encyclopedia article out of, as Wickethewok says. Fences&Windows 18:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC) My main concern with that is that I'm not completely convinced that Handbag as described by Diva House is the same as Hardbag as described by this article. Artw (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Really, why? Because this article in the Independent describes Handbag house much as does the Diva House article: "Handbag house is often associated with catchy and commercial dance tunes featuring female vocals. Its accessibility and uplifting snare drum crescendos makes it popular both on the mainstream scene and on the glamorous, dressy, gay scene."[4]. Fences&Windows 02:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC) It seems to focus on an American version of Handbag, with particular reference to vocals, which very nearly matches Handbag but seems just slightly different. You'll note that Hardbag is frequently described as being vocal free. TBH It's not a genre of music that I am an expert in, so I could be wrong on this. Artw (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Keep. At this time, the article includes numerous sources and is well written. It seems like the article was tagged for deletion prior to the addition of the sources. --Pink Bull (talk) 03:10, 29 July 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 speedy delete. G4 - failed WP:ATHLETE before, nothing has changed. Black Kite 23:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Josh Coulson

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Josh Coulson
• Articles for deletion/Josh Coulson (2nd nomination)

Josh Coulson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I didn't realise the article had been through AfD previously, otherwise I would have tagged it for speedy under WP:CSD G4 as nothing has changed since. PROD was removed by User:BigDom stating, "Removed PROD as the player passes WP:FOOTYN by playing for a professional club (Cambridge) at a national level (Conference National)". However, WP:FOOTYN is just an essay, this footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition. Also fails WP:N and WP:V due to no third-party sources beyond the odd trivial mention. --Jimbo^[online] 17:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE as hasn't played in a fully-pro league. GiantSnowman 17:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G4. The PROD nomination does not preclude that. I42 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 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 keep. (X! · talk)  · @059  ·  00:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Gallery of country coats of arms

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Gallery of country coats of arms
• Articles for deletion/Gallery of country coats of arms (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Gallery of country coats of arms (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Gallery of country coats of arms (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Gallery of country coats of arms in 1863

Gallery of country coats of arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Some of these coats of arms may be non-free, and the page also violates WP:NOT as Wikipedia is not a gallery. ViperSnake151  Talk  13:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - note that this is not recreation of deleted material. the article Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms was moved and redirected to here for naming consistency. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - The non-free issues ought to be dealt with on a per-image basis. Given a cursory lookover, it would appear most of those images are public domain by way of the national laws of the respective countries. Furthermore, where in WP:NOT are you finding gallery? Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How about WP:NOTREPOSITORY (item 4 in the section)? Image galleries belong on Commons (if they consist of free images). Deor (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This is the kind of article you would find in a paper encyclopedia. That some images might be non-free is not grounds for deletion of the article. Edward321 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep appropriate encyclopedia article. Pages devoted only to illustrations are common in all encyclopedias DGG (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• If these are all free, the gallery should be on Commons. If they are not free, they can not be in a gallery here. So delete. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. A gallery that should be on commons. Rettetast (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This nomination is yet another example of how image policy wonkery gets in the way of actually making an encyclopedia. Print encyclopedias routinely display exactly this kind of information as color plates --- i.e. "galleries" --- without apparent worry about monopoly franchises. It simply staggers belief that any country that adopts a coat of arms would object to the inclusion of its coat of arms in a gallery showing what it looked like. Any image policy that suggests that this article should not exist requires revision and likely demotion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:38, 23 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional appearances of SR-71 Blackbird

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC) List of fictional appearances of SR-71 Blackbird List of fictional appearances of SR-71 Blackbird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Split off from SR-71 Blackbird in an attempt to protect the latter from pop culture trivia, but the argument was generally over whether such a list should be included at all. WP:PROD was refused. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Weak Merge per WP:IPC--there's really not a whole lot here, but a sourced popular culture appearance is appropriate in the main article. Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Merge per Jclemens. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 21:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC) merge Not enough to split at this point.DGG (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete but hold on till end of August: Futher information Here and here please wait until at least to the end of August for the heat to die down. It received very positive influence that the addition of not notable materials are greatly reduced in number in the main article. And no merges please, everyone will delete the cruft from the main page including me. MythSearchertalk 08:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - if it isn't of sufficient quality for the main article, then it won't stand on its own either. That the main article can't be protected from fancruft is no reason to try and ignore the issue by hiving it off elsewhere. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Comment, Like I said, it is not a place for hiving it off somewhere else, it is used to stop the 4~5 times per day addition of such material to the main article(in which the link above provided sufficient edit history to prove this point) just for the period of that specific movie's heat to die down. Or an admin can help semi-protect the main article for like 3 months from the beginning(also till end of August). No one from the main article, including me wanted this article, but it surely showed promising effect on what we hope to eliminate.(there are only a total of 2 addition of said unwanted material to the main article after the page was created, and we know the heat is dying down since the movie was aired for quite some time now and hopefully by the end of August, the addition of such material would be much more reasonable like before and people at the main article could reasonably rv such edits in reasonable amount per week.) MythSearchertalk 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Comment - I don't like the idea of lightning-rod articles. It's not playing straight. Pseudomonas(talk) 19:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Reply, if you are fine with reverting the article 5 times a day, be my guest. Never was this article meant to stay up for long, it is only used for a certain period where a pop culture item will be added over and over due to publicity. Choose the lesser of the two evils, and I see that not until this article was created to stop the revert spree(against bunch of anons that probably made some over their 3RR limit and luckily anons usually don't know how to report), people at the main article got time to do some actual discussion and editing to improve the article. MythSearchertalk 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - Lists of X in fiction/popular culture are breeding grounds for subjective inclusion, original research, and general cruftiness, for almost all values of X. Pseudomonas(talk) 19:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Reply This is always true, yet dire times need dire solutions. I see that not much people actually try to go through the editing history in which I have listed in the above linked talk page. And most involved here did not even involve in the 5 times/day removal of cruft. Easier said than done, talking about deleting this article is simple, but actually protecting the main article needs work, not talk. MythSearchertalk 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Comment Ok, lets walk through this for a minute. Starting with the MilMos, which states "'In popular culture' sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture", and working backwards, we do arrive at the conclusion that the SR-71 has had notable appearances in fiction. This includes alternative history, as well as real to life appearances. Its a plane that holds several Guinness records for speed and was and remains influential in the west, particularly among NATO countries and especially in the United States. Now I grant that the list is rather crufty, but if you are all willing to let me have 24 hours to work on the section I do believe that the material here can be recycled into a paragraph or two and added to the SR-71 article like what appears over on the page Iowa class battleship. That should solve the problem of what to do with the article and how to porperly address pop-culture related information for the SR-71. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 06:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Comment This sounds great, I will inform the main article and see if they like the idea or not. Since most of them hated any pop culture section because it normally attracts random passerbys adding their own favourites, and I kinda see that coming even if a well sourced and well written section is created. MythSearchertalk 07:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Comment I would be interested in Tom's rewrite but what currently exists in this fiction article isn't worth carrying forth to the main article. I'm currently leaning in the delete - no merge direction but will remain open-minded pending the rewrite. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:53, 29 July 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. (X! · talk)  · @060  ·  00:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nizar Jomaa Gresh

Nizar Jomaa Gresh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence that he passes WP:ATHLETE, a Google search yields nothing Spiderone (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 10:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per GiantSnowman BigDom (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Plays unknown times in the Libyan Premier League, the highest division of Libyan football championship. The league and the clubs are notable, so the players are notable too. --Ilion2 (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Just because a league or club is notable doesn't mean the players are notable. See Sutton United. Spiderone (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Just opinion? Show me the rule for this. Tell me the reasons for this. Are films notable and actors not? No. --Ilion2 (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as it cannot be verified that the subject has played at the highest level, either in a fully professional league thus not meeting the inclusion criterion for athletes or at international level. He also does not meet the primary inclusion criterion of having received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:29, 23 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberley Stadium

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Kimberley Stadium Kimberley Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) No such stadium exists or is being planned. There was a very short-lived period during the run-up to hosting 2010 in South Africa when a new stadium in Kimberley was proposed, but it was dropped early in the process. NJR_ZA (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Keep? - There appears to already be a Kimberly Stadium in Kimberly. Though I can't find anything about a proposed new stadium and that's not what this article is about. If the article was changed to talk about the existing stadium it would be worthwhile. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. Lots of references to proposal [5] [6] but definitely no longer a World Cup venue [7]. WWGB (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Delete definately not going to be a venue at the 2010 World Cup. Looks like the stadium never got past the proposal stage. After an internet search, I couldn't find anything of note that would be notable as per WP:N. --Jimbo[online] 08:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. --Jimbo[online] 08:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. Research above indicates there's no such stadium, so deletion is the obvious recourse.--Pink Bull (talk) 04:25, 29 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z Block Records

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Z Block Records Z Block Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Doesn't meet notability guidelines, reads like an essay, unreferenced, dead end, orphaned by all but one article. Delete. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - Can't find any articles which assert notability whatsoever. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP.  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 13:46, 23 July 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

AmeriHealth

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

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

non-notable company. While covered in multiple sources, such coverage is brief, centred around other things or press releases. Fails WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep - Because the company has such a broad scope, insuring so many people, I think it should be kept. -shirulashem^(talk) 19:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  Unless I've missed something that isn't a valid reason to keep something. If this company is truly "important" it will be able to pass the relatively low standard set by WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Major company in NY and surroundings. The article needs considerable rewriting to free it from spam. DGG (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  It also needs sourcing. If a company fails WP:ORG it isn't notable. Ironholds (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Hundreds of news articles, dozens of books, many (generally brief) mentions in scholarly articles for this subsidiary of a publicly traded company -- it's obviously notable. WP:ORG doesn't require that someone has already gone to the trouble of incorporating the available reliable sources -- only that such sources exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Lots of sources exist, the article has a place at Wikipedia. That no one has incorporated them yet is a content issue, not a notability one. See [8]. --Jayron32 21:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - There are many sources, and the article meets the relevant notability guideline. ---kilbad (talk) 21:44, 25 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tereza Elizarova

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Tereza Elizarova Tereza Elizarova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Subject of article appears to be the lead singer of a New York City wedding band that specializes in Jewish Music from the former Soviet Union. The article mentions her birth date and country of origin, then shifts focus to discuss the band itself. The single reference provided is a 2002 New York Times Arts section review that discusses area "wedding bands," and mentions this band in one brief paragraph at the end [9]. Google News returns zero hits for either "Tereza Elizarova" or "Ensemble Tereza" and the Google hits for these two terms don't reveal any other reliable sources that I can see [10][11]. I don't believe that this one mention renders a local wedding band notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. As far as I can see, this article fails the general notability guidelines, as well as WP:ARTIST, and WP:MUSIC. I tagged the article for notability, references, clean up, and tone, but it has been improved very little since its creation on 7-12, and there have been no edits at all since 7-13. I have also spelled out my concerns on the talk page. Only one other article links to this one, the article Mountain Jews in which this person is listed as a "Notable Mountain Jew" by way of an edit made on 7-12, the day the Tereza Elizarova article was created [12]. PROD was contested by another editor (not the author of the article) when the NYT reference was found. Finally, the article is named for one person, yet most of the article is about the band. Is this meant to be a biography? If so, then I have to say that this one member of this one wedding band is certainly not notable. If not, then, if the article is kept, it should be moved to the group's name. Transity (talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - I tried to find additional coverage about this person/music group and was not able to find any reliable sources to establish notability. The single NY Times piece is not enough. I did find this which indicates to me that this is likely spam, and is also a borderline WP:COPYVIO. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I don't see obvious COPYVIO or SPAM, so I'll assume good faith. But I cannot find sources to establish notability, so the article may need to be deleted. Cnilep (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:33, 22 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dazzle Dancers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @854  ·  19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The Dazzle Dancers The Dazzle Dancers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Completing a listing on behalf of an unregistered user (see below) Accounting4Taste:talk 16:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I find myself in the unusual position of nominating an article for deletion that I actually believe should be retained, but the unregistered user who wants to nominate it cannot complete the nomination. I've declined two speedy deletion tags where the reasons were not within the boundaries of speedy deletion criteria; among them, "obnoxious and sexually explicit... does not fit criteria of wiki:music". (The group is a performance group, which is in the first sentence of the lede, and wouldn't qualify under any reasons having to do with music.) I removed a prod tag after personally adding 16 references to the article, including the Village Voice, the New York Post and artforum. I advised the same unregistered user to take the issue to AfD, which s/he wishes to do, but is unable to complete the registration. Personally, I'd just like this over with once and for all; I dislike the fact that I've become emotionally involved with this article and would like to be able to step back from having to protect it, and so I offer this for the verdict of the community. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Keep. Notability apparent, sources adequate. (I confess I don't understand the above paragraph at all.) Rivertorch (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Comment. My apologies for not being more clear; I was pretty cranky when I wrote it. I thought it would be necessary for people to understand that I wanted the article to be retained, and why, since it's usually the case that people who start AfD processes want to delete a page. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, I did understand that. What I still don't understand is why you're AFDing it if you want to keep it. I'm not criticizing—just puzzled. Surely it's not so urgent that it can't wait until the IP user gets their act together. Rivertorch (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks, now I understand your puzzlement. The IP user initiated the AfD process and was unable to complete it without registering a username; I actually thought it was my responsibility as an administrator to complete the nomination regardless of my personal feelings. At any rate, I believe this AfD will dispose of any further questions of notability once and for all, and that is definitely the outcome for which I'm looking. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Hi, http://www.dazzledancers.com/map.html makes clear this is a music group. In fact, it directs you to itunes on its home page. This group fails the notability requirements of wiki as a music group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.221.105 (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Keep - The numerous press mentions seem to imply notability. When there is a lot of press coverage, it satisfies criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC: Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial epublished works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. The Dazzle Dancers are featured in the movie Adam & Steve, a film which must be considered notable since we have a Wikipedia article on it. The IP has made no case for deletion that I find convincing. I agree with User:Rivertorch that there is really no need for this AfD, but since it has started we may as well go through with it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC) DELETE Ive read all these references... They are not notable... Being an extra in a movie? Opening up for some other queer friendly groups? Please state specific notability - what is it? music? ... How many people have their pic in a paper once in awile? or a passing refernce as a local act? Not notable... Read the reference posts, id suggest... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.248.40 (talk) Keep. As mentioned above, the level of media coverage indicates notability.--Pink Bull (talk) 16:00, 29 July 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 keep. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Gurghiu

