Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 22 July 24 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep - as per consensus in this discussion. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake2[edit]

Jake2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Java port of a commercial video game. This product never reached version 1. I not even sure if the project is still active. This could be a single line in the Quake II article. Certainly not enough quality information for an article. Magioladitis (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The port is complete and working, even is the version number did not reached version 1, this is not a Beta (and I'm not a developer of this game). The forum is still active (I checked just today). This project is not interesting because it is a port of Quake II IMHO, but because it is a straight port in Java (it was even mentioned by a Sun developer in a white paper about JOGL (the paper is quoted in the article). Hervegirod (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete – are there anything else from reliable secondary sources besides the paper mentioned above? MuZemike 22:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not dead. Interesting and relevant to Quake II and JOGL. • Anakin (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same as Anakin (I explained above). I also just added more references, including an interesting academic paper on a grid re-engineering of Jake2, a Sun direct reference to Jake2 in their Java 6 release notes, a Joystiq source about the use of jake2 to experiment eye tracking in 3D games, and an O'Reilly source. In fact this port has often been used to discuss the possibility of performance intensive 3D games in Java, because it is a straight port of a well known C game (and because of that easy to compare to its C reference), and it was maybe the first one to use the JOGL library. Hervegirod (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - WP:N suggests that Jake2 needs to be the subject of significant third-party coverage. I'd like to see something more than one paragraph (Joystiq) or a page of screenshots (hexus). The Amador/Alexandre/Gomes paper might swing it for me if it can be shown that it has been peer reviewed. Since the information is largely verifiable, merging to other articles is a possibility. Marasmusine (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is explicitly cited as one successful example of a Java Web start app in Sun's Java 6 update 10 release note (one page) ? There's also O'Reilly article. There's two academic papers (one dating from 2006, one 2009), one specifically about using it in Grid computing, the other cited by other papers ? Plus the part of WP:N you refer is a guide on when to add an article about an academic, not about citing academic work in an article (even if the article you mentioned was cited by other research papers, I added the source). BTW, the Joystick article was quoting another academic paper which was also added as source. Hervegirod (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My main query is if the academic papers are peer reviewed or not (WP:RS). Marasmusine (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary for academic paper to be peer reviewed in order to be used as a source. What WP:RS say is Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available, not that only peer-reviewed publications can be used. Plus it adds The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. The paper about eye detection in video games, which used Jake2 for one of its experiments, was part of (ACM's SIGCHI conference proceedings, the world's leading organization in Human–Computer Interaction according to wikipedia), and was cited 5 times in other papers according to portal.acm.org.Hervegirod (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this gives us one reliable source, then I'm considering N#cite_note-3. Could be a good starting point for a broader subject such as, well, Eye detectionFace detection, which is the subject of the paper. Marasmusine (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 23:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable at the moment  Chzz  ►  01:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the references that have been added and other improvements by Hervegirod since the AfD nomination. The work that has gone into this article seems to address the nominators original concerns above. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – there is plenty there now that demonstrates sufficient notability. MuZemike 14:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Changed from "weak delete" per sources found.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caesars Cup[edit]

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

This is a non-notable event that is being tied to the 2009 WSOPE. Betfair is a co-sponsor of the WSOPE, but that does not make this inaugural event worth mentioning. The person who wrote the account appears to be a spammer for the betfair website. ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was discussed briefly at WP:Poker before being brought here. NOTE: There is a publicity blitz ongoing, but this is the inaugural Caesar's Cup. I suspect that if this becomes an annual tradition, it might be notable, but at most it deserves a comment in the 2009 WSOPE article.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I just wrote an article, Non-bracelet events at the WSOP that this could simply be redirected to.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails notability guidelines WP:GNG  Chzz  ►  01:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • RESPONSE: Can you please explain what makes this user a 'spammer for the betfair website'? Is it simply because this event is sponsored by Betfair? I think the wiki reads nicely and that it is useful information for anyone interested in poker, like myself. Seems like a tournament that is notable, especially if it is going to be on-going - then again, maybe even as a one off.
    • See the discussion at WT:POKER and check out the users edit history. Almost every edit has been related to adding "sponsored by Betfair" or ensuring that the poker pros from Betfair are covered or that Betfair's publicity stunts are covered. At this point, the Caesar's cup is no more notable that the All-In Energy Tournament of 2008. In a year or two, heck possibly AFTER the tournament, the Caesar's Cup MIGHT be notable, but right now, we don't know that. Ante Up for Africa is only now reaching the point where it is notable enough to stand on it's own. This is the first time the event has occurred. If it gets big names (and it is off to an excellent start) that might improve the credibility, but right now... it fails WP's general notability guidelines. Everything is currently either from Betfair itself or obviously gleaned from Betfair's press releases.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As mentioned, the tournament is not yet notable. The current article is little more than a Betfair press release. Hazir (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • RESPONSE: I wrote the article. I have been asked to update the Betfair Poker Pros pages and other related pages. I can understand some of the Betfair references being challenged but cannot understand the discussion about deleting this article. To compare this tournament to the All-in tournament is highly inaccurate. That was a one-off, purely PR-driven, tournament that allowed entry to 1,200 members of the public, based predominantly on how much of a certain drink they purchased. The Caesars Cup is a new annual event that features only the very top players in the world and the opportunity for one member of the public to qualify based purely on poker ability. To say that it is not notable just because it is the inaugural event makes no sense. All of the major poker sites are talking about it as one of the events of the year. Why have similar events in other sports been accepted in their inaugural year e.g. soccer's Wembley Cup? Why is that event notable but not this one? I can tell you as a poker fan and soccer fan, the Caesars Cup is much bigger to poker than the Wembley Cup is to soccer. They're not even in the same league.

    I also don't understand how is it justifiable to remove the Caesars Cup from the list of events on the WSOPE page? Whether or not you at Wikipedia feel it is a notable enough event to warrant its own page, it IS on the schedule of events, FACT, and warrants some description and explanation[1].--Jtrentonjtrenton (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrentonjtrenton (talk • contribs) 08:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have been asked to update the Betfair Poker Pros pages and other related pages. — Really? Who by? Uncle G (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm guessing that is confirmation that our suspicions were correct about the motivation behind writing these pages.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of your questions are better asked at WT:POKER, but as a general rule events have to reach a certain level of notability. But just about every year there are different tournaments held in conjunction with the WSOP, and those events are not covered on the WSOP page. As for the Caesars Cup tournament itself, at present it probably deserves mention on the 2009 WSOPE page. Heck, the page might even attract enough attention that it does become notable this year. Right now, the event is being talked about, but only insofar as the press releases of Betfair. It might garner enough independent coverage/interest to warrant its own article, but right now it is completely unproven and a publicity stunt.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Also, you might want to familiarize yourself with wp:COI and wp:SPAM---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Wirral Episode One Adapt or Die[edit]

Doctor Who Wirral Episode One Adapt or Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fan video; should be speedied.... mhking (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I've also put a coi tag on the article because it appears that the editor the nominator is in conflict with may represent some kind of "management company". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Ecclestone[edit]

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

The article is a poorly written publicity entry. I have made several attempts to make it more encyclopedic, but my changes are continually undone. As the article stands, it is not fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability can also be questioned, although this is NOT my reason for proposing deletion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you read WP:BEFORE? AfD is supposed to consider what the article could be like, not what it's like at the moment. "Poorly-written" and "publicity entry" are very clearly not reasons to delete.

    If the problem is that changes to improve the article are being reverted, take it to the talk page; if the reverting person refuses to talk to you, ask an admin to help.

    The notability concern would be a reason to delete, if it wasn't for all the coverage in national newspapers she's had.