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

This disambiguation page does not disambiguate anything; the Mureş commune is the only one that's called "Gurghiu" exactly. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. I still believe that Dahn's argument is inconsistent with the current guidelines. However, after reading Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Partial title matches - should they really be excluded?, it seems that the problem is with the guideline itself, and not with any particular page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The rationale is absurd. Even if one redirects "Gurghiu" to the commune, we could still do with a Gurghiu (disambiguation) page for the other notions, which, yes, are referred to as "just Gurghiu". The main purpose of disambig is for someone who is only familiar with one of those uses to be able to find it among homonyms. In short, I really don't see the point of this AfD. Dahn (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists. "Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." As for your comment, "which, yes, are referred to as 'just Gurghiu,'" I could not find any sources showing that the river is referred to "just Gurghiu." Compare: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (3rd nomination). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  That's quite pedantic and a way too narrow interpretation of a guideline. As I have indicated, and per the guideline, here there is a significant risk of confusion, similar to countless other pages, including America, Atacama (disambiguation), etc. With 'I could not find any sources showing that the river is referred to "just Gurghiu" ', we're going into the realm of splitting hairs and borderline sophistry - what is the expectation here? a source that would say exactly that "Gurghiu River is also referred to as just Gurghiu"? Beyond it being instantly apparent that all rivers are commonly referred to solely with their name? The main point here is that somebody who needs to find a certain Gurghiu, say, from an ambiguous text reference, should have a single place to start, regardless of how much prior knowledge he or she may have - unless they have intimate knowledge of Romanian geography, there is a clear-cut "significant risk of confusion". Really: that is what disambigs are supposed to address. And I cannot really compare this to WalMart, since I can't reconstitute the redlink and the debate doesn't give me a clue as to what it contained. Dahn (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  It contained Walmart (neologism), Walmart (golf tournament), Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, Wal-Mart bill, Wal-Mart camel, Wal-Mart intercom codes. (A link to the history, solely in the interest of GFDL compliance.) Generally, works with a subtitle are often referred to by just their main title. So, yes, we do have many things called "Wal-Mart" colloquially, but that's not the point of a disambiguation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  Moreover, rivers do not "use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term." Sure, you can call the Mississippi River "The Mississippi," but when will you have an article on the river called Mississippi? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  Well, whadya know? Dahn (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  But that argument is like WP:WAX. Suppose two people have similar notability. Because one of them has an article, the other should also have an article, regardless of whether the first person is notable. (Maybe the first person just wasn't nominated for deletion?) Just because the disambiguation page exists does not mean that it conforms to disambiguation page guidelines. Of course, I'm not suggesting that Mississippi (disambiguation) be deleted; rather, stuff like Mississippi Valley State University blatantly violates the same-title rule, and therefore should be removed from the page. From personal experience, I have found that the disambiguation guidelines have not been followed rigorously until recently, so that explains the problem with the Mississippi page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, but this is the case where both other notions are/may be referred to as just Gurghiu. This, within the example you mention, is not consistent with the Mississippi Valley State University example, but with Mississippi, Mississippi River, Mississippi River System, Mississippi Territory, Mississippi County, Arkansas, Mississippi River (Ontario), Mississippi Sound, the countless USSes etc. (in fact, it is apparently more consistent with the guideline than some of those are). So, yes, we may theoretically argue about the theoretical validity of disambiguation guidelines not having been followed rigorously until recently, but that adds very little to Mississippi (disambiguation) and nothing to the page we're discussing. Dahn (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  (unindented) Then tell me why Wal-Mart (disambiguation) was deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but now you're the one veering into "other stuff happened", and asking me to account for what others have decided. My guess from glancing at the links was that it clearly included spin-offs from the main article, things which happen to relate to Wal-Mart in some way, and not homonyms. It is therefore a false analogy (like the Mississippi Valley State University argument), which is why I opted not to get these wires crossed the first time you brought it up. But if you insist. Dahn (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: per Dahn. Joe Chill (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Dahn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It looks like a valid disambiguation page that distinguishes an article about river from one about a settlement. This could probably be handled quite easily with hatnotes and redirects, but there is a redlinked third article that this page also potentially accommodates.Synchronism (talk) 22:31, 26 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothesis-based modelling

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Hypothesis-based modelling Dear all, Thank you for your comments. The present article is work in progress. Indeed this is a unpublished article, that we are planning to transform to talk about hypothesis based modelling. Presumably, the experimental part will be reduced to a simple example and we will elaborate more on the actual method. Again, this is work in progress, and the authors are using the ease of wikipedia to do the editing work. Is there a way for us to work on wikipedia, while changes are not seen by users (a bit like the sand box mode)? maybe this would be best, then when we are ready, we can republish.Kuikuisven (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Hypothesis-based modelling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) This is not an encyclopedia article. In fact it isn't even about hypothesis-based modeling. It is a research paper (apparently unpublished) about hormone physiology that uses the technique. Therefore it is WP:OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC) This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Strong delete. Wikipedia is not for publishing original research. The author will have to publish his or her work elsewhere. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete it about a particular model for insulin secretion, not the general subject, but it is OR -- or possibly copyvio DGG (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete contents orthogonal to title. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:08, 23 July 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 keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nabil Abou-Harb

Nabil Abou-Harb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not establish notability of the individual. Sparse IMDB page, few verifiable resources and a Google search for this person returns few hits about this individual. Most are about other Nabil Abou-Harb's completely unrelated. While the short-film "Arab in America" has received some recognition, does Wikipedia spotlight every short-film director who has won an award? HeatWillRockYou (talk) 3:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

• Speedy Keep I went through the article's entire history change-by-change and noted a history of vandalism to the article by anonymous IPs and SPAs, as well as constructive edits by registered users... some adding and some subtracting. I found no evidence of there ever being a first AfD nomination, only a declined speedy. Yes, the BLP needs some cleanup to remove any remaining hyperbole or unsoucable claims, but subject meets the WP:GNG through Kansas City Star, Al Arabiya, USA Today, Providence Journal, Saphir News (french), Watan, Kuwait Times, all address either the filmmaker or his award-winning work. He has enough for notability. Per WP:DEL, issues with the article itself should be addressed through cleanup, not deletion, and certainly not by vandalism. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • IMDB does not confer any notability, so having a short list there is of no consequence. And actually, and every g-news hit was about THIS person and no other. Perhaps the nom did not include the name in quotations? I belive it will be proper to send courtesy notifications to the author and the article's major editors so they might address the nom's concerns. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 4 courtesy notifications have been made to registered users who made more than one edit to the article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notability established by coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I find the work of this director very notable indeed and it is regularly featured in many film festivals as well. I have personally watched "Arab in America" precisely during a film festival and it got applause and critical acclaim. I am informed it also won Grand Prize of the One Nation Many Voices Online Film Contest. werldwayd (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have now added the winning of the Grand Proze in the festival I mentioned. This will add further substantiation of the request to keep article on Mr. Abou-Harb. Plus I have added as reference a "USA Today" piece on the short film win. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-16-muslim-films_N.htm But I do find the enumeration of all the commercials a bit redundant. One can mention that he has done a lot of commercials... unless one or more particular commercials have had citations for excellence etc. I also have to admit I don't like the general tone of the article. There's so much excess info not needed, plus it really sounds like a promotional piece, not an entry in an encyclopedia, thus needs serious re-editing to say the least.werldwayd (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The director's film may be notable (I expect not), but the individual has not received anything close to "significant" coverage in any reliable sources (the reliable sources that mention him do so only as the film's director and provider of the story), and the film's own recognition is not sufficient to imply director's notability. Bongomatic 01:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete His film doesn't pass the criteria for WP:NF; there's no way he does. Most of the references are trivial: Reports that he graduated college, blogs, web pages of no notability, and in at least two cases dead links. PhGustaf (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

PhG, there's an entire write up in USA Today headlining his film as the grand prize winner [13]. I know you prefer the creative writing in the NY Times, but surely USA Today counts as a reliable source? And that's just one of the many sources listed above. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• ChildofMidnight, the film may have received some praise, but so have many other short films. What qualifies this director as someone of notability or importance? Does Wikipedia normally let short-film directors who've won an award have their own page? HeatWillRockYou (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• That other films have received write-ups, only indicates that they too might merit an article. What matters to WP:GNG in the write-ups being in reliable sources. And yes, if a person has won multiple awards and has the write-ups that meet the WP:GNG, whether for himself or critical praise of his work, Wikipedia "allows" that they might have an article, no matter the legth of their films, or the subject of their career... whether sports or author or politician or filmmaker. Its the WP:GNG that governs. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

GNG requires that the individual, not his works, receive significant coverage. The coverage is insignificant, even in USA Today (notice how I'm rising above the temptation to comment on that publication's reliability!)—the article is nine sentences long, of which precisely three mention the film, and only one mentions a fact about the filmmaker (that his name is difficult for some to pronounce). Bongomatic 05:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep For the subject, the sources prove the notability. Film-makers become notable through the making of films, just as authors become notable by writing books, politicians by winning elections, mass murderers by murdering. The only people who become notable by their personal lives are some web and media celebrities--and we properly are somewhat reluctant to include them, as compared to those who become notable because of what they do.DGG (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC).

• Comment The film is non-notable, and you can't get notable by making a non-notable film. There are plenty of sources, but they're mostly en passant mentions in articles about something or someone else. The film runs thirteen minutes, two short of what we each have as birthright. PhGustaf (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Another comment. DGG, of course filmmakers become notable through their films. And the consensus for how they do this is summarized at WP:CREATIVE. The subject of this article fails each of the criteria set out in that guideline. Bongomatic 22:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - the sources provided by MichaelQSchmidt and the subject passes the GNG. Failing CREATIVE is not an automatic fail, as clearly stated in WP:Notability (people). It is rare, but sometimes movie makers can be notable for less than to default "2 notable movies". --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read the sources? Which one do you think is "significant coverage" in a "reliable source"? Bongomatic 23:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Relisting comment OOPS, I did not intend to relist this. It can be closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 28 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powerglove (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Power Glove. will protect as well Spartaz Humbug! 03:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Powerglove AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Power glove (band) Articles for deletion/Powerglove Articles for deletion/Powerglove (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Powerglove (3rd nomination) Articles for deletion/Powerglove (band) Powerglove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Recreated non-notable page Cazbahrocker (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cazbahrocker (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Redirect - This article has been deleted several times now and has repeatedly been recreated. Only new information added is sourced from the bands own Myspace page about future plans for this band. -Cazbahrocker (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC) This article has never been deleted. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Amended my recommendation to Redirect, as that is what I meant by saying Delete. Cazbahrocker (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC) This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Keep/Redirect - A few more sources have been added since I first suggested that we redirect, so I'm not sure this fails WP:N any more. Regardless of whether or not it does, I don't think we should delete; it's still a likely search term for users interested in the Power Glove. If anonymous reverts are a problem we should consider semi-protection. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Those sources were added during the previous AfD discussion and they were deemed to be not be reliable third party sources (blogs, online zines, etc).Cazbahrocker (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Comment - There are a lot more references now than there were when the 2nd nom was done. So, there may be notaility established now that wasn't before. I am nto sure whether the references meet the requirements though, so I am withholding judgement. If they do, then obviously keep, if not, restore redirect. Although the redirect has been overridden, that is hardly abusive give the added references provided (even if they prove not be adequate under WP:N). Rlendog (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Agreed that there are more references, but I am still not seeing anything that meets any of the notability requirements on WP:MUSIC. Most of what was added talks about future albums from their own Myspace page, or links off to non-notable blogs. The diff between the article as it stood when it was redirected to before I started this AfD does nothing to further establish notability, in my opinion. Cazbahrocker (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Weak Delete - The only criteria this band has for notability is interviews with various magazines none of which seem to be notable in themselves. They fail every single other criteria. If more interviews and coverage could be found in more notable publications this would be keep PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Redirect and semi-protect considering the history. This has been turned into a redirect twice already based on AfD consensus only to have both reverted. Recommending WP:SNOW by analogy to WP:CSD G4, as there is no material difference between the version the last AfD addressed and this one. Tim Song (talk) 15:35, 29 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welford Street Miracles

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Welford Street Miracles A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: 2009 July 22 – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.[14]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete Self-published book, held in zero libraries. Tate is among the more responsible self-publishing firms, but it's still self published) DGG (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This was nominated twice on the same day. I have merged the nominations. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete No reliable sources indicating any notability. --Crusio (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC) DO NOT DELETE. This is not a self-published book. It is published by chrisitian publisher, Tate Publishing,(not a self-publish firm) and was released on July14, 2009. I am the author, R. Merial Martin. What more reliable source than from the author and his backup links and websites. Check its similarity to "The Shack", which is in same format.Shikabuck (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Dear Shikabuck: at multiple occasions I have tried to explain to you that WP requires independent reliable sources to establish notability of a subject. Nobody denies that your book exists. The problem is that there is absolutely no proof that the book is notable in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. Please follow the wikilink in the previous sentence and read that guideline, it will explain clearly what is required for this article to be kept. --Crusio (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Delete Non-notable book published by a vanity press. Edward321 (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. Yes, a company called Tate Publishing is a vanity press. Which one actually published it? In any case, the book lacks notability. Amazon sells it, but it ranks #781,840. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rossport Solidarity Camp

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @957  ·  21:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Rossport Solidarity Camp Rossport Solidarity Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) This article is part of a suite of articles involved with the Shell to Sea protest in Mayo, Ireland. It is a paraphrase of the Indymedia articles which have been used as references which themselves in turn have been written by people who have either been in the past or are still currently involved with the Shell to Sea campaign and/or Rossport Solidarity Camp. Indymedia articles are not suitable for referencing under WP:SPS and the fact that they are wrote by people involved with the campaign make them particularly inappropriate in this case. The article is being used for WP:SOAPBOX purposes and has been edited by at least one user with a WP:COI and has POV issues. GainLine ♠ ♥ 14:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —GainLine ♠ ♥ 19:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Weak keep Despite the problems noted there do appear to be plenty of reliable sources to use: [15] - and that is only recently. The article does need an entire rewrite IMO however as indymedia should not be used as a source. Sorry I don't have time to do anything to improve it. Smartse (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete The protest is notable, but not every part of it. I see the articles talk about the protests--but only incidentally about the camp--in some cases, just that the protestors gave it as their address. If we do keep it, reduce sharply. DGG (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete nn camp associated with notable protest. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - completely non-notable. Protest is vaguely notable, this most definitely is not (as is the case with most of this Shell to Sea stuff Wikipedia has been filled with by activists.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - nn as per nom Féasógach (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Keep. Putting aside the reliability of Indemedia, a Google search reveals that there are plenty of other sources that give coverage to this camp. http://www.google.com/search?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22rossport%20solidarity%20camp%22&cf=all&sa=N&tab=nw If deleted, is a merge into Rossport a possibility?--Pink Bull (talk) 16:10, 29 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DistantStarr

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC) DistantStarr DistantStarr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Possible autobiography with very weak claims of importance. Gsearch turns up a lot of blog mentions (and myspace, etc), but nothing showing that the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Zero gnews hits. Author contested prod without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. I'll change my mind if the author comes up with sources backing up the subject's notability. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 22:35, 23 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film series with two entries (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @855  ·  19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC) List of film series with two entries AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/List of film series with two entries Articles for deletion/List of film series with two entries (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/List of film series with two entries (3rd nomination) List of film series with two entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) over-categorisation, nothing more than a list that could be better handled by existing categories, and it includes some very spurious entries Robsinden (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Strong delete. Extremely overspecialized list, would be a great example of overcategorization if turned into a category and I have no idea why anyone would care to browse a list of film series with two entries. The list has minor definition problems as well (unrelated sequels, remakes, etc?). Kotiwalo (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Keep Just as appropriate as list of series that are trilogies, etc. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing--in this case the dates of the two. . Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. Better handled by a category is no argument. Whichever is better, we generally need the other also. How a list with four hundred entries can be over-specialized escapes me entirely. That criterion usually applies when there are 4 or thereabouts, not two orders of magnitude bigger. If there are some spurious entries, they should be removed, after discussion on the talk page. An exact definition is needed, and should be added. As for possible use, I found there a number of sequels to films I like that I somehow had never heard about. DGG (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC) In my opinion it's useless to have a list of trilogies as well. A better option in my opinion would be one large list with movie series grouped by the amount of films. I have absolutely no idea why anyone would be interested in browsing a list reserved just for two part series. If we had a larger list with movie series grouped by the amount of movies, the reader wouldn't have to browse each list/category to find the series he/she is searching for. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Keep as there are not many articles on the film series with two films nor should there be. If categories were to be used all of the film series would need articles written about them. Just how long do you think The Bodyguard (film series) or Sister Act (film series) would last? They would be here in AFD in short order. Those articles would be the only meaningful way to properly list these films in a category. Any category with both films in the series would be jumbled and confusing alphabetically and numerically. There are film series like Rocky Horror Picture Show followed by Shock Treatment and The Secret Garden followed by Back to the Secret Garden (which does not have its own article) that would be separated in a category because their titles are not Foo followed by Foo 2. Even the films Escape from New York followed by Escape from L.A. would be listed in a category with the latter coming before the former which is incorrect chronologically. The list is the only way to keep the films in a series together and listed correctly. These lists were originally separated to keep them manageable. There are hundreds of film series out there, probably over 100 on duologies alone. You also have to remember that long pages are, as far as I know, frowned upon. Just recently I upgraded my internet access to high speed. Until then I had dial-up. The longer an article or list, the longer it takes to load. When I first started editing the original list, it took almost 3 minutes to load the whole thing. Please remember that not everyone has access to high speed internet. All articles and lists should be written with dial-up in mind. I have not been around a lot recently to prune it and the rest of the lists. I intend to do so next week after the original run of Torchwood: Children of Earth is over. Please give me until the end of next week to clean them all up again. I know they need it, but deletion is too severe. LA (T) @ 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I think that the amount of films is not a good reason for giving this an article of it's own. Is there something special in film series that have two films? In my opinion it seems odd that a number of sequels warrants notability in a list. Two, three, four, there is no fundamental difference. And yes, you have good points, I forgot about the dial-up, but in my opinion there are still too much lists. Perhaps the less common amounts (exceptionally high) could be merged together? Kotiwalo (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Keep The list is fine. Plenty of other wikipedia articles listed there, lists existing to help people sort through things and learn of their existence. Dream Focus 22:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom. Unnecessary overcategorization. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Keep per useful list to browse. It's more navigable than categories, even. In addition, just because there are categories does not mean there shouldn't be a list. WP:CLT says, "Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists... The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping." However, I would prefer a better naming convention for these lists of x films in a film series. "Duology" and "trilogy" are fairly acceptable, but "pentalogies" and "hexalogies" and so forth are just unnecessary, in my opinion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 11:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ——Erik (talk • contrib) 12:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Keep. As there are lists for trilogies (etcetera) I don't see why there shouldn't be one for "duologies". Still, is it the correct word for this? McMarcoP (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) There is related discussion about the word "duology" here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:09, 29 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ang mundo ng Rosa/The world of Rosa

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Ang mundo ng Rosa/The world of Rosa AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Ang mundo ng Rosa/The world of Rosa Ang mundo ng Rosa/The world of Rosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Contested prod, completely unencyclopaedic and Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up GW… 12:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 'Delete vanispam...ment. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:MADEUP. The author is clearly using Wikipedia to document the character development of a story she is writing, not to document characters in a story that has already been written. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:03, 28 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltese–Turkish relations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources have now been added. I'm also moving this to Malta–Turkey relations to comply with bilateral naming conventions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Maltese–Turkish relations Maltese–Turkish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) neither country can be bothered with a resident embassy, and there is a distinct lack of actual bilateral relations, mainly multilateral from my check of the first 60 in this search. yes they have signed an agreement on combatting crime and terrorism but most countries want to stop that. they also have the usual Agreement of Mutual Promotion and Protection of Investments and a Memorandum of Understanding on the Establishment of the Political Consultative Mechanism . and if you want to barrel scrape, they played a football match in 2007, which I know of at least 1 editor who would love to include this. LibStar (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete I see no significant non-trivial coverage of relations between Turkey and Malta in independent reliable sources fo the topic of the article fails WP:NOTE. I'm sure someone will bring up historical interaction between the Knights of Malta and the Ottoman Empire but to be clear, those are not the same as Malta and Turkey, although an article on that topic would be very interesting. Drawn Some (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Keep They have lots of geographical and cultural things in common. Relations between Malta and Turkey were established during the Ottoman Empire and have historical background. For instance, last Ottoman Sultan left Istanbul during the WWI and went to Malta. Also Turkish MFA have a page about the relations with Malta, which shows us how notable these relations.--Turkish Flame ☎ 17:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC) a Foreign affairs website is a primary source, WP:N requires third party coverage. if it so important to Turkey, why don't they have an embassy in Malta? LibStar (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Maybe because Turkey's counsellor to Rome does double duty as ambassador to Malta, according to a news article on Turkey-Malta relations that it took me 10 seconds to find? [16] AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC) yes but resident ambassadors are a better indicator of an actual nation's interest in another country. out of the 300+ bilateral articles that have been deletion, most have had no resident ambassadors. although I will say this does not mean automatic deletion. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC) WP:N is a guideline to which exceptions can be made. The reason for third-party sources is to prevent companies and individuals, for example, from using their own promotional websites as sources. However, I see government sites as being in a different category; in my view government websites can be taken as authoritative sources for their government's policies. TerriersFan (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Keep Two closely located countries. As expected they have many relations, & more will be found. Looking at the first 60 of a g news search that returned 2630 is very careless searching. And limiting it to after 1960 is not right either--let alone for material going back before there were newspapers in G news. DGG (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Comments below Two closely located countries is not a criterion using a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument is not really going to stick. 827 hits for Guatemala Bhutan does not prove notable relations. it's careless to !vote keep without actually providing examples of significant third party coverage, look at my search and see how the vast majority is multilateral and trivial coverage. I will reconsider my nomination once you provide 15 articles of non trivial independent coverage. I struggled yesterday to find 15 for Lithuania–Sweden relations (which is clearly notable). LibStar (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 15? The GNG is usually interpreted as 2 of more. That's a change of almost an order of magnitude. Good way to produce a very much more compact encyclopedia. If deletion can on ly be justified by raising the bar 7 X higher than what we usually do.... Ghits are not a reason for keeping--but this is not G but GNews, with a very different standard for inclusion, where--unlike G-- at least some of the hits usually turn out to be relevant and significant. DGG (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC) please provide actual examples of bilateral relations. does my Guatemala Bhutan search prove that they have notable relations? LibStar (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I agree with User:DGG. The nominater always nominates articles for deletion after a Google search. He nominated Belgian–Turkish relations for deletion because he couldn't find anything except a football match between Belgium and Turkey. But I searched the MFA's website and expanded the article. This shows us that Google search is not enough for nominating an article for deletion. --Turkish Flame ☎ 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) a Foreign affairs website is a primary source, WP:N requires third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Keep as everyone, they are both Mediterranean nations. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 23:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC) simply being Mediterranean nations is not a criterion. Your !vote has not addressed in any way how this article meets WP:N.LibStar (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Keep - significant relations exist between these countries. Sources are available from which the article can be developed. TerriersFan (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC) which sources? you have provided none, and the article so far has none except a primary source. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC) It is not necessary for articles to be notable. It is necessary for article topics to be notable. Sounds like your beef is that the article fails WP:RS, not WP:N. Except it doesn't, unless you want to call a government website an unreliable source. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC) you need WP:RS to establish notability. a govt website is a primary source. LibStar (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC) It's not like we're talking about a MySpace page here. Anyway, it's moot: go look at the article now, now that someone's gone and Googled the information that you said doesn't exist, and tell us how much better the article is now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) precedent has shown in the over 300 of bilateral deleted articles that the existence of government website is not enough...it needs significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC) keep - flag article for rescue. How is any two-countries-relations article notable, and/or what is the cutoff criterion? I'm certain there are sources available that can be used to build this article up. As for the article meeting WP:N - any international relations between any 2 countries will be notable to citizens of those 2 countries, and thus by the spirit of WP:BIAS and WP:IMBALANCE such a subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Now, at the same time, the article presently is in bad need of rescue. So let's clean it up. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Keep Common sense, raw ghits, gnews hits indicates there should be significant coverage.The problem is in narrowing search to eliminate dross. Added some articles in economic relations. Was also an extradition agreement for a 1998 murder suspect, stuff on football etc at gnews.John Z (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Delete There is no independent coverage of the topic shown as a reference, and therefore this fails WP:GNG. What we have here is a list of individual events that happen to involve both countries. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC) sigh - anyone read any history? How about Siege of Malta (1565)? That sounds like Turkey-Malta relations to me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC) and well covered in that article. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC) As there are other instances of bilateral relations in some other news sources we've found, I think this shows that Turkey-Malta relations are notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Some search tips. Rather than just plugging "turkey malta" into a search engine and skimming the first page, try focussed searches using techniques like "intitle". ((intitle:malta OR intitle:maltese) AND (turkey OR turkish)) OR ((intitle:turkey OR intitle:turkey) AND (malta OR maltese)) gives 650 hits in Google News,[17] and sifting through those hits is a lot more likely to give useful information about their relationship. Fences&Windows 19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC) didn't you read my nomination, I looked at the first 60 results not just the first page. LibStar (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the off-hand comment, it was intending to characterise a common approach rather than your specific behaviour. I hope you'll take my advice on making a better focussed search, as the search you refer to included Italy, Cyprus and Greece as search terms, which is a good way to find articles that don't focus on this particular relationship. Fences&Windows 18:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC) as the search you refer to included Italy, Cyprus and Greece as search terms again you misread my original nomination, I excluded these countries in the search, please take care in reading nominations before criticising in future, thanks. LibStar (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I didn't know that, thanks. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC) The 1565 battle still smarts in Turkey, so don't dismiss history too much. See [18]: "It was hard for such a proud people as the Turks to accept defeat against such a small island. Turkish tourists to Malta, upon seeing the memorials to the siege, have stated that there is a Turkish phrase, "Malta yok", that is, "Malta doesn't exist". A fleet did indeed sail for Malta, they say, but it could not find the island and had to turn back." I think the author is mixing his invasion attempts:[19], but the Turks obviously still remember their unhappy relations with Malta 400+ years ago. Fences&Windows 19:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC) comment - I just went back to the article to add some info, but found it had already been added. In fact, I'd suggest everyone go back and look at the article now - it's much better sourced, and has much more content backed by non-trivial third-party coverage. Personally, I think this AfD now falls under WP:SNOWBALL and should be closed. I'd also suggest conscientious and open-minded google-searching before AfDing any more "international relations" articles, unless of course Wikipedia decides the entire category of such articles is non-notable for some reason (which I think would violate WP:N). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC) the entire category is not all non notable, some are indeed notable but not all. I can tell you most of the bilateral articles I've nominated have been deleted, so whilst in cases like this sources are found, in most cases, significant additional reliable sources are not found. LibStar (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Keep - article didnt have references to proof noteability at time of nom, but its now been significantly improved by John Z and others. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Speedy keep Clearly notable and source exist. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:11, 27 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) Articles for deletion/The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) (2nd nomination) The Singles Collection (Britney Spears album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) This article should be deleted because it has no sources. Not only that, but the article clearly states it is from a fansite, and it is a rumored album. No reason to have the article if it isn't confirmed. Not only that, but everyone you claims it is real, can not even back it up with a reliable source. ---Shadow (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Comment it is a very popular rumour with thousands of google hits. Note that there is a singles collection for 2007 as well as this article on the possible 2009 album. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Doesn't change the fact that there is no source to back it up. ---Shadow (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Question where is the first nomination? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The 2nd nom is weird indeed. Hekerui (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Question There are now reliable sources such as LiveJournal and even Sony BMG ITSELF confirming that it exists and will be released! So why do you delete those reliable and real sources and paste on the deletion nomination, claiming no-one has found a reliable source? Sorry, but last time I read WIKIPEDIA FOR DUMMIES, it stated that Sony BMG was a reliable source. The Rogue Leader (talk) 11:30, 23 July, 2009 (UTC) P.S. Please don't be insulted, I wasn't calling you a dummy. LiveJournal is not a reliable source, and the site you linked to (Britney Bash, which is also NOT a reliable source) claims they added it, yet the site doesn't even link as proof, nor do you. ---Shadow (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Okay, makes sense. How about this: Continue with deletion plans, and if Sony BMG directly announces its release, a senior editor will re-add the page? The Rogue Leader (talk) 14:20, 23 July, 2009 (UTC) That's what I'm pushing for. Unless a record label or Britney's website confirms it, there is no reason for this page to be here. ---Shadow (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC) But even if it is not official, but reliable sources start to cover the rumour, then we could have an article on the rumour or notable hoax! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I don't think there is need for a page on the rumour. On the Britney Spears page it could mention a 'Rumoured 2nd Greatest Hits Album' and also maybe on the Britney Spears discography page it could be mentioned at the intro saying something like this: "A rumour has spread that a 2nd greatest hits album will be released in October 2009". There is no harm in deleting it because there is no comfirmation, And like I said before the rumoured album could be mentioned on the Britney Spears page. If it turns out that it excisted, then we can just re-add it! Pages about upcoming albums such as A New Chapter (Rogue Traders album), Light & Darkness & Celebration (Madonna album) have all been confirmed. This hasn't. Like I've said before, there is no harm in deleting it. In fact, that'll resolve the argument and whatever the future holds, then there'll be no complication. If we keep the page, things WILL get complicated, confusing & nasty when Sony announces either that the rumours are true or that there going to kill the idiot who started the rumour. The Rogue Leader (talk) 21:56, 23 July, 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - as per above. As soon as the record label confirms it, it'll be an article with good legs to stand on! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Even if it was released, it doesn't automatically make the album notable.  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, at list until officially confirmed. Rlendog (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. "The Singles Collection is a rumoured greatest hits album…" If that doesn't scream crystal balling, I don't know what does. — Σxplicit 22:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Hear, Hear (Or Aye or Agreed, whatever) The Rogue Leader (talk) 14:20, 27 July, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Horse Boy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @855  ·  19:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC) The Horse Boy The Horse Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) About an upcoming documentary which doesn't meet WP:NFF. Though it fails the requirements. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Keep. Not "upcoming", as the film has already screened and won awards and international media coverage. So WP:NFF is in no way applicable. DePers - May 5, 2008, Variety - Jan 19, 2009, El Mundo - Jan 28, 2009, Radikal - Feb 18, 2009, New York Times - April 4, 2009, Columbus Dispatch - Apr 25, 2009. With respects, I believe the nominator did not practice WP:BEFORE, else he would not have opined WP:NFF. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Keep - Even if the film did not meet notability standards the book is the subject of multiple non-trivial articles in newspapers all over the world as well as being a NYT best-seller. The subject of the book and the documentary also have a lot of independent coverage. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC) weak keep, split or redirect - The NY Times (paper of record) article is about the book "The Horse Boy". The Variety (paper of record) article is about the documentary movie titled "Over the Hills and Far Away", which is based on the book, was screened and got a Sundance nomination. Thus both are probably notable. However, unless Zeitgeist (the article creator) can tell us that they've changed the title for distribution, these should each get a separate article. So, recommend splitting off the movie info into its own article, and keep The Horse Boy as an article about the book itself. It is asserted to have made the NYT bestseller list, so perhaps we should have something on it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:32, 23 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil Liberty (UK)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Civil Liberty (UK) Civil Liberty (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Company who is only notable for an alleged link to the BNP, and even that isn't sourced. Hence... Sceptre (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Keep.Useful article because it clarifies the possibility of confusion of this organisation with the pressure group Liberty. According to the Article History the link to the BNP indicated via the at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/programmes/2001/bnp_special/membership/organisers/kevin_scott.stm was in place before this request for deletion. Other material referring to earlier website contents supporting the connection have been removed - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civil_Liberty_(UK)&diff=prev&oldid=39369672. The website postal address and the photographs of Kevin Scott at the two sites are supporting evidence of the connection. Without digging deeper I cannot confirm my suspicion that this could be an example of article sabotage by attrition leading ultimately to an apparently objective argument for deletion. However I would say that Wikipedia's basic informational principles may be jeopardised by an excessive enthusiasm for "cleaning up". Opbeith (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Evidence supporting a close association with BNP members and activities now sourced. Opbeith (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC) No, it isn't. It's based upon a novel analysis of primary source material (the contents of some WWW pages), done by you, not upon actual sources that have performed and published such an analysis outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's "basic informational principles" include Wikipedia:No original research, which I suggest that you familiarize yourself with. Uncle G (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Uncle G, you seem to be stretching the notion of novel analysis to a place that the various Wikipedia observations enjoining common sense would find difficult to accommodate. A BNP member operates a website whose pages purporting to describe the organisation's work refer only to work supporting prominent BNP officials and members and the only pictures show those BNP officials and members and BNP activity. Wikipedia does not demand that every nail should be hammered home to bury its head. WP:UCS I've added references for external claims.Opbeith (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC) n.b. The article appears to have arrived here as a result of an editing process which removed clear but circumstantial evidence supporting the assertion earlier in the article that Civil Liberty was alleged to be a BNP front organisation. [20] The evidence was unlinked/unreferenced but its source was clear. The removal of this evidence then led to the assertion being removed. This gradual removal of significant content has resulted in a request for removal. The notability of the organisation is clear. The redevelopment and verification of its content would not have been difficult. Instead the article is a candidate for deletion. Deletion would be destructive rather than constructive in effect. Administrative actions should surely be informed by a net constructive intent. Opbeith (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Keep. This http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/03/partyfunding.thefarright indicates that the organization is notable. Whether the evidence connecting the group to BNP is strong or not, shouldn't (as far as I can see) bear on the notability of the organization.--Pink Bull (talk) 22:54, 29 July 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 Speedy delete CSD G4 - Recreation of deleted material, no substantial change since its deletion. --Angelo (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Dos Santos