    Overall, I'm going to go with snow keep because there's no chance whatsoever that this will be deleted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I did read WP:BEFORE. Thanks for the advice regarding resolution. The talk page already has some delete questions, which is why I chose this route. I'll revert the article back to my previous edits and we'll see what happens.Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep, while the article is poorly written, there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources already to show notability. Article should be fixed not deleted. A new name 2008 (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep - No valid rationale advanced for deletion. The issues are raised are ones of editting and are not resolved by deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Trying to avoid closing by the numbers as several of the delete votes are slightly worthless per nom efforts but the issue here seems to be with whether there is a clear definiation to allow these lists to have a proper criteria and the latter votes came after the discussion and suggest that the consensus view is that the nominator's view on the vagueness of the definition has prevailed so delete the lot. Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of megafauna[edit]

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

The term Megafauna is vague, open to interpretation and has at least one meaning that would require these lists to have literally millions of entries. Since no definitive list is possible - these are unencyclopaedic at best SteveBaker (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the following lists should also be removed:

List of African megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Arctic megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Australian megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Central and South American megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Eurasian megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of island megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of marine megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of North American megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Prehistoric Megafauna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

... on the grounds that they are unencylopedic. The term "megafauna" (as explained in Megafauna - which most of these articles link to by way of an explanation for the scope of the term) is vague, open to interpretation and has at least one meaning (any creature visible to the unaided eye) that would make the lists above require LITERALLY millions of entries (most of which would be species of beetle!) in order to stand any chance of being complete.

My problem is that if someone sees that animal X is included on one of these lists and animal Y is not - they are going to come away with the impression that the term "megafauna" has a cutoff somewhere between the size of X and that of Y - and that X is DEFINITELY a megafauna because it's on the list - and Y is not a megafauna because it's not on the list. That's just wrong - it is a flat out untruth to place either X or Y onto the list or to leave either of them out. Further more - given the vagueness of the term, it will be impossible to provide references for the vast majority of species that might properly be considered because nobody who writes on the subject is using a hard-and-fast rule for the naming.

Since no DEFINITIVE list is possible - we should not attempt to create half-assed lists just because we can.

I would cite the fate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercars as 'case law'. That list was removed because the term is ill-defined - and the exact same problem exists here.

SteveBaker (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Is the title isn't descriptive enough it can be clarified. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So...What? "List of animals weighing more than 100lbs"? I'm pretty sure that such an arbitary list would get AfD'ed pretty quickly! SteveBaker (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I weigh more than a 100lbs. Are you saying I'm fat? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Does this dress make me look fat?"..."No, no, no. Megafauna perhaps.":-) SteveBaker (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lists such as this are inherently original research, as there is no precise definition possible.  Chzz  ►  01:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Absent a definition the article is valueless. With a definition, OR. They just don't have a chance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trendiong towards extinction...sorry deletion here. The lists include thinsg which are not very big - Nile Perch, Red Foxes, Dodos, and are very incomplete if such small creatures are covered by the term. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an FYI, the Nile Perch can get up to something like 400 lbs. Googlemeister (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm..... I came here expecting to cast my vote as a "keep" and that the lists would be definable and manageable, but when I see domestic cats on a list...I am not so sure...surely there must be some more precise definition allowing some discretion in the list?? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As noted the definition is vage and the included animals are very arbitrary. In the case of hte Prehistoric list, that is a list that would include the vast majority of all fossil animals ever described as that is what was preserved, and thus making the list completely useless.--Kevmin (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Standard term. . Some books with it in the title American Megafaunal Extinctions at the End of the Pleistocene By Gary Haynes, Springer 2009; "Megafauna & Man By Larry D. Agenbroad, Jim I. Mead, Lisa W. Nelson, Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, South Dakota, Northern Arizona University, 1990. See also [2], where they agree it can not be precisely defined, but go on to talk about it. Most things can not be precisely defined, but we talk about them anyway:The article on Rock Music starts "a loosely defined genre of popular music" cf. Biophysics, sovereign State,and thousands of more. Lists such as this are not the least OR if they rely upon published lists of which there are many.DGG (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that we're not talking about deleting Megafauna, but lists of megafauna. APL (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tidy. Agree with DGG. "Megafauna" is a common (and scientific) term. Use of an external standard to define this term and then removing those that do not apply would be the appropriate course of action here. Not that it is really relevant but I was always under the impression that "megafauna" was roughly defined as "larger than the average human". Of course this is just my opinion/recollection and not supported by anything in the way of facts. :-) -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mattinbgn. Clearly some cleanup is required in order that an appropriate, neutral definition of megafauna is correctly applied, but the list is notable and worthy provided that is met. Do we have a list of charismatic megafauna? :) Orderinchaos 07:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those who claim that there is a definition for "Megafauna" really need to read our article Megafauna which offers no less than EIGHT different and contradictory definitions and says: "The more commonly found meaning, discussed in this article, is of "giant", "very large" or "large" animals — although there is no standard definition of a minimum size.". It's a common term, indeed but so are many other vague words. Would you accept "List of big animals"? Well, "megafauna" is much more vague than "big". Under some definitions, an ant is "megafauna" - under other definitions, an elephant isn't. Who gets to decide what the threshold is? Who gets to decide which definition to apply? Megafauna means either:
      1. "Visible to the naked eye" - produces lists that would need millions of entries.
      2. "land animals roughly larger than a human which are not (solely) domesticated" - certainly not the standard that the present lists seem to be using because we have things like cats and dogs in them and an entire list of marine megafauna.
      3. "the giant and very large land animals considered archetypical of the last ice age" - eliminates most of the lists above and is still vague.
      4. "the largest wild land animals surviving today" - the 10 largest? the 100 largest? marine animals are excluded?
      5. "Giant, large or very large" - define one vague word in terms of three other vague words. How are we to judge what is "large"?
      6. "giant aquatic species" - same problem.
      7. "definitions of size however go down to as small as 40–45 kg (90 lbs)" - which contradicts "roughly larger than a human".
      8. "animals (usually extinct) of great size relative to a more common or surviving type of the animal," - vague, and again eliminates almost all of the lists above.
    • I believe the "Keep" respondants owe us a coherent explanation of which of these definitions is to be applied and why that definition should be used instead of one of the other seven - and how we're supposed to keep the lists referenced and accurate as well as complete. This is an encyclopedia...we are supposed to report factual things that can be referenced. You CANNOT find consistent references for whether any particular given animal is considered "large" under the meaning of "megafauna". SteveBaker (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The literature I can find pretty much all says 44-45kg or greater. None of the other definitions appear in scientific literature. And our "megafauna" article, it would seem, needs fixing like so many others. Orderinchaos 11:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the "macroscopic" definite does appear , but only in very specific context, notable soil biology, but for the main generally understood meaning which is what should concern us, Orderinchaos is right. DGG (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct - it is used in that way as well - I meant more as a precise definition given in the literature where it appears, I consulted a scientific search engine through my university access. Orderinchaos 05:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to say that these sound like legitimate lists, but I would be like creating List of fat celebrities. How do you define what fat would mean? By weight, it might be William Conrad, but I bet that Shaq or Hulk Hogan had a reasonable chance of weighing more without being fat. Googlemeister (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Megafauna" is a common scientific phrase, but it has different meanings in different contexts. At its most liberal this list could become simply "A list of macroscopic animals" which is obviously not appropriate because it can never be complete. Even in the context where "Megafauna" is means "An unusually large animal" there is no hard definition. Wikipedia should not be in the business of arbitrarily defining scientific terms for the sole purpose of creating lists. APL (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list is effectively meaningless; it serves no useful purpose. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    • As: "The list is ill-defined" and "The list has millions of possible entries" are mutually exclusive possibilities. They are presented as concurrent.
    • And: 15,700 Google Scholar hits for "Megafauna". The term, and therefore the list, is not "vague, open to interpretation", "half-assed", nor "ill-defined."
    • Therefore: The remaining problem, numbers of possible entries, is merely a matter for those who preserve the article by eliminating less notable additions. The list is not invalid because it is not exhaustive. This is an invalid proposition for deletion. Anarchangel (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point does not make logical sense. It is entirely possible for a list to be both ill-defined and massive. Trivially so. "List of Mean People", "List of Good Books", etc.
Your second point also confuses me. It is true that there are many Google scholar hits for 'Megafauna', but how does that necessarily mean that term is well defined? I don't see how one follows the other. It's perfectly common for a book or paper to use a vague term and then say something to the effect "For the purpose of this paper, I have defined X as Y". In such a case the researcher is communicating precisely, but the term remains undefined outside the context of the paper. APL (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder how many Google Scholar hits there are for "mean people" or "good books". I'd bet several. But you are correct, that wouldn't make a good list. Again, Archangel just counts ghits and says "see, it's relevent", without looking at the content of each article. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said that the list is EITHER ill-defined OR has millions of entries - not both at the same time. There is a well-defined definition for the word - which is "visible to the naked eye" - but that would result in millions of entries. The other definitions are ill-defined.
    • Google scholar has 44,000 entries for "good book" and 10,000 for "mean people" - so if GS is a valid benchmark for us then "List of good books" ought to be OK. Ergo, GS is not a valid benchmark for us and may safely be ignored. People writing scholarly works use vague terms all the time - it being generally possible to infer the meaning from context. If we take the first GS hit for "Megafauna": "Effects of bottom fishing on the benthic megafauna of Georges Bank" - it is quite clear that (a) the definitions for "megafauna" that only relate to land animals or to prehistoric animals cannot apply - and that since there are no "benthic" (bottom-feeding, mud-dwellering) animals in Georges Bank - or anyplace else for that matter that are larger than a human or larger than 40kg - readers of this article would presumably assume that "megafauna" in this context means "visible to the naked eye"...and indeed, when you read the paper, the term is qualified as: "bryozoans, hydroids, worm tubes". The problem is that our "List of megafauna" will certainly never contain bryozoans, hydroids or worm tubes - unless it has literally millions of entries. So using scholarly works as an argument for keeping these lists is blown away on the very first paper I try to apply it to.
    • You may not (without a major argument) delete entries for (say) bryozoans from "List of Megafauna" because I have a solid reference (see above) where a scholarly work in a peer-reviewed journal describes a bryozoan as "megafauna". If you can't delete an entry for a creature that's only 0.5mm long - you stand NO chance of keeping out "cat" and "pidgeon" and all sorts of other contentious entries. Hence you're back with millions of entries again. SteveBaker (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would need to much explanation for a category. It can be based on RSs, so improve, don't delete. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? There are categories already and they don't seem to have much in the way of explanation. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per list of supercars. The term is so vaguely defined that authors need to clarify the scope of the term in every published paper. We could not create a definitive list of megafauna without either being hopelessly incomplete or committing original synthesis. Zunaid 08:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Stellarkid (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous comments. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Daniels[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper with no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independant sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Astronaut (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has been in music for a very long time, and yes not in the U.S. but all the same his biography is true. This is why he does need this article on wikipedia so he can reach a wider audience. Bobby Taylor (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The truth of the biography is not in question. The article has been nominated for deletion because Duncan Daniels does not appear to be notable as defined by Wikipedia's policies. And Wikipedia is not the place to promote someone's work "so he can reach a wider audience". Astronaut (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIONo assertion of notability. No sources showing songs that charted. Lack or reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the information in this article are facts. Duncan Daniels is a renowned music producer, singer, song writer, with a lot of fans mainly in Africa. you can search Duncan Daniels on Google. Duncan Daniels music is also available on Itunes, Napster etc. click http://www.facebook.com/pages/Duncan-Daniels/38555846853?ref=ts&__a=1 to see Duncan Daniels Fan page on facebook. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkishrock (talk • contribs) 01:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the truth of what is written is not in question. The article has been nominated for deletion because Duncan Daniels does not appear to be notable as defined by Wikipedia's policies. I did search Google and found many mentions of various people all called Duncan Daniels. Unfortunately, all those that were about this Duncan Daniels were in places like blogs, forums, social networking sites, and other unreliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first Album Titled "I don Taya" was released and Published on Itunes, and on Napster. you can search the album on itunes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkishrock (talk • contribs) 21:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did that album chart on a national music chart? Astronaut (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -^^; Facebook and Myspace aren't exactly reliable. Neither is Twitter... Airplaneman talk 19:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @120  ·  01:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Margaux with an x[edit]

Margaux with an x (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I had prodded this for deletion; author removed prod without commentary in the edit summary or on the talk page. I will repeat my motivation: Book is not notable: nothing to be found outside the usual brief notices from libary journals and such; author ("Koertge," not "Koert") does not even have a WP article. Article has no references, and makes no real claim to notability. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete blatant advertising. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like a book report advertising the book. BrianY (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @121  ·  01:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana High School Forensics Association[edit]

Indiana High School Forensics Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Facebook-like page for a state chapter that lacks sources for notability. Deprodded. Compared to some of the other state level leagues which have Wikipedia articles, this one has so few Google hits (23) that it really makes me wonder. Abductive (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1 gnews hit. Fails WP:CLUB. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thoroughly lacking content to substantiate any claim for notability. Just a brief promo-sounding intro and a list of members, officers, and some competition stats. This article is the equivalent of using wikipedia as a free webhost for a small local organization interested in promoting itself online. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Glossary of musical terminology. (X! · talk)  · @121  ·  01:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Con brio[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a glossary of musical terms. Powers T 20:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Glossary of musical terminology. Hairhorn (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & cleanup Redirect I've done a brief rewrite thinking that keep was where I was heading - but then investigated further and found Tempo#Common qualifiers, which is probably a better redirect because it gives the association described in the stub. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Con brio is a style direction, not tempo, though. (I believe it's listed on the tempo article because it's often suffixed to a tempo (e.g., allegro con brio). Powers T 12:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But when one comes across con brio by itself allegro is implied. One certainly wouldn't play adagio or even andante given such a direction. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well yes, but the opposite is true of dolce and I don't think anyone would consider that to be a tempo direction. Powers T 18:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (A7) by OverlordQ. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 01:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crazysoft[edit]

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

A game producer. There are some hits on google news but they appear to be press releases. I don't see anything that looks like widespread coverage. I also don't see any assertions of notability or any articles for any of their products. The CSD was removed by an anon IP with no edit history and from the same geographic region as the other primary IP contrib. Shadowjams (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (X! · talk)  · @121  ·  01:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK)[edit]