Jonathan Dos Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. original reasoning (by myself) was "Non-notable footballer who hasn't appeared in a fully-pro league, and so fails WP:ATHLETE"; PROD was removed by an IP user who said "Jonathan Dos Santos is doing his pre-season with the Barcelona senior team." However, simply being a member of a team isn't enough - you have to actually play, and because this player hasn't, he fails WP:ATHLETE and the article should be deleted. GiantSnowman 09:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete has not actually played a game for Barca or anyone else in a fully-professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. No significant third-party coverage that meets WP:RS, WP:N or WP:V. --Jimbo^[online] 15:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean hasn't played, surely? GiantSnowman 16:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My bad, corrected. --Jimbo^[online] 07:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just checking! ;) GiantSnowman 08:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete under WP:CSD G4. --Jimbo^[online] 20:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice of recreation - currently not meeting notablility requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, already deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan dos Santos and no circumstantial change since then. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete CSD G4. Recreation of an article deleted at AfD, that does not address the reasons for which it was deleted, i.e. still fails WP:Athlete. Also fails WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:46, 23 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Artsakh

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both sides failed to reach an understanding on pretty much every issue in the debate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Northern Artsakh Northern Artsakh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) This article does not cite any references or sources, and appears to be an original research. According to WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Grandmaster 09:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC) delete. A clear POV article without any sources, this indeed is original research. Neftchi (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC) keep. ignore comment by user pushing agenda. already in armenian and russian wikipedia as linked. significant topic, just no citations yet. no need to fall to racism and anti-armenian phobia of grandmaster and neftchi.82.178.0.96 (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Be civil and mind your language, such outrageous accusations are not taken lightly. Neftchi (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC) That IP has already been blocked for disruption. Grandmaster 05:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC) keep, there are sources about the area (some (but not all) here). Sardur (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: The red hatched area of the map corresponds almost exactly to that of the 10th-century Armenian kingdoms of Tashir-Joraget and Gardman-Parisos as shown on map 95, page 119, of Hewsen's "Armenia: A Historical Atlas". And a map on page 102 of the same atlas shows the former territory of Gardman-Parisos now incorporated into the 12th century kingdom of Artsakh. That would seem to be evidence that the use of the name "Northern Artsakh" to describe these territories isn't completely fancyful. But the article obviously needs some credible sources that indicate an actual use of that name to describe those territories. Presumably we are talking about only a modern usage. Meowy 21:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Modern usage? Who uses that term to describe a part of the territory of Azerbaijan? And what's next? Southern Artsakh? Western Artsakh? Eastern Artsakh? We have an article about Artsakh, it should be enough to cover the topic. Grandmaster 04:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Obviously it will be a modern usage (but used to describe an historical region). The answer for who uses the term will be found in sources that use the term (if there are such sources). I was just pointing out that it could be a legitimate term for someone to use to describe those regions, I wasn't presenting evidence that anyone had actually used the term (it isn't used in Hewsen's atlas for example), but Sardur's posting does indicate usage of the same phrase (though it is unclear if that usage is the same as the usage detailed in the wikipedia article). Meowy 17:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC) From what I can see on google books, there are at least 5 sources using it that way. Sardur (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Which seems to negate the original research reason for deletion given by Grandmaster, as well as the silly and spurious "POV article" claim by Neftchi. But Grandmaster's other argument, that there is no need for the article because its content could be incorporated into the Artsakh article, seems reasonable. What arguments are there for retaining it as a separate article? Meowy 18:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC) To have it separate from Artsakh seems reasonnable as it had been a historical region, and quite a particular one. But see my other answer below. Sardur (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC) delete too armenian article Gvozdet (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Meaningless. Meowy 17:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Keep per Meowy. The information in this article can also be redirected merged into the Kingdom of Lori article. For that matter, we can perhaps redirect Gardman-Parisos into that same article as well (see the map on the Kingdom of Lori page).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I haven't actually voted, though I'm veering towards merge. Meowy 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I could also agree to merge. Sardur (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Gardman should have its own article. It was a distinct region that played an important role in the history of Caucasian Albania. Grandmaster 05:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC) delete as per GrandMaster --Aynabend (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. Not established term, instead coined for propaganda purposes only. Ateshi-Baghavan 05:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. WP:POV pushing again. The region hashed on this map, historically known as "Uti" was never part of "Artsakh". Probably the claim that modern Armenia as part of Erivan khanate is Western Azerbaijan holds more weight than this claim about "Northern Artsakh" not based on any sources whatsoever. Atabəy (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Delete The article does not cite any references or sources. Chippolona (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Keep. Nortern Artsakh is a real territory which have history, culture e.t.c.--Wikistreet (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. This article does not cite any sources or references and it seems be of original research, which is not allowed (original research). RetlawSnellac (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Keep. The Google Books search linked above shows that this a well-defined geographical area. I can't handle Armenian but I can see that there are some more book sources in Russian.[21] The sources include two books with Northern Artsakh as the title[22][23] and one more that includes it in the title[24] (the title translates as Secrets of Gandzak (Kirovabad) and Northern Artsakh), so this easily passes notability criteria. If the use of this name for the area is controversial and/or has nationalist overtones then this should be explained in the article, rather than be used as a reason to delete it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC) The problem is that every region has its northern, southern, western and eastern parts. These parts could be mentioned in sources, however what is the point in creating an article about each of them? Northern Artsakh never existed as a separate historical, administrative or political unit. The fact that the article relies on no reliable sources at all speaks for itself. We have an article about Artsakh, I think the topic can be covered within that article without the need to create articles about north, south and west of the region. Grandmaster 19:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC) If you're going to reply to my comments then please take the time to read and understand them properly first. I pointed out two books that have Northern Artsakh as their titles, and another that includes it in the title. This shows that Northern Artsakh is a notable entity. If you can find books about Southern Artsakh, Western Artsakh or Eastern Artsakh then we can have articles about those regions, but if not then we should have an article on Northern Artsakh but not the others. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC) I see your point, but all those books are extreme Armenian nationalist sources that cannot be considered third party. The rules require that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". This is my point. Unless we have third party sources that use the term, we cannot have an article on it. I don't see that Northern Artsakh is a valid historical term, it is rather a fringe theory. Grandmaster 05:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Are these authors really "extreme Armenian nationalist"? You need to prove that. We have an biography about one of the authors, Samvel Karapetyan, and we may have biogs about some of the others. --John Vandenberg (chat) 06:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Armenian Revolutionary Federation is a nationalistic political party in Armenia, and is not a reliable source on history. And the context of the other books leaves very little doubt about the political agenda of the authors. The fact that the Azerbaijani city of Ganja is referred to as Gandzak, the name that has never been official for the city, speaks for itself. I provided some info about Karapetian here: [25]. Thomas de Waal describes Karapetian as an "ultranationalist". Karapetian clearly has an agenda, and cannot be considered third party. Grandmaster 07:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Keep This is a specific region with set borders. It doesn't merely refer to the North of Artsakh, so an analogy with West, East or South is not applicable.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Keep per Phil Bridger and Eupator - Fedayee (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. A pseudo-historical term made up in the post-Karabakh War period to justify Armenia's territorial claims. If we take a look at the presented sources, we will see that virtually all of them are written by Armenian-based authors, some of them as controversial as Samvel Karapetian, in the years following the active phase of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In addition, even on the instances when it is used by them, the context is POV and political rather than NPOV and historical. As for the book that has "Northern Artsakh as its title", I think the phrase Armenian Revolutionary Federation next to the author's name says it all to someone who is familiar with this party's irredentist agenda. A mere fact of ending up with some search results on Google Books is not enough to start an article. The sources must be credible, relevant and neutral, and the term must be of some scientific significance. Parishan (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Note. There is a deletion debate on Russian Wikipedia as well. And the book by Samvel Karapetian (OCLC 221536504) is only available in one major library in the United States. But I think this deletion discussion is too hasty; the talk page is still red! John Vandenberg (chat) 06:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC) There are no references presented to even initiate a discussion in the first place. Parishan (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. I have just red the entire delation debate. Delete per Grandmaster. Zitterbewegung Talk 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Delete per Granmaster --Baki66 (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Comment: John, we've been quite habituated to your questions which, you can not ignore, Grandmaster has an answer to or your indirect allusions like here. It's laughable to turn this as some 'nationalistic' battle when Tasir-Joraget (AKA Northern Artsakh) was indeed an Armenian Kingdom and this included by authors that Grandmaster likes to quote, such as Dowsett (see p. 475 of his 'The Albanian Chronicle of Mxit'ar Gos'), Tasir-Joraget and Gardman-Parisos were later incorporated in the Kingdom of Khachen (See Hewsen's work of the same name) AKA Artsakh, to form North Artsakh, consisting of its Northern part and this centuries prior to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. If anyone has a more appropriate name for the article, short and concise, go ahead and propose it but the flooding of the AfD page with bogus voting and false claims of 'ultranationist' claims is not going to make it, either side of the conflict very well knows that the entity did exist (regardless of the appropriateness of the current name). It would probably require to clarify that historical Artsakh was larger in size than present day Nagorno-Karabakh. - Fedayee (talk) 20:58, 29 July 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who supporting characters