List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. All of the article's important infomation can already be found at Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates. The rest is mindless WP:TRIVIA, making this article the jewel in the WikiCrown that is WP:LISTCRUFT. DJ 20:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a different case. The Big Brother 2009 (UK) article has a comprehensive, sourced and detailed section. The other articles you mention do not. DJ 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a note for new entrants, not a debating point. If you had that reason in mind, you should have mentioned it in the rationale. MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And other crap exists, once the other nine main articles have been revised those articles will also be nominated for deletion. And there is no need for a nominator to give all the reasons for deletion in the rationale, the reason can be expanded, in fact that is the point, to discuss the reason for keeping and deleting the article in question. So far, Mick, you have not given a compelling reason to keep this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What did you not understand about this is a note not a debating point?. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What gives you the right to tell people what they can and can't talk or debate about? Read up on WP:CIVIL before continuing the debate, please. DJ 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have every right to point out the obvious, this was a note about related articles, it was not a voting ratinale, and it does not warrant threaded discussion. This is standard practice, that occurs every single day in Afd's. Civil has got nothing to do with this issue at all. MickMacNee (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates is a total unreadable mess, and looks to only have been puffed up to that size as a breaching exercise for this Afd. The nature of the material means that it is easily justifiable to have a separate 'List of...' type article, and the section headers serve a purpose for pipe-linking. LISTCRUFT it most certainly is not, it is not even close to resembling any of the 10 meanings that that essay suggests people might mean when they throw out that particular WP:ACRONYM as if it is a replacement for an argument. MickMacNee (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What infomation does this article provide that the section in Big Brother 2009 (UK) does not? DJ 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honeslty don't know, because I am never going to waste the hour it would take to try and read that mess in the main article to be able to compare it to the list, to verify your claim. And as we don't have a paper shortage, even if they are exact duplicates, it wouldn't honeslty matter, because being in different formats is good enough reason to keep the list. MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So your answer is that you don't have an answer. I think that says it all. DJ 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you provide a valid valid reason for deletion, I might try harder (and no, a list is not a content fork of prose). As it is, it should be pretty clear to anybody that an Afd is not the right mechanisim for justifying using prose over lists, irrespective of which has more information. Your wall of text prose only seems to list age/sex/job/location anyway (you are no doubt under the mistaken impression that all other detail is TRIVIA), but just in an unreadable, and arguably totally banal way, so I could just as easily argue that we can convert that section to a table. I would not need to Afd this list before doing that. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to !keep this article but you cannot be bothered to read the shorter version that has been put into the main article, which is the main reason for deleting this article? So why bother to say anything, Mick? This is not a vote, but a discussion. The main crux of that discussion is that this article is nothing more than a copy of information already in the main article, which you call a "wall of text", although it is just six short paragraphs (limited to ASL, mainly). The activites of the house are contained in the summary, the details of the housemates are in the housemate section, so what exactly do you feel is missing from the main article which is in this article? Benazir's hair colour? Cairon's living arrangements? Marcus's delusion that he thinks he is Wolverine? There is nothing more than trivia in this article. The winner will get their own article, the others will fade into obscurity. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are really hard work. Right - this list should not be deleted because there is no reason in policy that justifies deleting a valid stand-alone List article just because someone thinks the information is adequately dealt with elsewhere, whether that is a smaller summary or not. Does that satisy you, even though my view was already abundantly clear in my previous replies and backed up in policy and not essays that the people mentioning them barely understand. It is not LISTCRUFT, and it is not TRIVIA (even if some of it is, again, that is not a valid reason for deletion), and a List format is more than appropriate for this kind of information, especially over a wall of unreadable text which we at least agree is merely a list of ASL in prose form. It is frankly unimportant that you won't personally be monitoring the list for appropriate content or BLP violations, those are not valid reasons for deletion either. Your idea that this is a list of small aricles implying independant notability for each contestant is just nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with "a wall of unreadable text". It is a few paragraphs of text, much like millions of articles on Wikipedia. If you have trouble reading five paragraphs and need to have them in a separate article as 22 paragraphs (most of which will barely contain more information than age, sex, occupation, day in eviction %) then the problem is with you not the "wall of unreadable text". And BLP concerns are serious. The main concern is not, however, the trivial elements (although Halfwit, Dogface and Noirin contain massive unsourced chunks of trivia) are not the concern, the BLP violations are not the concern and the list-y elements are not the concern. This is a content fork which repeats all the information in the article and adds nothing but trivia. If all the trivia was removed this article would be nothing more than the info already in the main article. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so we've discounted everything that isn't a reason why we delete things. Great. So, quite obviously 22 paragraphs versus 5 paragraphs is not a content fork, by any stretch of the imagination. But you think this is just down to trivia. But if your definition of trivia is 'anything else that is not age/sex/job/location', then for the content of articles about reality TV shows and contestants, I don't accept your definition at all, not even in the slightest. This is information about reality TV contestants, which by definition, will include much more information than your simple telephone directory stuffed into prose. The content meets all the requirements for stand-alone list articles, IDON'TTHINKTHATSWORTHMENTIONING and NOBODYWANTSTOKNOWTHIS is not a reason to get rid of it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But trivia is. Also what is in this article and not trivial which could only be in this article? Look at the Dogface or Halfwit sections, outside of tasks and basic bios there is nothing worth keeping, just trivia (Halfwit the most nominated, Dogface kissed Kris!, Marucs had an argument!!). You want to keep this, why? Darrenhusted (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator: this is trivial information, even if much of it is verified. The main article already has plenty of such info. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a useful article for people wanting to know more about the individual housemates. More will be added once the series finishes.Mark E (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the nomination. All that is achieved here - Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates. DJ 22:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates includes no information. It is just a big wall of text with the order the housemates came in, their occupation and age. I understand that almost everything fails WP:TRIVIA but what about official warnings, arguments, nominations, notable things the housemates have done in the house? Why does all that fail WP:TRIVIA for this year, but there's all that information on the pages for the housemates of previous serieses? I see that the housemates haven't done as much as they've done in previous serieses, therefore there is not much to write about, but I still think this page should be kept. Will what the housemates do after the show be included in the big wall of text (Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates) - cos I cannot see that happening. If this page gets deleted, then the pages for the housemates of all the previous series should be AFDed. 83.70.71.2 (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)— 83.70.71.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
All of the "official warnings, arguments, nominations, notable things the housemates have done in the house" are included in the section Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Summary. "there's all that information on the pages for the housemates of previous serieses?" - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "Will what the housemates do after the show be included in the big wall of text (Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates) - cos I cannot see that happening" - Simple, if any of the housemates do anything notable then they will get their own articles. Are IPs allowed to nominate at AFD? DJ 08:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
" Are IPs allowed to nominate at AFD?" if you mean vote then yes, but this IP has only two edits. Also "If this page gets deleted, then the pages for the housemates of all the previous series should be AFDed" is a valid comment, and once the information has been re-integrated back to the relevant articles then I would expect an AfD for each, but the focus of this AfD is this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more than being just a list it is an unnecessary content fork. I doubt Benazir, Sree or Cairon will ever do anything notable, and if they do then a separate article for individual housemates (like the winner gets) would be more appropriate. Kenneth spent 6 days in the house, other than his entrance and exit he did nothing of note. This is simply a magnet for trivia and BLP violations, and all the information can be covered in the main article. As for previous years, once the information is trimmed and incorporated back in to the main articles then they can be deleted as well. The !Keep votes seem to be leaning heavily on other crap and it being useful, however without the main article this page would not meet the bar for notability. We used to have separate Summary pages but they were deleted and the information put back, the same principal applies here. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason that the information is duplicated in Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates is because that section started off as a direct copy of this article with a bit of tweaking to make it into prose. Since then I have agonised over it and rewritten it a couple of times but I'm not proud of it and I'm not happy with it. Furthermore, no-one else has succeeded in improving it. Surely a fundamental requirement of a section of prose is that it be readable. The problem is that it just doesn't work as prose without adding other content that would almost certainly be considered trivia, and so it would be much better off as a list in a separate article. MegaPedant (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've read that over various times, and still can't see why you want to keep this article. All of those issues there appear to be editorial - you are stating that we should keep one article because a section on another is unreadable and this is not a valid excuse for a Keep vote on AFD. DJ 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel the need to add your own comments to every Keep vote? Have you not had sufficient opportunity to make your views known in your proposal? Can you not accept that some people hold a different viewpoint from your own and that your comments are not going to change their minds? It's possible that some people might find them just a little bit annoying. MegaPedant (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not simply a vote, it's a discussion, if you want a reason to keep this page then it is appropriate for editors to ask why. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way the two of you are going round trying to get everyone voting Keep to change their mind... well, frankly, it doesn't look good. Let me have another go at explaining my point of view: faced with a choice, I would rather keep this article than the Housemates section of Big Brother 2009 (UK). MegaPedant (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's the opposite. It shows that the delete argument is so strong that we can disprove everything you say. Remember- this is a debate, not a vote. And this argument you've proposed is also full of holes. It's not about your personal prefference, it's about keeping to Wikipedia's rules and guidlines, which say that we should keep infomation together and not create seperate articles willy nilly for the sake of it. You haven't been on Wikipedia for long, I suggest you read some policies and guidlines. In this case, I suggest WP:SPLIT and Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article. DJ 07:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's no different from any other Big Brother UK List of...article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.188.163 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it is, in previous years the information has been removed from the main article, this year it has been trimmed down and incorporated. The last four year's don't have this information in the respective main articles, this one does. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And besides, that argument is yet another example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and probably WP:ILIKEIT. DJ 16:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the list is fine. It's well-sourced and well written. It is a much better reference point than Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates is. While I do acknowledge that the it does contain small amounts of trivia, it does no harm and many editors work very hard to keep extremely trivial and irrelevant comments off the list. As a side note, WP:LISTCRUFT isn't even policy, so I'm taking it with discretion. Jozal (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That argument fails WP:EFFORT. DJ 17:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh DJ, how did I guess that you would attack me for stating my opinion? Also, I don't care if it fails WP:EFFORT because it's not policy. Jozal (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about my previous comment. It comes across as quite rude, so I'd like to apologize. I see what you mean about WP:EFFORT but the fact is that information in the list is much better than the information in the article. Jozal (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that the nominator doesn't like lists like this, and would rather reply this high quality, well sourced list, with a load of crap in the article. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 18:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the "crap" (as you called it) in the main article has co-existed alongside the list well up until this point. In fact, I don't understand why we cannot have both. The main article, with the simple details on the housemates and the list with more detail. Feel free to criticize this, it's just an idea. Jozal (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a sensible one - I can see where you are coming from. You should suggest it at the discussion on the main article.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sourced, notable. Dodgy nom. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing and notability is not the problem. If you'd have read my "dodgy nom", you would have realised that the page has been nominated for deletion as it is a re-creation of content elsewhere on the encyclopedia. DJ 17:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's a strong and reasonable precedent for housemate lists as separate articles in previous years - this is a reasonable compromise to guard against individual crufty articles on each and every housemate. While I agree that the information can be presented as part of the series's main article, if previous years articles are anything to go by there ends up being quite a lot of sourced coverage; and the housemates list becomes a very valid article split under summary style. I don't see a compelling reason that this series should be any different - the main article is already rather long. ~ mazca talk 17:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I hate the programme, but we have a list in this format for every year. If something different has been done with the main article this year, then fix that, don't delete this. And don't feel you have to respond to me with a paragraph of text about how I'm wrong, either.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that since all the objection is to the information being in two places, I have removed it from the main article, which now looks like all the others in respect of how it handles housemates. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't do that without concensus. Therfore, I've reverted that edit. DJ 17:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:Fancruft Toddst1 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate spin-out to keep main articles concise and readable and easily editable, as with other years of the show. Sure, both articles currently need some TLC, but the basic structure is a good one. Jheald (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment its worth noting that WP:SIZE suggests an article greater than 60KB should be split. The main BB 2009 article is 69KB with the housemates section, so thus this is a valid split. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 18:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without refs or the nomination table the article is barely about 30k. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per bad faith nomination Jordan Payne T /C 18:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep More than enough sourcing on the topic. Spin out of main article is appropriate. Show is stupid but that's not a reason to delete. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a BB fansite. The other years' lists should also be merged into the main articles. Stifle (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The NOM invokes WP:TRIVIA and WP:LISTCRUFT. WP:TRIVIA concerns not having a section which contains unrelated facts of limited interest and RECOMMENDS keeping such information with other related information, as is done here. WP:LISTCRUFT concerns standalone list articles and RECOMMENDS the current article's approach where "...the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles...and ... the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out." While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid counter to some arguments, it doesn't apply here, where the example of previous years merely shows that this worked out to be a reasonable handling of similar information. Celestra (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The outcome of this discussion needs to be applied to the American and Australian articles. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (ec) There, as far as I know, there are lists for every season of Australian Big Brother. Meets WP:NOTE and WP:RS (by means of the Big Brother UK website), and theres been precedent set before with every other Big Brother contestant list, so this article deserves to stay. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a precedent set with 4 out of 9 of the previous BBUK series, but not the first 4. ANd I don't deny they meet WP:V but without the series they fail the GNG. And there are very few secondary sources that talk about the housemates other than to say they entered and were evicted (or walked). Darrenhusted (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is achieved by keeping it? Darrenhusted (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing to be achieved by deleting it. By keeping it, we will be keeping a tidy, well-written and well-sourced list. Jozal (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it notable? Darrenhusted (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Listing all twenty-one contestants on the Big Brother 2009 (UK) article would lower the quality of that article because it would make it far too long and make it look very untidy - For this reson I am opposed to a merge to that particular article, and since there is no other article this one could be merged with I am completely opposed to a merge. This article follows a trend set by the most recent five series of the UK version, so if this article should be deleted, then in theory so should all of their "List of Big Brother housemates" pages. The information on this page is well sourced, and the page is well written. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The links to the infobox on the main page will not work if this page is deleted MSalmon (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a poor rationale for keeping an article. Do you have other reasons? lifebaka++ 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's been no reason given that the content of this article should be deleted. WP:TRIVIA applies only to content appearing in a section title ==Trivia== or similar, and only states that such content should be merged into prose instead of residing in a trivia section. There has been no explanation of how WP:LISTCRUFT applies, and the list does not appear to match any of the 11 common uses listed at that essay. So, the best the nominator can reasonably hope for is a merge, which would make the article longer than would be liked. So, the article should be kept. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep past precedent on other years has established that we keep these lists. Otherwise, they become too unwieldy for the article. Majorly talk 23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an appropriate break-out list from the main article which isn't immense but is still quite large. Additionally both article seems to be full of sources. What we have here is a conflict of style compounded by recentism. This is quite common on reality show articles. There is no reason to delete this but one could quibble on merging which also wouldn't seem to help in this case. I suggest waiting a few months after the show has come and gone and see where things are - some of these folks will have scandals or even get their own articles. Hindsight will help clean-up the main and extra details can rightly be sent to this list and individual articles which would be summarized here. -- Banjeboi 11:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are 21 housemates at about 1KB each. Having a seperate list is the only sensible course of action.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise? - Could a "Big Brother UK Housemates" prose article or "List of Big Brother UK Housemates" list article be created that includes information for all ten series' worth of housemates onto one page? Not sure if that article would exceed page size recommendations, but it's a thought. If one merge will not work due to size issues, then I would lean toward Keep because I cannot watch the show from the U.S. but I do come to the houseguest article occasionally to see what happens to particular houseguests. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 5 UK housemate lists, each containing 22-23 housemates. Including references and such, one combined list would probably be too long and would be very unreadable. Jozal (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @122  ·  01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay bathhouse regulars[edit]

List of gay bathhouse regulars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) NOTE:article name has been changed to List of notable gay bathhouse attendees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - no objective standard exists as to what constitutes a "regular" at a bath house. How many visits over what time frame make one a "regular"? The article itself points to the problems in trying to objectively quantify someone as a "regular" with its inclusion of Justin Fashanu as a "regular" when the source supporting his inclusion explicitly describes him as a "newcomer". Although most of those currently included are dead, there is also serious potential for WP:BLP issues since labeling someone as a "regular" at a facility for which a primary purpose is to engage in anonymous sex with multiple partners is quite likely defamatory. Otto4711 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, for the case of Justin Fashanu quoted above, a reliable source has been added showing that he was going to gay bathhouses before his visit to Chariots gay bathhouse on the night of his death. Further discussion should be on the article talk page.—Teahot (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This list was put up for deletion on the basis of "no objective inclusion standard as to what constitutes a "regular", possible WP:BLP concerns". Responding to the two parts of this challenge:
  1. With regard to BLP concerns, this list is carefully sourced with good quality published reliable sources. The list has already existed on the Gay bathhouse page for more than a year without any source or name on the list being challenged. The list was recently split from the main page. If there are any particular BLP concerns (presumably only for one person still living; this means that the concern can only relate to the inclusion of Scott Capurro where the quote from Time Out seems a perfectly reliable source) it would be helpful if they could be elucidated for a more detailed reply as it is not possible to counter unspecified concerns.
  2. For the term regular, I was going by the standard dictionary use of the word, the OED defines this as "doing the same thing often or at uniform intervals". The list could be renamed List of people who have often been to gay bathhouses or List of gay bathhouse patrons but, honestly, the word "regular" seems a perfectly good one to use. If there is a logical reason to use a different word then I would be happy to move the page. You will note that wp:List states "If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so", consequently if the word regular needs explanation then this can easily be added to the current explanation of inclusion criteria in the lead text, though again the current text appears sufficient.—Teahot (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the wording of the AFD reason has changed since the last attempt, I note that Fashanu has been picked as a key example. If this is the issue then I suggest that this reference is discussed on the talk page, or Fashanu removed from the list until that discussion occurs. Deleting the entire article seems a heavy handed way of dealing with "potential" BLP issues for a dead person.—Teahot (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I didn't cite a dead person to support the assertion of potential BLP concerns. In fact, I explicitly stated that "most of those currently included are dead". The length of time that some of this information existed in another article is not relevant to this discussion. And again, how many visits, or at what interval, do visits to a bath house have to be made to qualify someone as a "regular"? What is the objective standard used to determine that exactly? Otto4711 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, by "most" you mean all except one, and that one is backed up with a good quality reliable source? And are you discounting the idea that the lead text can be clarified due to the guidance at List not being applicable for some reason?—Teahot (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to WP:BLP concerns. The phrase "regular" is also very subjective and the list will never be complete. DJ 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain which, if any entries are BLP issues. -- Banjeboi 02:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on WP:BLP and WP:N concerns, as well as DJ's point that this list is and always will be incomplete. Powers T 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as partial as I am to a spot of cottaging, I'm not sure I see the encyclopedic value of this article. Also, WP:N and WP:BLP. Crafty (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: While I agree that WP:BLP doesn't, of course, apply to dead people, this list isn't named "List of dead gay bathhouse regulars" and obviously won't stay to zero live ones. Beyond that, while I dislike reaching for the cruft argument, this is as crufty a list as I can imagine still existing; no doubt you could also source a List of sitcom actors who wear string ties in church, but that scarcely makes it encyclopedic. And despite the citation of the OED, this will remain a desperately subjective notion which smacks more of prurient interest than scholarship.  RGTraynor  20:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cruft argument seems weak if your argument is based on precedent; surely this list is more notable (purely on the basis of general public interest) than List of bow tie wearers or List of knitters in literature both of which seem to be considered encyclopaedic?—Teahot (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: And if I had launched an argument based on precedent, a rebuttal based on one might have made sense. That being said, no, I don't think that this list is more notable than the examples you give; upon what basis do you think this is notable or informative, or that any pertinent information couldn't be merged back into the main article with a single sentence: "Historical patrons of gay bathhouses include Oscar Wilde, Rudolf Nureyev ..." That much might be illustrative to those with a burning desire to know the names of celebrities who hung out in gay bathhouses. It doesn't support a standalone article.  RGTraynor  04:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must have misunderstood your justification of "cruft" being based on the example of "List of sitcom actors who wear string ties in church" being un-encyclopaedic and so I responded with close counter-examples. I am pleased to see you have shifted your argument to a form of Merge rather than just Strong Delete, perhaps you could amend your vote accordingly? By the way, to clarify your example text; I do not believe there are any reliable sources claiming that Oscar Wilde went to gay bathhouses, though there is evidence he enjoyed the company of rent boys, witness statements at his trial provide a perfectly reliable source.—Teahot (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge & redirect to Gay bathhouse (which is where it was to begin with, wasn't it?). Exploding Boy (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this list is still embedded in Gay bathhouse. If the rationale for deletion is unspecified BLP concerns then the same arguments should apply to the names and sourced material there. Those who propose deletion here should note that the following RFC raised for this exact same list, Talk:Gay bathhouse#RFC is the list of Famous bathhouse regulars encyclopaedic?, concluded that the list was encyclopaedic. I guess the AFD process rather ignores pre-existing RFCs that may have been conducted? —Teahot (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my comment accordingly. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the definitional reasons given above. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per Teahot; also, the title problem has been fixed, thus invalidating the major argument for deletion. I don't get the WP:BLP objection either. It's sourced. Zazaban (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the page move/title change doesn't alter a thing viz deletion. It's still crufty and not encyclopedic. Check out RGTraynor's comments. Crafty (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to being unencyclopaedic, perhaps you could point out why the conclusion of Talk:Gay bathhouse#RFC is the list of Famous bathhouse regulars encyclopaedic? was the wrong consensus to come to?—Teahot (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite aside from that much of the commentary in that RFC was, well, yours, of course you're aware that consensus on Wikipedia does not bind future discussions; we don't do stare decisis. That being said, a number of people are answering you with their comments in this AfD.  RGTraynor  04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge. This was a break-out list from the main and itself has sourcing. I see reason to merge back to main but certainly not to delete. -- Banjeboi 23:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article. It is redundant given that this information is copied from Gay bathhouse. As per my comments on that article's talk page, this information is a useful part of that page. It elucidates that article's subject matter, gives an idea of real life user's opinions on bathhouses over different eras. I do not see what function it serves when removed from the article which gives it context and meaning. The original section should remain in the gay bathhouse article. Format (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would seem a reason to merge/redirect as it's not the information that is wrong or unencyclopedic, just misplaced. -- Banjeboi 00:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes the content is fine. Technically there is no need to merge as the information is currently duplicated in gay bathhouse. We do not need to return it there, it is already there. But for the sake of collating opinions, I guess mine should be keep/merge redirect. Format (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The WP:BLP argument is compelling. And defining a "regular" is impossible. Tim Song (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Still delete. A section in Gay bathhouse carries exactly the same material. And just because the page says it's got to be well-sourced does not mean that people would not add unsourced stuff that offends WP:BLP. Also per the well-reasoned arguments of RGTraynor.Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So a rationale for deletion is that someone may edit it in the future and then fail to meet a guideline? You may find the guidance of NOTCENSORED helpful as it covers this exact issue. I'm sorry but I can't help but get the impression that the real issue here is some editors are struggling to accept the gay sexual nature of the topic rather than factual compliance with BLP, Lists or RS. In comparison to List of political scandals in the United Kingdom (which in over 3 years has never been challenged) this list is far more reliably sourced, in compliance with guidelines and far less controversial and yet is put up for deletion within days of being created and with no attempt to follow up on the pre-existing discussion on the article talk page.—Teahot (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will say for the record that I have no problem with gay people whatsoever. None. I'm persuaded that WP:BLP concerns are at a minimum and does not justify deletion. But a big problem is that the list, by those criteria, would never be approaching completion - or even near. Not only because there will be likely new notable attendees every day, but also because the strict criteria necessary to avoid WP:BLP also made the list grossly underinclusive such that it would be of very limited usefulness to a person who wants to find a list of notable attendees. If the list is for illustration purposes - and it indeed does not claim completeness - it should be in the article it is intended to illustrate, not as a standalone page. Now, if there are 90 instead of 9, even though the list would still be underinclusive, I can understand the need to have a standalone article. But since there's only 9, I would normally vote merge, but as it is already there, delete. Tim Song (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification - Please be clear I am not accusing anyone here of having a problem with gay people, this is different from accepting "the gay sexual nature of the topic". Someone who supports gay rights and lifestyles may not support the open existence or discussion about organizations where public gay sex may occur. On this page the terms "prurient" and "awful" have been used to describe the prospect of this well sourced list being added to Wikipedia which may lead you to conclude that the sexual nature of the topic is at issue rather than the unemotional issue of it being a stand-alone list or not. If I gave the impression of making accusations otherwise I unreservedly apologise.—Teahot (migrating to Ash) (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I consider homosexuality and heterosexuality equal in all respects save for the gender of the participants. The primary reason I'm sticking with my delete vote is that the list should not be a standalone article, for the reasons stated. Its perpetual incompleteness renders it of limited use. Nothing to do with the fact that we are talking about "organizations where public gay sex may occur". Just like something like List of Chinese characters that are pronounced an1 is of little use except perhaps to illustrate that many different characters in Chinese are pronounced the same, and so should not be a standalone article but rather included in the article about Chinese, this list should have been included in the article it is intended to illustrate. I would not oppose making this into a redirect, however. Tim Song (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep with the name change, the remaining non-trivial coverage can clearly be sourced to reliable sources. with reliable sources, WP:BLP is not an issue.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Forum's comment that changed my opinion on the gay bathhouse page: "Attendance at a bathhouse was, many would say is contentious. It was possibly illegal too depending on date and region. Who attended bathhouses, which ones, and under what legal situation, illuminates the subject of bathhouses. The knitting and bonsai examples are not good examples because neither of those things are contentious, illegal, or particularly notable or uncommon. A famous person attending an illegal and stigmatised venue is notable." -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I protest a perma-nooboid nomination whose only reasons have been completely removed by only a change of article title. Irresponsible and negligent; a waste of WP resources. Anarchangel (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is a little off-topic, but what's a perma-nooboid? Zazaban (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP for some of the living ones and vague inclusion criteria for the list. This isn't an issue of gay pride or homophobia. This is simply a list with vague criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be genuinely helpful if you could explain the BLP failure in the article, even if just for one case. Which living person and which sources are inadequate would be useful. I would be happy to take it up on the article talk page.—Teahot (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note; Capurro has now been removed from the list whilst the citations are under discussion on the talk page. Consequently, the number living people on the list is now zero, with obvious implications for current issues with BLP.—Teahot (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (proposal) I am increasingly concerned at how discussion on this page is changing the original opinions contributed. This AFD was raised without following the guidance of WP:BEFORE, in particular: "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.", and "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."
This AFD was raised for a second time after the first was removed (not by me BTW) and discussion on the talk page recommended. Had this advice been followed then this same discussion would have been conducted in a less confrontational environment.
I would like to propose we follow the guidance of Wikipedia:DEL#Discussion "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." and move this discussion to the article talk page where, in my opinion, it should have started.—Teahot (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Mm, but the problem with that is that the Delete proponents are, by and large, not saying "We think there are problems with the way this article is handling information, and it can be salvaged." It's much more "We disagree that this should be a standalone article at all, and it's inherently unsalvageable." That's an appropriate subject for AfD.  RGTraynor  02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if I take as true "inherently unsalvageable", how can this list be unsalvageable and yet exactly the same list that happens to be embedded in Gay bathhouse is perfectly okay? Surely the same rules apply and the embedded list should be deleted for exactly the same reasons?—Ash (previously Teahot) (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asked and answered above; while a sentence such as I've already given makes for a factoid acceptable in a larger article, it doesn't make for a standalone article - and I emphasize "article" as you're attempting to substitute "list" for my own wording. Again, obviously you don't agree, but that's for the closing admin to sort out; you really don't need to try to rebut every statement anyone makes.  RGTraynor  18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Awful list concept. Prurient, perpetually incomplete, unlikely to add value to the encyclopedia. That's not even beginning to consider privacy concerns if anybody living gets added to such a list. RayTalk 20:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic, invites BLP problems. JN466 21:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and partition anything useful into the specific articles. List criteria are nebulous, and there's simply no way to keep it from being an Attractive Nuisance for BLP issues. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Not even close to encyclopedic, screams BLP problems, per User:Jayen466. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable examples from the past should be kept in the main article. I accept the reasoning of the creators of this list and their efforts to avoid BLP problems. But the list will attract (even good faith) edits that are (at best) far from encyclopedic: the fact that Mr. X attends gay bath houses may be suitable material for a certain sort of newspaper, but not for an encyclopedia. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Get Real. This is not what WP is all about. Stellarkid (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems a trivial intersection, grouping men together by an extremely minor activity. Why no "List of people that go to the pub"? People notable for going to bathhouses should be in the main article, notable people who just happen to go to them do not need listing.YobMod 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My interpretation of Lists is that there is no requirement that would mean a list of people has to be restricted to those famous "for" the topic. As you are using examples, a close match to the one you have given here is List of teetotalers where the criteria is only that the notable person has been teetotal for some part of their lives, not that they are famous "for" being teetotal. As this list is okay, then List of drinkers actually seems rational but actually both list concepts are far more trivial than this list up for deletion. BTW this list is not an "intersection" as there are no notable women who have ever been documented as going to gay bathhouses and if there were, then a simple name change of this list would solve the issue rather than deletion.—Teahot (migrating to Ash) (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SAL says "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, lists of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism." So that's where it's stated that lists of people should be restricted to those famous for the topic. And the "intersection" has nothing to do with gender; it's an intersection between "famous people" and "gay bathhouse regulars".
Thank you for explaining that. I have clarified the lead text in order to address the matter of notability of the individual for going to gay bathhouses and make the criteria and rationale explicit rather than implied. Please note (as stated at the top of this AFD) the list name has already been changed in order to remove the word "famous", there is an open discussion on the talk page with regard to the term "notable" as a further name change is likely better to comply with the guidance of WP:Lists.—Teahot (migrating to Ash) (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kelly Clarkson. Have redirected but feel free to merge anything worthwhile. Spartaz Humbug! 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I Ever Wanted Tour: 2009-2010[edit]