List of Doctor Who supporting characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Simply a list of characters, often establishing notability in an unverifiable way (such as "significant humans") - I can see no point in this article. U-Mos (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep As evidenced from the article in question, supporting cast has been subject of coverage in reliable sources many times. If there are entries on it that are of unclear notability, they can be addressed by editing (see WP:BEFORE). But "no point" is not a valid reason for deletion, nor are any concerns that can be fixed by editing instead of deletion. As such, the nominator fails to make a policy-backed argument in favor of deletion. Regards SoWhy 09:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "no point" was a poor choice of wording, but to be quite frank I see nothing in this article that either shouldn't be there or isn't elsewhere. The companions section links to the Companion (Doctor Who) article, which is more comprehensive. There is a List of UNIT personnel article. Other recurring and significant humans I don't believe is notable, and I feel should be removed in any case. There is a list of Time Lords at Time Lord. There is a Creatures and aliens in Doctor Who article. Ditto List of Doctor Who villains. The "Recurring or significant alien species, monsters or robots" section links to Category:Doctor Who races and Creatures and aliens in Doctor Who. The final section links to List of companions in Doctor Who spin-offs. In short, there is nothing in this article that isn't elsewhere. U-Mos (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Please see WP:AOAL #14 for a discussion of notability in lists. Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Almost everyone on this page has an article anyway, and most of the groups (UNIT, companions, Villains, aliens, robots, spin-off companions) have seperate lists for those people. It also has people under "recurring" lists who have only featured once. Don't see that it is needed. 86.131.237.120 (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Is it synthesis? Is there a definition of "supporting character"? Has any reliable source collected these different groups together? Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep sensible list topic with well defined inclusion criteria, and backed by other sources too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per SoWhy. From a practical standpoint, an easy way to find a character you are looking for. Hektor (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: It's a list of supporting characters in a popular TV series. Joe Chill (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but consider converting to a sortable-table. This is a type of higher-level navigation article as many of the names have their own articles or sections of other articles; the notability aspect is not a factor here. That said, the list as presented is not helpful unless you know the work directly. My suggestion is that if this was made into a table, listing role, aspect of role (eg companions, UNIT, villian, etc.) actor (maybe some handwaving for recurring characters by different actors), the incarnation of the Doctor, the story/media name, and year, this would help someone who is looking for something to find that character and jump to it. But otherwise, I don't believe the notability aspect is appropriate here as this is a navigation article. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea. If kept (which seems likely at the moment), I'd support changing the article in this way. U-Mos (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep this is a nice condensed list, into which some of the less notable entries should possibly be merged. Major fictonal franchise, not excessively in-universe, has at least some citations... what exactly is the problem here? Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - It's an appropriate list that does not violate any guidelines. Don't see a problem here. Not all elements of a list need to be notable, per WP:APOL, and some certainly are (e.g., Daleks) so that comment in the nom is irrelevant. Rlendog (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Many readers might need the page to find about Doctor Who characters. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - While I'm usually fundamentally opposed to list articles given the cultural/cult significance of the show and the wealth of information on these characters it's a keep! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no reason for this article, it is simply a poorly written confused repitition of information that exists in other articles. Some of the information is decidedly dodgy. The list of "recurring" characters contains characters that appeared in one story! Paul75 (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And contrariwise omits some who did appear in more than one. Peter jackson (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • So your argument for deletion is that the article isn't finished yet. Please point to where Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy support such arguments. Uncle G (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep looks like a good list to me, well sourced and linked up. Notable topic matter. Can't think of a reason to delete. The purpose of a list is to have in once place information that exists in other articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep A necessary list considering the sheer scope of it, as it would be too much for a prent article. Needs a little cleanup with regard to precise heading titles, but otherwise good, and easily verifiable. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as all the articles contained within seem to be individually notable. If they weren't, it would be a different story.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:58, 26 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somali Student Association

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The keep arguments are somewhat weak, but I do not find a consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Somali Student Association Somali Student Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) De prodded. Non notable organization. No sources in the article at all.Sources are from a local newspaper. This is a university student organization. Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Keep or merge needs sources Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC) That doesn't address the point required by deletion policy, which is whether the sources that it needs actually exist in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete, does not appear to meet WP:ORG. The association is advised to write about itself on its own website. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Keep The article already has sources. The organization has also been written about in the popular media (e.g. 1, 2, 3), thereby establishing notability & satisfying WP:ORG. Article could use some proof-reading, but otherwise is definitely worth keeping. Middayexpress (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Comment, The PBS article is a U-Wire article, which is a university newspaper newswire reprint. The second link is from the university newspaper, the University of Minnesota Daily, and the third is an incidental reference about an FBI investigation. The third, I might note, doesn't really qualify as a reliable source. And while the university newspaper might also not be a WP:RS, the more relevant point is that a university newspaper should and does report on local intra-university organizations. But none of that means that just anything those news organizations utter meet WP:Notability. Shadowjams (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC) That's all very well and good, but only one of those sources were used in the article. The others I just came up with after a quick internet search, which, incidentally, turns up about 48,000 hits for a supposedly non-notable organization. That in and of itself makes it highly unlikely that the article in question is not salvageable on the grounds of notability after more sourcing. Middayexpress (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC) The first 3 links are the organizations own website, and facebook page. The next one's a personal website, and the next is the wikipedia page itself. I'm not going through 48k links (of course many of these are duplicates or non hits), but a brief sampling shows none of the web hits as notable. Google news is much more relevant for this sort of thing, and that's the search I used and have referenced above. Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC) The point is, three links out of 48,000 hits obviously does not a dearth make. Middayexpress (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Keep Hi i am the editor of the article, so far there are more 'keep' then delete, i have been trying to make this article better, can anyone help me in this matter, i have done 10+ edits. Thank you. Diri0010 (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Keep - It's the largest Somali Student organization in the US that makes it notable. I would also add to Midday's sources the following stories:(1,2) related to the org, that could be used in the article. --Scoobycentric (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Comment - Those links are exactly the same, and it looks to me they're a reprint of a personal website (correct me if I'm wrong). They certainly don't appear to be a WP:RS. Shadowjams (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Keep, it is (allegedly?) the largest Somalian student group; that meets notability for me, it also has media coverage...so that's another mark in the wall. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Comment - I have yet to see media coverage outside of the school newspaper. If there is one, provide it here because I've totally missed it. Also, popularity is not a proxy for notability: It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute. WP:N. Shadowjams (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Keep - The SSA organization is well notable to most Somalis in the United States and in Europe(this does not constitute notability however). What constitutes its notability i think its the fact that it shows Culture of Somalis and its growth in America. The article is notable in regards to that and to the increasing media coverage,It has 48,000 hits on google its self, unlike for instance when searching "sic clan" on google. If this article is deleted i am sure it will be recreated with in the near future with increasing attention of Somalis in Minnesota and the ties the organization has with those Somalis for instance (//wcco.com/topstories/Somalis.Minnesota.Islamists.2.363938.html). However article needs to be cleaned up. Suggestion to the article creator: make the article more precise, add more resources and most of all Please add this article in the Somali Wikipedia aswell http:so.wikipedia.org, that is if you can write Somali Thank you. Qayre254 (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - I am not seeing the coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The key point being "reliable". University press articles don't establish notability. And the articles on bignews.biz aren't reliable either as binews.biz is a press release publisher. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 28 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suminter India Organics

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Suminter India Organics Suminter India Organics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Totally unclear what the indication of notability exactly is in this article. It was CSD'd but denied. Google news sows no recent hits. Archive of google news has a few hits, but the top ones are walled off to non-logged in users. The second link I found appeared to be a press release. No indications of notability in the article, certainly no references. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete There one in-depth coverage piece and eight trivial pieces that I've been able to here, so doesn't pass WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Definitely, the article as it stands today isn't supported by reliable source material. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 17:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete: I was the one who tagged the article for CSD, as I wasn't able to find sufficient sources. No refs + no indication of notability + COI. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Rework/Keep: Dare, an Indian magazine on entrepreneurship, had recent article about them on July 1. See also Frontier Natural Products Co-op for an article about a similar US-based company that was allowed to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.149.12 (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) — 116.72.149.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep: Page is looking better now with references etc. Could still need some more info around how this fits within the whole organic food movement. Other relevance: Endeavor entrepreneur selection, see the press release on Reuters. @SpacemanSpiff, DoriSmith: Do you agree? ChristophD81 (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC) — ChristophD81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Comment - Your very first edit is to AfD, and only other edits to the related article? Press releases are not WP:RS. Shadowjams (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Comment - No, press releases do not count toward showing notability, I haven't seen anything to change my opinion yet. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 12:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Comment - Sorry, I can't say that I agree either. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ Comment - I respectfully disagree. Please help me understand the difference to Frontier Natural Products Co-op. Why does that article exist? It seems to be like an advertising piece and I wonder whether we apply double standards here to Indian vs. American companies. I see a number of non-PR articles -- I don't know why they don't appear on top of the Google searches, but here they are: Businessworld article about several success stories of Indians coming back to India; this includes Sameer/Suminter. Above is mentioned an artice about Suminter in the Dare magazine. Here's another article about them. Hindu Business Line article about the Nexus investment An article about Nexus investment in Suminter Article on the thinkchangeindia.org blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.149.12 (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC) I strongly suggest that you read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Other stuff exists. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the hint, Dori. SpacemanSpiff, you said that press releases don't count. To the best of my knowledge, the links I mentioned in response to your argument do not constitute press releases. Please let me know what you think about these articles. Dori, same for you -- your agreement with SpacemanSpiff's argument that PRs don't count is based on the fact that I indeed used PRs. I'm not sure this is the case. Please read the articles I linked to. ChristophD81 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I have re-read [Wikipedia:Notability]. SpacemanSpiff, you suggest that notability is given by what Google News puts into its top search results. Notability requires, agmonst other things, "Significant coverage [which] is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" and it "does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources". The articles I mentioned are independent from Suminter or Nexus (its principal investor), and they have Suminter as either their main topic or as one important topic among just a few. They are not all from within the last week, but they are also not just a short burst of news activity. ChristophD81 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I have read through all the links, the Dare piece is fine (which I didn't find before), the BW article is a trivial mention, the investment notes are trivial mentions and the rest are blogs that do not conform to reliable source requirements. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I agree with SpacemanSpiff with some additions: the Reuters link is a press release. the Organic Consumers link doesn't mention Suminter, the Intellecap link and Sankalp link are both press releases, and the Fairtradenap.net link is just a database with no real information. There's nothing in those sources that makes me change my mind. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 20:59, 29 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albany strength

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Albany strength Albany strength (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) non-notable company - fails WP:ORG Ironholds (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC) The author has added references to the page although not following WP:CIT. I've left a message at the Talk:Albany_strength page. -- Max Duchess (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. Folks, this is just not a notable company. I have purchased some vitamins and food supplements there. It is a rather small gym with a health supplement store. It's not even the largest gym in Albany, New York. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - The co-owner was arrested, and the gym was mentioned in an article about supplements. But I could find no coverage of substance to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 28 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grantville Gazette VIII

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. There are two opinions at this AfD: delete, or merge. While the deletes have, well-versed reasons for deletion, 2/3 of the people who wanted a merge gave no reason whatsoever. Therefore, the consensus here is to delete. (X! · talk)  · @857  ·  19:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Grantville Gazette VIII Grantville Gazette VIII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Beyond the question of whether this is notable enough on its own, I question whether the massive use of possibly copyrighted text in this way is appropriate. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 02:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC) delete — part of a huge cloud of non-notable franchise-cruft, needing a massive cull. All of these 'Gazette' do seem like an inappropriate regurgitation of fan-fiction, which is a copyright concern. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - Vanityporn. Unreferenced and no evidence of notability; chunks of blockquotes and tiny blurbs are fluff. Also suggest bringing to AfD (either adding here or separately) 1632 Editorial Board and The Grantville Gazettes. Possibly also (although substantial cull, merge and redirect might also work) 1632 writers; ditto major cleanup 1632 series. --EEMIV (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Comment — I hadn't seen the writers page, yet; thanks. Do See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 22 for the mass of inappropriate templates involved here; more today. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC) merge or redirect to the main article. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - Article does not mention any third party commentary, published in reliable sources, that might be used to assess notability. I would not object to adding the rest of the Grantville articles as well as 1632 Editorial Board to this AfD if anyone wanted to do so, since they all have the same problem. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Merge to main. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Merge this article and the other Grantville Gazettes to the main article: The Grantville Gazettes. Some of the Gazettes have been published works and have some notability. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Comment: It should not be merged completely, most of the quotes should be deleted along with some other content. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:21, 24 July 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 speedy deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs). the wub "?!" 09:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

South Texas Conjunto Association

South Texas Conjunto Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organisation, only references that come up doing a google search appear to be members or sites created by the association itself. Frmatt (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy - I see 0 assertions of notability. I've nominated it. Shadowjams (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated it before, but the user keeps removing the CSD tag...Has been given level 2 warning, and I'll keep an eye on it. Frmatt (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I just noticed that. It's been deleted what, 3 times already? The first time it was a straight (C) vio. Not sure on the details. I've warned him L4 (we're past this point; this is a single purpose account). Shadowjams (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also nominated his other article for CSD as copyvio...he's even included the headline and byline in the article itself...Frmatt (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be trying to make good edits, so under WP:AGF I've offered to help him out with article creation and why all of his articles have been nominated for deletion. Frmatt (talk) 07:05, 22 July 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Russia – Timor-Leste relations

Russia – Timor-Leste relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mainly multilateral. [26] yes Russia recognises East Timor but so do many countries. A Russian plane crashing in East Timor does not add to notable relations nor does not sending peacekeepers as most nations in the world did not send peacekeepers, (only 3 countries did I think). LibStar (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep It is obvious that the nominator has not done a search in Russian, otherwise, he would be able to see that there is notability. As I am now having to expand other articles due to the nominator not checking sources and being ignorant of history, I may not have time to get around to save this in time, but if deleted, it will be recreated in due course by myself. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment doing a search is not being ignorant of history, you are welcome to provide searches in Russian as I don't speak Russian, however, East Timor uses English as a working language so many things related to East Timor are published in English. Recreating immediately after deletion is generally not recommended, although OK in certain circumstances as per WP:RECREATE. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I'll hold off until you present what you have Russavia, but your "ignorant of history" remark is out of line. While might speak Russian, I don't and I don't care too. Non-English sources are allowed, but there needs to be verifiability. If this is so obvious and so notable, I'm sure you'll be able to show something verifiable easily. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per Russavia Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Russavia. A notable subject of inter-state relations (scale large enough) covered in acceptable way. --ssr (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Low-profile, yes, but still notable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:46, July 22, 2009 (UTC)

WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to avoid. LibStar (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a WP:ITSNOTABLE argument; this is a WP:N argument, backed up by the references in the article itself. Something else to avoid? Tongue-in-cheek comments. But I might be contradicting myself on this point...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:36, July 22, 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Soviet relations with national liberation movement and place of East Timor in Soviet foreign policy --- several pages in Soviet foreign policy and Southeast Asia (Leszek Buszynski) devoted to the topic. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The creator of this article, User:Russian Luxembourger, was not notified of this discussion by the nominator. I have notified her per WP:CIVIL.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - the improvements to the page demonstrate the notability of the relations. TerriersFan (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep doing a superficial search for current events instead of thinking about the historical dimensions is careless--especially now when we have found historical relations justifying many such articles. Anyone can of course make a mistaken AfD nomination, or do an incorrect search--I have done these myself once in a while. Not learning by experience in a string of such nominations, and trying to reply to every keep opinion and justify even the most obviously wrong of them, is beginning to look unconstructive. DGG (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have provided evidence of search for sources. Also the majority of bilaterals article I nominate have been deleted. as an admin, I'm disappointed that you are not assuming good faith and choose to deride others. You consistently !vote keep and rarely provide examples of sources to back your argument. that's not constructive. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

DGG didn't say you weren't acting in good faith. He was saying that your approach to deletion of these articles is too hasty and your searches are too cursory. Deletion voters should try to search in foreign language sources, for instance. In this case you didn't let the article creator know about the deletion. To your credit you don't use insulting arguments like "trivia" and "cruft" - unlike some other serial deletionists - but this crusade against bilateral relations articles is becoming increasingly unconstructive. Some of them do deserve deletion - and I have argued for the deletion of one today - but better efforts at improving articles before deletion are needed. Why not approach the relevant country Wikiprojects about articles that look weak if you're having trouble improving the articles, and only then propose deletion? Fences&Windows 18:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. For articles with a historical dimension Google Books is much more useful than Google News, and finds enough sources to demonstrate notability. I hope that the nominator, who, before going on this recent deletion spree, was obviously ignorant of world history of the last half-century, has now learnt enough to stop nominating articles about Russia's relations with other countries for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 28 July 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 speedy delete. Per G7. SoWhy 12:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Throne Villain

Throne Villain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:Neologism, unreferenced, orphan Per Ardua (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:22, 22 July 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 Speedily deleted on request by author. Stephen 06:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Mildred Gordon (biofeedback)

Mildred Gordon (biofeedback) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Lacks significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Non-Notable, I nominated for CSD as per CSD:A7 before or as the AfD tag was placed. Frmatt (talk) 05:47, 22 July 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rogério Araújo Adolfo Helbert

Rogério Araújo Adolfo Helbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable diplomat per WP:DIPLOMAT:

1. Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.
2. Although diplomats often participate in issues of significant diplomatic importance without receiving specific individual coverage, sufficient reliable documentation of their role is required.

Drawn Some (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed, this person doesn't seem that notable. Adn the article is poorly referenced. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 04:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep in light of new information, was not aware of the pervious AfD which I have just reviewed. Thanks for pointing that out. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 01:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep In previous AfD, it has been determined that ambassadors to Russia are going to be inherently notable. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Russavia. KNewman (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note The name of the diplomat was spelled incorrectly, it should have been Rogério Araújo Adolfo Herbert. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep -another bad faith nomination. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -'longest-serving Ambassador in Moscow' speaks for itself.--Termer (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This sort of deletion nomination really makes me despair for the future of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia. The concept of notability, as a stricter standard than verifiabily, no original research and neutral point of view, was introduced as a way to keep out vanity biographies and pop-trivia, not the sort of serious coverage of history and world affairs that obviously belongs in an encyclopedia. Let's forget about any lawyering and consider whether Wikipedia is better as an encyclopedia with or without this verifiable article. I can't think of any way that deleting this could be thought to improve the encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 28 July 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. One significant author has requested deletion - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ackerman global enterprises

Ackerman global enterprises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Unsourced; claims to be so secret that their products and industry sector are "confidential". Huh? Only Google hits are WIkipedia and the company's own webpage. Possible hoax/overactive imagination. Hairhorn (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a hoax, the company is secretive because they deal with wealthy clientele. The company has just created a website recently for these clientele to access billing online - a new feature. One of the services clienetele have recieved in the past is the AGE Awards for financial purposes. If Ackerman Global Enterprises is going public with a website, it would make sense for people who wander on to the website to have a source that can explain (to some extent) what the company does. However, most of the services are still secretive. A7 also is so vague that it can be used to delete any article on no basis. Is that not on the eye of the beholder? --Efieryman898 (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete No claim to natability, not sure really if the article should be retained. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 04:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I was going to tag the article A7 a while back but since it was created with the hangon tag and a talk page note, I just left it. If the company is so secretive that no reliable source can write about them, then we should indulge them and not have a page either. Looking at the website, I believe this should qualify for a G3 too. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @260  ·  05:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @260  ·  05:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete If we assume good faith on the part of the article creator, we are presented with a very strange situation. A whois search shows the article creator has a strong connection to the company. Yet he has twice created an article on a company so secretive and so publicity shy that the only google hit is their own website, and they get zero gnews hits. It's perplexing why a company so adverse to publicity would be so anxious for a Wikipedia page. Still, even with that unresolved, the fact remains that this company fails WP:Notability by a mile.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I suspect a hoax. They're business model is "confidential", and even what they do is apparently secret. But for the first time this year, they will be awarding a "prestigious" award to someone, publicly, for God alone knows what --- that too is apparently a secret: Although much of their business model is kept secret due to company policy, 2009 marks the first year that the esteemed and prestigious Ackerman Global Enterprises “AGE Award” will be disclosed publicly. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be a hoax. All of the links go to "loginerror.html", you can see PHP in the html source (and in the URL bar), and they left links to "free templates" in the footer. Seems like a hoax somebody who doesn't know html/php. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason the website has loginerror is because we are not finished working on it. The footer that says free templates was required by the designer. I will work on this article more and talk to company reps to find out what they can say. Its not a hoax, this is a company that worked with a few individuals and now wants to expand their base. No one writes articles about companies that just came into public existence. The reason we are eager to get a wikipedia page is we (the company) are eager to get more clientele asking about our services. (Not meant to advertise, but rather explain what we are.) --Efieryman898 (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC) --Efieryman898 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a source of advertising. Sorry Man but wrong use for the wiki. Now fully support Delete in light of the intended use for the article. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 01:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys. I will take a while to work on this more and make sure I quote credible sources. Also, I will use wikipedia for what it is inteded to be used for. I fully support the delete. Thanks, E--Efieryman898 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 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. If you claim there are sources, the burden is on you to provide them. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Michelle McLaren

Michelle McLaren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable pornographic actress, fails WP:PORNBIO. It doesn't meet any the requirements. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 03:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed, article is a stub, not cited and doesn't meek requirements. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 05:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @260  ·  05:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @261  ·  05:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

She does make an appearance in Brüno, which adds somewhat to her notability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Groundbreaking comedy cameo in Bruno! Erxnmedia (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for meeting WP:GNG with coverage in genre-specific sources. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If there are multiple reliable sources, could you add them to the article? PhilKnight (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep only if there is reliable evidence she appeared in the movie

Dwanyewest (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Can't find more than trivial coverage by reliable sources to satisfy GNG. One mainstream movie does not satisfy the third prong of PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment: I think you mean fifth prong. Nick Graves (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete based on the search links on the article talk page, there doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: No sources documenting fulfillment of any of the porn bio notability criteria. One minor appearance in a mainstream movie doesn't clear the bar of notability to justify her having an article here. Nick Graves (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Identified by IMDB as having an uncredited role, which is to say there's really no reliable source she's in the film, and if she is it's not in any significant role. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:51, 27 July 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ogier (law firm)

Ogier (law firm) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability, Inadequate Sourcing, Reads like an Advert Cmichael (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to go ahead and nominate this article for WP:AFD. It's been sitting here for several months, and I see little or no improvement in it from the points of view of either notability or verifiability. It is still largely written as an advertisement. It does not, in my judgment, meet WP:Company, as the citations given are mostly aimed at niche-markets. Ogier has received trivial and incidental coverage in trade publications. There is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I think that a serious deletion discussion, at the very least, is warranted. delete Cmichael (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @261  ·  05:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Disclosure of bias: I started the article (it followed on from the article on the offshore magic circle), but I accept that the Ogier article never really developed, and it seems to have descended into a mini mud-slinging match between Ogier's PR team and some disgruntled ex-employee. But Ogier is a significant player both in the Jersey economy and in the world of offshore finance. I suggest paring the article down and keeping it as a stub until someone with the requisite knowledge to develop it comes along. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak DeleteKeep. Looking through the edit history, the original article asserted notability through a cite to Chambers Global directory, but that seems to have been removed when the article became a WP:COATRACK to hang advertising/grumbles on. As it stands, it should be deleted; but if someone with the expertise can trim out the fluff and restore an assertion of notability, then I would change my view and !vote to keep it - assuming it is worth the effort of someone periodically removing extraneous content in future. --RexxS (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I've tried a copyedit and restored an assertion of notability. It still needs more cites. --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's obviously big enough relative to our other law firms. And if you don't like the writing, fix it. I won't cry if it's deleted, but I vote Kinda Keep -- Y not? 14:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep and stub. In fact I will do that today unless anyone objects. ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't object, however when I looked at it with an eye toward doing the same thing, I figured that I'd end up with one or two sentences, max, and poorly cited at that. But, please have at it! (I do agree with Y that it's a big enough outfit to have an article, if that's any criterion.) Cmichael (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody else has done so, I went ahead and pared it back to where I think it belongs. If all agree that this is a good restarting point, then I'd be willing to withdraw the AfD nomination. It still needs some better evidence of notability. Cmichael (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to use a snippet of Legis' wording from the original version of the article, and used the reference from Offshore magic circle that supports Ogier's inclusion in that group to assert notability. Perhaps Legis can check the refs (I can't see the full versions) and confirm that they verify the information? --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't get the Chambers link to work, either. I just get their home page, can't get to the search feature. Cmichael (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Stubification looks fine to me. I can only get the Chambers search box to display in IE and I get this search result. – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I use Firefox, and it didn't work. ukeexpat's link does. I'll replace the reference with ukexpat's. I'm good with leaving it as is for now, and seeing what happens. I withdraw my AfD nomination. keep and watch Cmichael (talk) 03:21, 29 July 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Vishal Malhotra

Vishal Malhotra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Indian actor appearing in a minor television roles. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Lack of insufficient edits for this article. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 03:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I don't know if he'll pass WP:ENT but he likely passes WP:GNG as an actor/entertainer - interviews -Times of India, Screen India, and a variety of news pieces including a review on Bolt for which he is the voiceover etc. Gnews numbers are a bit inflated because of others with the same name. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 07:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and tag for expansion and sourcing since the subject meet WP:GNG. Lack of such is a call for improvement through regular editing, not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Enough body of work, both in film and television to warrant an article, references added! --Ekabhishek (talk) 09:21, 23 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

IEV Aryana

IEV Aryana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

BLATANT spam, speedy removed WuhWuzDat 03:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This is not a spam, as t is not trying to sell something, but looks like original research. THere is an uncontested prod on the article too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia definition of spam is Promotion, not attempted sales. WuhWuzDat 21:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• SPEEDY DELETE per WP:CSD#G12 because the page is a blatant copyright infringement of [27][28][29][30] etc. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 08:42, 27 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Walk 'n' Talk