All I Ever Wanted Tour: 2009-2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

article is not needed, tour hasn't even launched yet and is definatly not notable enough for it's own article. main artcicle has enough information for now. article is also orphaned Alankc (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Contested prod; violates WP:CRYSTAL when the artist is the only one announcing it. Maybe it'll happen, but until it gets closer and we have some anticipatory 3rd party coverage, there's no point. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Rather than kill, I think put a mention in the artist's article, a redirect on this article. This way the editor's work is not lost. Other than the fact that it doesn't seem to belong in WP yet, it doesn't seem to be bad... but it doesn't belong here.- sinneed (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per User:Sinneed. A brief sentence and a redirect to Kelly Clarkson will suffice for now; the article will probably need to be recreated at around September anyway and what has been created now will be valuable for that time. DJ 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what reason would there be to recreate it? none of her tours have their own article. None of them ever have anything worthy enough to create an antire article about the tour. All her tours are combined on one stub page with list of dates and small paragraph's about opening acts. Not much more to tell about any of them. Alankc (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be the responsibility of the adding editor. In very general, many of us like to avoid throwing out the work of other editors if we can wisely avoid it. Just because something doesn't exist yet doesn't mean it shouldn't... only that it doesn't. Just as wp:other stuff exists doesn't mean it is good stuff.- sinneed (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
existing or not, until it happens, it does fall under wp:crystal as notable, and unless something spectacular happens during the tour, a seperate article will jsut look like a fansite page with biased opnions as most often do, also against wikipedia policys. That's my reasoning for a delete. the main article stub is plenty enough for it. beswides, how many people need to referance tours in detail? albums and such sure, but tours? i've yet to see an article with a show by show description of any tour. it jsut seems like overkill. (but i'm still open to opinions about it as every tour article on here seerms to have it's own concensus despite what wikipedia guidelines state) Alankc (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kelly Clarkson until such time as sufficient independent sources are available to support a separate article. Cynical (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tacheles[edit]