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Walk 'n' Talk

Walk 'n' Talk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The original version was CSD copyvio; this one was further edited by a new user account that was created some 2 hours after the first editor was blocked. It does not show any notability for the campaign; there does not appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources to assert notability. The org article itself is listed for AfD too, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diabetes Australia Victoria. Non-notable promotional campaign  Chzz  ►  02:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @194  ·  03:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @195  ·  03:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @195  ·  03:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot find many references to it, save the two cited on Diabetes Australia Victoria, which appear to be a one-time event. To me, it does not seem more notable than the organization's other campaigns which do not have pages themselves, just the latest.—C45207 | Talk 04:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Same here can't find referenes to help save the article. Like C45207 said one time event. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 05:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 28 July 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 merge to Diabetes Australia. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Diabetes Australia Victoria

Diabetes Australia Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was written by user:Diabetes.victoria, hence obvious COI. Originally it was a copyvio, and I tagged as speedy; the user then removed the copyright material, and the speedy was declined. The user has now been blocked per WP:SPAMNAME. The article does not have sufficient reliable sources to determine notability (and I can't find any). Non-notable organization  Chzz  ►  02:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Um, wouldn't a merge and redirect to Diabetes Australia be the most appropriate action. From WP:ORG "Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. This should occur as a top down process." This really did not need to come to AfD. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @195  ·  03:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I re-wrote the article to remove the copyvio, so that shouldn't be an issue anymore. The chapter's activities have been reported on in the The Age [31], including [32], [33], [34], [35], and The Herald Sun, [36], [37], both of which are prominent daily newspapers in Melbourne. The Herald Sun "is the highest-circulating daily newspaper in Australia". At the very least, merge with Diabetes Australia.—C45207 | Talk 03:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Arguments to delete this article are petty. It is well presented and informative and some time and effort has gone into it. Ajayvius (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment All of the references provided by C45207 are passing mentions in articles that are not about the topic; I do not consider that to be significant coverage. If we are to have a referenced article about this organization, what facts could actually be cited to reliable sources? I would, of course, have no objections at all to "merge", as long as only referenced information were merged; I imagine this could result in a 1-line mention showing that the organization exists.  Chzz  ►  15:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep this artical is very informative, and the v.s comentts are very pettyful.--pedro thy master (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC
• Delete and Merge to Diabetes Australia. Unless this branch of the organisation has attained some notability outside the national body, (which I can't see that it claims to have done) I would merge the article.  florrie  07:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• redirect to Diabetes Australia. I see no individual notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 28 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Fausto

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Joseph Fausto Joseph Fausto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Hasn't played international football Spiderone (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 10:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Comment You pasted exact this statement in at least ten (still counting) more discussions about football players recently, whether the league is already known as professional or not. E. g. Dustin Chung & Ateya El-Belqasy. Is there any reason why you deny notability even if notability is clearly given? Did you check each article and notability carefully or are you just pasting your vote? --Ilion2 (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Comment How about this? To be honest not every single footballer in the world is notable and you should respect that. Spiderone (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Comment Who says that every single footballer in the world is notable? I already prooved that you are wrong with players of the Canadian Soccer League and Ghana Premier League and I did not say that every single footballer in the world is notable. Please do not tell me what I have to respect. Thanks. --Ilion2 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Keep Played for Al Akhdar Darnah in the Libyan Premier League, the highest division of Libyan football championship. Played in the 2007 Libyan Super Cup. --Ilion2 (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Comment Not notable since neither competition is professional Spiderone (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Comment The league is notable, the clubs are notable, the cup is notable but the players are not notable? As you recently prooved that you are wrong in similiar cases like players of the Ghana Premier League and the Canadian Soccer League perhaps you should check more carefully instead of starting many discussions and deletion requests at the same time like this one. Thanks. --Ilion2 (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Comment The FA Cup is a notable competition but that doesn't mean that someone playing in the qualifying rounds is notable for example. The Ghanaian and Canadian leagues are professional but there's no proof that the Libyan one is. Spiderone (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @120  ·  01:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete No evidence that the subject has played in a fully professional league per WP:Athlete; the Libyan premier league is semi-professional. Fails to meet the primary inclusion criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abderrazak Lmnasfi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 failure to meet WP:ATHLETE. There is sufficient consensus here that playing for the club mentioned is not enough to pass minimum notability guidelines. Shereth 18:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Abderrazak Lmnasfi Abderrazak Lmnasfi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Hasn't played professional football therefore failing WP:ATHLETE Spiderone (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 10:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Keep Plays for a club in the highest football league in Morocco, one of the most respected leagues in Africa. --Ilion2 (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Comment Says who? He still fails WP:ATHLETE because he hasn't played professional football Spiderone (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Comment The club he plays for is FAR Rabat, FAR is an acronym for Forces Armées Royales, you can translate this to Royal Armed Forces. You think he will not be payed for being in the Forces Armées Royales? I think he will be payed for this, and he will play for them football. So this is professional level. Any proof for your thesis? --Ilion2 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Comment This is the club's website [38] and there is no mention of them being professional. Spiderone (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Comment And there is any mention that the club is amateur? When the league is notable and the clubs are notable, you say the players are not notable? Sounds silly to me. --Ilion2 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC) I worked at a school whose teachers played regular matches against teachers from other schools before retiring to the bar on Friday evenings. I was paid to work at that school, and I represented them at football. Do I therefore get an article as a professional footballer (retired)? Lmnas is, presumably, paid for being in the air force if he is an active member of the armed forces, but can you prove that he is paid primarily for representing them at football. Kevin McE (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC) If you played at the highest level of your country, try it. If you have reasonable arguments, try it. --Ilion2 (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC) You can't say that the highest level of Moroccan football is notable. You can argue that Morocco is a great footballing nation but there are probably people who would disagree and say Montserrat is a good nation or something like that. Saying that playing in the top level of Moroccan football makes someone notable is pure opinion. Spiderone (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Any evidence that the league is not notable is welcome, your deletion request does not contain anything like this, therefore it is just pure opinion. Do not waste your time telling me things you can not ensure yourself here. According to List of professional sports leagues#Football: Association Football this league is professional. --Ilion2 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC) If you can find a sourced indicating that the league is fully professional, we will be happy to add it to the list of leagues that confer player notability (found here. The list you cite is an unsourced list that includes several leagues we know not to be fully professional, so it's not as reliable for determining player notability as the list maintained within the WP:FOOTY project that I've linked to. We haven't determined yet either way the status of the Moroccan league, but if a source can be found either way, we'll happily include it in the list. matt91486 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Well, you will not accept fr:Championnat du Maroc de football as reliable source, but there is the Statut des participants professional. This is another indication for a professional league, and the French Wikipedia should know it best. Perhaps someone of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football speeks french well enough to check this with reliable sources. --Ilion2 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @119  ·  01:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete Fails WP:Athlete; if Lmnasfi is employed by the armed forces then plainly he is not a fully professional footballer and the league that he plays in is not fully-professional. He also fails the primary notability criterion, almost to the point where he fails to meet WP:V. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - No Ghits for "FAR Rabat" professsional or "Abderrazak Lmnasfi" professsional, so no indication of being professional. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 29 July 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A New Me

A New Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Crystal and no sources cited. Gosox5555 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & .  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 01:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @127  ·  02:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @127  ·  02:03, 22 July 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 SNOW redirect Normally I wouldn't close any AfD in which I've participated, but it's pretty clear that there's a universal consensus among participants that a redirect is in order, to which the nominator agrees. Make it so. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sith race

Sith race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Written in an in-universe style, may not meet notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Could be merged into existing Sith article [mad pierrot][t c] 00:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete- subject is already covered here (Sith_(species)#Sith), and there is a current merger suggestion between that and the Sith article. [mad pierrot][t c] 00:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. No context. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Umm... do you really not know what a sith is? Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @127  ·  02:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Star Wars races (P–T)#Sith or Sith. Attempting a redirect would have been better part of valor before bringing to AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect per EEMIV. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect EEMIV has it right. Javert ^{(T · C)} 03:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect per EEMIV. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect........not sure you could call the Sith a race anyway since they got diluted to much.. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Star Wars races (P–T)#Sith, not Sith as that article is mostly focused on the Sith Order, not this species (confusing isn't it?), and it's probably best to keep it that way. BryanG (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question: EEMIV, what do you mean by attempting a redirect would have been better part of valor before bringing to AfD? [mad pierrot][t c] 19:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• WP:BEFORE: "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted." I'm 98% certain that if the article were merely redirected before brought to AfD, the redirect would sit firmly in place, and this collection of plotcruft wouldn't be sitting out in articlespace for however many days. --EEMIV (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Good point, perhaps doing an AFD wasn't the best choice. Is there any information in the article that is worth adding to the existing section about the Sith species? [mad pierrot][t c] 19:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Eh, not really in my opinion... I'm fairly sure their only real significance within Star Wars is the influence on Dark Jedi already mentioned in that section (disclaimer: this isn't an area of SW I'm well-read in). Of course a redirect preserves the edit history so if anyone thinks there's something salvageable in there they're welcome to use it. BryanG (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect: I'm withdrawing my nomination, and once the discussion is closed I'll create the redirect suggested. [mad pierrot][t c] 17:48, 23 July 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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Every Girl (film)

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

Wikipedia's guideline on notability is that an article needs to be given non-trivial coverage in independent sources in order to merit an article. This article doesn't have any independent sources. Noisalt (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete WP:CRYSTAL, not enough info known at this time. Drawn Some (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @129  ·  02:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 05:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice and userfy to author. Article is currently a tad premature. Allow back once WP:NF can be met. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 19:06, 27 July 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. The definition of WP:ATHLETE is "fully professional." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yousef al Mslaty

Yousef al Mslaty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hasn't played international football for Libya Spiderone (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 10:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Plays in the Libyan Premier League, the highest division of Libyan football championship. The players are at least semi-professional. If the league is notable and the clubs are notable, the players are not notable? --Ilion2 (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• If they're only semi-professional and not fully professional (as required by WP:ATHLETE), then no, the players aren't notable. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Since he does play for Libtan Premier League, based on the nom I can't see a reason to delete at this time. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 05:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. According to its article, most players in the Libyan Premier League are semi-professional. This player has yet to play at a fully professional level and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE, and there's no indication that he meets general notability guidelines. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:Athlete or WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:32, 25 July 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. WP:NOTINHERITED. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Musbah Saad

Musbah Saad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Plays in a league that isn't professional Spiderone (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 10:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Plays in the Libyan Premier League, the highest division of Libyan football championship. If the league and the clubs are notable, the players are notable too. --Ilion2 (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Just because a league or club is notable doesn't mean the players are notable. See Sutton United. Spiderone (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The subject does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:Athlete or WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:30, 25 July 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hesham Shaban

Hesham Shaban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hasn't played professional football and is uncapped Spiderone (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 10:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment You pasted exact this statement in at least eight more discussions about football players recently, whether the league is already known as professional or not. E. g. Dustin Chung & Ateya El-Belqasy. Is there any reason why you deny notability even if notability is clearly given? Did you check each article and notability carefully or are you just pasting your vote? --Ilion2 (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Played since 2004 in the Libyan Premier League, the highest division of Libyan football. --Ilion2 (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. In the squad of the Libya national football team. 2009 he played in the African Championship of Nations and scored for the winnig team in the final of the Libyan Cup 2008–09. Added this to the article.
  • Comment This needs sourcing. If it's sourced then the article is fine. Spiderone (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment There is no need to source facts in every article using facts from other articles. --Ilion2 (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep Has apparently played at the highest level, i.e. for his country at the African Championship of Nations, but this fact needs to be verified and a source added to the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have added sources that confirm that Shaban is an international player. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Sources now in the article confirm that the subject has 5 international caps for Libya. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 28 July 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Camara Sanosar

Camara Sanosar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence that he has played professional football or for Senegal Spiderone (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 10:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Plays for a club in the Libyan Premier League, the highest division of Libyan football championship. This league is the 4th best in the Arab world. The players in this league are at least semi-professional. And played in the CAF Confederation Cup. --Ilion2 (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment If he is only semi-pro then he can't be kept. Spiderone (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The subject does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:Athlete nor WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Plays in the top division in his country BigDom (talk) 20:45, 25 July 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 keep. — Aitias // discussion 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesse Anderson

Jesse Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deletion was mentioned on talk page, but never proposed. Subject appears non-notable in and of himself, and is mentioned here only because he was killed at the same time as Dahmer. A Google search for "Jesse Anderson" "murder" gives 348 hits, almost all of them false positives or a discussion of the murder of Dahmer. He's not notable by himself and shouldn't be dignified with a Wikipedia article. I originally had this up for prod, but the template was removed by an anonymous IP user without explanation or improvement of the article itself. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The murder of his wife was was very notable in Milwaukee, and the resulting fallout pretty much marked the downfall of the Northridge area in Milwaukee as a viable shopping area. A better source might be a search for "Jesse Anderson" "Northridge", which is more about the murder and media attention than the Dahmer incident. Nate • (chatter) 02:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I get 90 'real' Google hits on your link, almost all of them false positives. My own obscure personal name gets more. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The only reason this isn't WP:ONEVENT is because he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time in prison. If we remove the conicidence/bad luck anomoly, it goes back to WP:ONEVENT. He's not notable for the murder and not notable as a victim. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep-Per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Seems to have some notability for the Milwaukee and the chicago area. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 05:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Both events were heavily covered by the Milwaukee press and are notable by wikipedia standards. Google searching may not be the best way to research these events because they pre-date internet news coverage - maybe try searching the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel archives instead? Amazinglarry (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per pre-Google coverage by the Milwaukee media. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above consensus. Cancelled subscription (talk) 14:03, 23 July 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 no consensus. MQSchmidt has given plenty of secondary sources; however, Smokey Joe and Duffbeer's concerns have not been addressed, preventing this from being a consensus to keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Stingray Sam

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Stingray Sam
• Articles for deletion/Stingray Sam (2nd nomination)

Stingray Sam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no sign of satisfying notability guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (films). Only real claim to notability is showing at some film festivals. Such showing does not appear to have attracted any significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable film. Appearences at film festivals (some of them minor) and subsequent coverage of the appearence by local media doesn't really seem notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Minor coverage from small papers and online blogs. Should be a stub and see what else comes of it. Aliveatoms (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Needs reliable sources to establish notability, not blogs. Wikipedia is only as reliable as its sources. Drawn Some (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep Nontrivial coverage in io9 (which is an RS by my understanding), and screening at a half-dozen notable film festivals (including Sundance), it defies logic that there isn't at least one more source out there. —Noisalt (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The wikipedia article on io9 suggests the site is a blog. A recent article in SFX magazine (June 2009) suggests io9 is a blog. Not a reliable source. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Note, however, that blogs are not inherently unreliable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per additional sources found through WP:AFTER: WA today - Nov 28, 2008, Parool - Apr 7, 2009, De Telegraaf - Apr 14, 2009, Trouw - Apr 16, 2009, Explore Baltimore county - May 7, 2009, and Baltimore Metromix - May 17, 2009, Quiet Earth, Sundance Film Festival, Twitchfilm, Maryland Film Festival, Brooklyn International Film Festival, et al. Allowing the stub to remain and grow improves the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Looking at some of Michael's links, I see only mentions of the subject. Many repeated mentions don't satisfy WP:N. Michael, would you please, for two reliable independent sources, point out the significant coverage of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Notability of films requires more than a listing of this film is playing here as provided by Michael. Of the links provided only one (quietearth) has anything that might be considered significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. There are many notable sources as Sundance, io9, Quiet Earth, etc. It was also in second place (very nearly first being beat out by Let the Right One In) for the Silver Scream award in Amsterdam's Fantastic Film Festival [39].--DrWho42 (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Sufficient secondary reliable sources to meet notability requirements in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 29 July 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Niche Science & Technology

Niche Science & Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable corporation, previously deprodded. Abductive (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of evidence of notability for this corporation. JJL (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability, inadequate sources to justify specific claims regarding projects, written in the style of an advertisement. TheFeds 04:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the very model of a non-consumer business that nobody outside the field is going to have heard of: ...a healthcare communications agency based in Richmond, London, UK. The company is a full-service regulatory consultancy and writing agency... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 22 July 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 no consensus defaulting to keep. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fold7

Fold7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. Google searches do not make notability clear.

Google · news · scholar - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Recommend adding: Charles James Denton. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The Grauniad and BBC refs provided show notability. I42 (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 22 July 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 keep Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Knight Owl

Knight Owl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

DELETE. Contested prod yet does not appear to uphold WP:MUSIC standards. Lacks requisite non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a bio and a review at Allmusic, he gets a mention in Encyclopedia of Latino Popular Culture by Cordelia Candelaria and Peter J. García (Greenwood, 2004), and this artist has released upwards of 25 albums and compilations since 1995 on labels including EMI[40] and East Side. I don't see how deleting this article is going to improve the encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and mark for Clean-up/Expansion per Michig. Also the source cited mentions an interview. Might be worth adding? Gosox5555 (talk) 00:37, 22 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

920A Property Accounting Technician

920A Property Accounting Technician (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficient notability as a job within a job, really. Ranks I can understand, but specific positions? Short of them being, say, First Sea Lord, they're not likely to be notable. Ironholds (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Were this better wikified, there might be an obvious merger target. Perhaps someone who knows more about these US military positions could suggest one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, little notability. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 17:33, 23 July 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 keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion other then the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Selma Chalabi

Selma Chalabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, hardly any third party coverage [41]. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and further expand. Subject meets the WP:GNG through her filmwork. Article is properly sourced and can be built upon to further improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral for now This article is well-sourced but I don't see any of the sources being directly about her in any detail. Notability appears borderline; I could go either way with this. Hit me up if this article improves before the AfD is over, I'd be interested in seeing any sources on her that I couldn't find. ThemFromSpace 05:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep — Either there should be an article on the film she produced, or there should be an article on the producer, possibly with the film as a redirect. The two BBC articles prove notability to me. --Izno (talk) 22:36, 28 July 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 Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Willard Thiessen

Willard Thiessen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Biospam for non-notable host of non-notable webcast/minimally broadcast TV show. Prod declined by author. Hairhorn (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete' completely non-notable. GiantSnowman 13:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, fails WP:BIO. & that's where he met Betty! Drawn Some (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 22 July 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 Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Grind Is A Terrible Thing To Waste

The Grind Is A Terrible Thing To Waste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtape. No reliable sources. My speedy delete tag was removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:JUSTANOTHERNONNOTABLEMIXTAPE. Speedy A9 not possible due to the fact the artist has an article.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 13:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to singer. All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 01:31, 22 July 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti Filtering

Anti Filtering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Noble goal. but unencyclopedic. If this was turned into a list of anti-filtering technologies (which I thought it was when I proded it) I'd be more inclined to keep it, but I still worry that list would be arbitrary and a howto. As this is now, it's both of those, plus not an encyclopedia article. Shadowjams (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note. People may want to check that list of countries. For example, the UK does not have "widespread Internet blocking". I doubt the US, AUS or NZ do either. Similarly, Germany and Ireland are unlikely to fall into this category. I've removed UK, but others may want to remove their own country. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 08:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Inherently PoV (that all censorship is bad), + Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, + Inaccurate. New Zealand has just released a new proposal for filtering. The only target is content which is illegal in the country, i.e. child pornography. [42] dramatic (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This is on the edge of WP:SOAPBOX. It is clear that this article's objective is to bypass filtering infrastructures. Wikipedia is not a how-to web site. Groink (talk) 03:03, 26 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

ITunes Originals – Seether

ITunes Originals – Seether (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The album is a solely digitally released album that has not appeared on any major music charts and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Therefore, it fails WP:N. Timmeh 03:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Jrcla2 05:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, lacks coverage in reliable sources, charting, or other evidence of notability. Does Wikpedia make things sell better? Drawn Some (talk) 00:50, 22 July 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 Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Chris Weston (businessman)

Chris Weston (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Mentions of him that I can find are one of three things - 1) company sources, which fail the guideline by not being independent from the subject. 2) parroted news releases sent out over the intertubes to announce some acquisition or another which mention him as CEO. 3) independent, third-party sources about the company which include a quote from him as CEO, which aren't about the subject or discussing him in detail.

As far as I'm aware, businessmen are not considered automatically notable based on the size of the company that they run. They are required to have some kind of detailed coverage of them as individuals, and failing that the article should be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No sources and not that notable Irunongames • play 19:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Ironholds pretty much covered every point. Significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources has not been demonstrated. Non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 00:48, 22 July 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 Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Embassy of Syria in Prague

Embassy of Syria in Prague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable building. Fails WP:NOTDIR - "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". Sure it exists, but all the article is about is the fact that it exists and it's address. Tavix |  Talk  15:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete Unfortunately there isn't a room for improvement. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence that this is notable. JJL (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of significance or importance. Looks well-kept. Drawn Some (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep because there is an entire category for the embassies in Prague. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability is presented. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It doesn't appear to be a notable building or have some such other claim either. Also the category - Czech Republic-Syria Relations would have to be deleted as this is the only entry in that cat. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:02, 22 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Analance

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

Contested prod. Article is about a software suite, with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I was unable to find any sources beyond the brief mention of the product in thesmarttechie. TNXMan 11:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

KEEP. I have made some changes which makes this article notable.(Rajansryas (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

• Weak Delete I cannot locate any significant coverage for this software and the references in the article are mostly from the company itself. The company who makes the software was the subject of a magazine article but that is the only outside source I could locate so I don't think this software has wide enough coverage to be notable.Rcurtis5 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: It's a telling commentary that of the paltry number of G-hits (49), the second most prominent one is the whois.com domain entry for the software's company. Probable COI issues with the creator - whose name, Rajansryas, is similar to Sryas, the manufacturer - being a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity is this article and the AfD. I recommend the creator review WP:PILLAR and the associated links before continuing.  Ravenswing  23:59, 22 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thinfeeder

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

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: It seems little more than advertising, at most it could appear in a list somewhere else. Jwoodger (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, I don't even see any editorial reviews. Tiny but powerful doesn't equate with notablity. Drawn Some (talk) 00:53, 22 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

List of cyclists from Brittany

List of cyclists from Brittany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are many people from Brittany, and many of them cyclists. This list does not even try to give a criterium for inclusion, other than being a cyclist and coming from Brittany. EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SALAT. Yes, there are cyclists from Brittany, as there are cyclists from every part of the world. People don't become notable specifically for being a cyclist from Brittany which makes this article a non-notable intersection and should be deleted. Tavix |  Talk  17:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete inappropriate subject for a list; maybe a category? JJL (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as is, but would be ok with list of professional cyclists from Brittany or similar. Googlemeister (talk) 20:08, 22 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenwood Herald

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 failure to meet WP:N. Shereth 18:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Glenwood Herald Glenwood Herald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Fails W:N as it is a small paper and their are no sources to prove this paper is even real. Irunongames • play 19:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Delete No reason that this can't simply be mentioned in the article about Glenwood, Arkansas or Pike County, Arkansas. Media is an important part of any community, but not every newspaper is independently notable. Mandsford (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) CommentSorry, I thought this was to supply INFORMATION. I am the editor, so I assure you it is a REAL newspaper.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilderfox (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 July 2009 Well, as you know ANYONE can edit wikipedia. You have to provide resources also that paper might not meet notability standards. Irunongames • play 19:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 22:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC) And I realize that it is a real newspaper and that it's important within Glenwood and in Pike County. The information deserves to be kept somewhere, but (for the time being anyway) newspapers are not automatically entitled to their own article; radio stations and high schools get a pass. Frankly, I'd be in favor of a policy change in favor of inherent notability for a local paper that is primarily news coverage -- in other words, no "Penny Shopper" or "Bargain Banner" or "Car Trader". Mandsford (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Comment I've flagged this one for rescue; a bit of Googling (esp books) convinces me that it is a real paper, and I think that RS could be found to establish N; it is, however, difficult to source because googling will show citations and entries by the paper, rather than about it - hence I haven't found them and fixed it myself at this point. I agree with JC that we may need to reconsider policy on this. If N cannot be established, then I suggest merge to Glenwood, Arkansas.  Chzz  ►  16:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete Is there any claim to significance or importance? Most local shopping weekly newspapers have a much higher circulation. Does it pass WP:NOTE? Drawn Some (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Delete: If there are any independent, reliable sources that discuss this newspaper in detail, as the GNG requires, that would be one thing, but this looks like just another small town weekly of which no one's heard beyond the town line.  Ravenswing  23:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC) keep yeah all what everyone else said... (all valid) but it's been in consistent circulation for over seventy years. Small town, small paper-right. Let's do some research on this one and see what we can find...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC) comment I placed a notice on the Journalism Project Talk Page asking for input to either improve the article or provide insight on deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Comment: As far as I can tell, longevity forms no part of the GNG or any other notability criteria; by that standard, my 94 year old grandfather is prima facie notable and deserves a Wikipedia article. Do you have any valid policy grounds upon which to advocate keeping this article?  Ravenswing  18:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Response fair points and questions. Here's some essays on the topic--the first one, WP:OLDAGE seems to support your point. Likewise, Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability can bring some other topics to light, specifically the section on "specialist topics" which covers that notability could exist on topics that are not widely-known. But where I'll likely end up is Notability is not temporary. While the paper might not have significance on a global scale today, it appears to have been unique in its ocverage of the logging industry during its heyday. Further, where it's age comes back in, at least for me, is that it has been continuously operating for that period of time. Not a lot of newspapers--big or small--can make that claim. Like the "oldage" section says, 100 years old isn't so much for a turtle, but 70 years is a long time for a newspaper to continuously operate in a small town.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC) To be blunt, so what? Longevity still forms no part of notability guidelines or the GNG, or else (for instance) the Old Colony Memorial, Plymouth's weekly that's been in continuous publication for nearly 190 years, would be a slamdunk for an article. "I think it's important" is the very syndrome for which we have notability guidelines and criteria. Beyond that, upon what do you gauge that this small paper was uniquely a major player in logging coverage? Above and beyond any small-town weeklies in Maine, say? Minnesota? Oregon? British Columbia? Do you have any reliable sources making that assertion ... or is that just your personal opinion?  Ravenswing  05:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Follow-up Comment: "While the paper might not have significance on a global scale today, it appears to have been unique in its ocverage of the logging industry during its heyday." Well, I just followed that one up, and I see the source added to the article. It's from Google Books, and shows two footnotes citing a local lumber mill fire, and a local lumber mill closing, in the Glenwood Herald. And you conflate that into a claim that this paper was "unique in its coverage of the logging industry" and imply that it may have had global significance then? Paul, with all due respect, don't bullshit us. I can't imagine you're comfortable with the concept that we need to backcheck each and every fact and source you toss out in an AfD for fear of wildly exaggerated claims.  Ravenswing  05:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Whatever whenever someone says "with all due respect" and then acts very disrepsectful, I tend to ignore anything they say from that point on. For others, I will address your comment: I've been doing a little research and stated that it "appears to have been unique" ... not that it "definitely is unique" -- notice the difference? Anyway, I'm done participating in this discussion. Let the chips fall where they may.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid I'm not one of those who believes that WP:AGF is a suicide pact forbidding us from calling attention to egregious behavior. To make such a statement without a shred of evidence remotely backing it up - there "appears" to be nothing of the sort as you describe, and if your normally-skilled research methods have dug anything more up, they've not made it into the article - there are only three explanations that come to mind: ignorance, incompetance or malfeasance in pursuit of an agenda. Whichever it is, it's deeply disrespectful of the deletion process and serves Wikipedia poorly.  Ravenswing  04:15, 29 July 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Jason Jollins

Jason Jollins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources or objective references to support notability. JNW (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 04:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This is a little iffy. His style mostly appeals to Latin Americans and as you can see from his three-year schedule that is his audience. There are some news hits with full paragraphs about him in Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese that go slightly beyond trivial. I could probably be swayed in the other direction because the quality of the publications is not exactly the best. The tone is awfully promotional and the three-year schedule of every event he played is ridiculous. Drawn Some (talk) 01:06, 22 July 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.