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

A list of dicdefs. Eleassar my talk 19:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as superfluous. No need for a disambiguation page with only one live entry. Deor (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deor. This is a strange article/dab page, and I don't see how it could be improved. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gina Lollobrigida. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mirko Skofic[edit]

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

Not notable enough. Eleassar my talk 19:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @821  ·  18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Moore[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ariel Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While cleaning the article up following extensive editing by the subject, I realized that the "biography" section was just the history of the group. I clicked over to the group article and it's the same thing. The subject, Ariel Moore, is not notable outside of this group, of which she is no longer a member, and all relevant biographical information can be worked into that article. Previous version deleted per CSD-G12. Would like AFD decision on the matter for future use of G4. Lara 19:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My findings concur with nom statement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. She still has no notability outside of the group. Frehley 08:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sprouts (cafe)[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP, blatantly looks like something from a student guide. no third party coverage [3] LibStar (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge - I see two options either delete it because it is a non-notable cafe that has 1 location, or merge it to University of British Columbia in a pertinent section. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the person who overturned this article's speedy deletion, while at the same time pointing out that it needed reliable third-party sources, I still lean towards deletion or merging. I would only observe that according to this source, the café is "the largest student-run food co-op of only a handful in Canada and the only co-operative campus retailer in B.C." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
even if that statement is true, that is not a criterion in itself, it needs significant coverage! LibStar (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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) 18:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are unrelated Sprouts cafes is other places (Lake Tahoe, Palo Alto), a redirect would violate WP:UNDUE. Abductive (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:NEO. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twiction[edit]

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

Was prodded a few weeks ago for failing WP:NEO, and it still fails it - the only reliable source given is a New York Times article that doesn't actually use the word "Twiction". McGeddon (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not really relevant in the world outside of Twitter and I've never heard or seen anyone use the word. This is more of an Urban Dictionary entry, not a Wikipedia entry. --Blasterman 95 (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, it could use some work. But it does seem to me that there is value to keeping the article, as it seems to detail a valid trend on the internet. Especially since twitter is becoming much more popular, I think articles like this can be very useful. 96.242.163.72 (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete At this point, doesn't seem notable, but it might be the next irritating word we have to hear endlessly in a few months (like Twitter itself). Conical Johnson (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to us to speculate whether it might be the next big thing. If it's not a big thing yet - if no reliable sources have yet written a word about it - then it shouldn't have an article yet. We could find a thousand minor neologisms on Twitter, any one of which might achieve widespread use in six months' time, but that doesn't mean we should write them all up now just in case. --McGeddon (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should elaborate that I wasn't saying we should keep it because it might be big soon. The wekness of my delete was only because I personally am not really into the Twitter world and wouldn't know if something was big within it. So, although it doesn't seem notable to me, I wasn't completely sure that this isn't something kind of big among Twitter fans. It seems to me that because Twitter is a new form of media, the memes involved might be disseminated in a way different from what we're used to seeing. In any case, I say delete as per WP:NEO. Conical Johnson (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NEO. One mention in a NYT blog and some mention on Twitter sites (hardly neutral RS's) don't get past notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth emphasising that the NYT article doesn't use the word "Twiction"; it's a journalist writing about his own "Twiller" (a thriller created through Twitter). And he references the word "Twiller" as his own "cheap word play" rather than a widespread term. It looks like we have a while to go before there's an agreed word for these things. --McGeddon (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Made up in a day. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nonsense Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberball (sport)[edit]

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

No referenced notability, Google search returns nothing related to the subject as described. Jujutacular talkcontribs 17:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Could probably be speedied as made up or patent nonsense. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to, but I can't say that it's undoubtedly a hoax, it's surely not completely nonsense, and I had a feeling a prod would be removed by the author - "Wikipedia, do not dare to delete this article" lol... Jujutacular talkcontribs 18:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @125  ·  02:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox (magazine)[edit]

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

unsourced, and apparently utter rubblish. An "extreme" hardcore porn magazine sold in grocery stores? No credible claim of notability, no credible evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unreferenced, non-notable. Jujutacular talkcontribs 17:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After a Google search for both the magazine and its purported publisher, Montcalm Publishing, it would appear that Montcalm filed for bankrupcy in 2008 and no longer circulates the magazine. I would have said it failed WP:N anyway, but a little-known magazine with no references and few relevant Google hits that doesn't even exist any more certainly fails WP:N. Neil Clancy 19:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Unsourced. Simple as that. Yes, and why would an "extreme" magazine be sold at a grocery store?--The LegendarySky Attacker 23:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The only significant author has consented to deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NetSPI[edit]

AfDs for this article:
NetSPI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reinstated following earlier speedy deletion / AfD, but even with latest edits+improvements doesn't appear to be a notable company per WP:CORP. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Oscarthecat (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites a number of significant, independent sources that have written about the company, which I think collectively meet the notability standard. Another article has just appeared about the company in a well-established, well-regarded regional publication, Minnesota Business: http://www.minnesotabusiness.com/0p349a2973/security-force/ Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)— Burgo Fitzgerald (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Here is some detail on the reliable, independent secondary sources that have provided significant coverage of NetSPI. The Media References section of the article cites two stories that appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the newspaper of record for the Upper Midwest of the U.S. There is extensive coverage in two leading business publications of the region, Twin Cities Business and Minnesota Business. In addition, there are two articles from IT publications, Retail Information Systems News and CSO (Chief Security Officer) magazine, as well as one article from Franchise Times, a national business publication.

Beyond this coverage, the company web site lists important technical conferences where NetSPI people have participated or will participate. For example, one NetSPI employee will be part of the team maintaining the network and firewall at DEFCON in Las Vegas, the world's largest hacker convention, as he has for the past decade. Finally, the company partners with other, similar-size IT security firms that are the subject of Wikipedia articles, e.g., nCircle and Shavlik Technologies, and its clients include large and well-known organizations. Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, vehemently, and salt. Notability is a side issue when an article is obvious advertising like this one is: ... an American consulting firm specializing in information and network security. The current article contains advertising language designed to sell readers on why your business needs their services: Organizations large and small are targets of attacks by sophisticated cyber criminals intent on stealing valuable information. The massive thefts of personal and credit card data from TJX and Hannaford Brothers are but two recent examples. An organization that suffers a data breach and is also found to not be in compliance with relevant security standards may be subject to civil and criminal lawsuits (which are often brought by the FTC), large fines, and onerous requirements such as having to have security audits performed for the next 20 years. The references supplied are either client's websites or trade publications with tiny readership. Wikilawyering over the "notability" of this advertisement only goes to show that standards for non-consumer and net-related businesses need to be strongly tightened up. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability and advertising seem to be the Scylla and Charybdis for articles such as this one. The more one steers away from one hazard, the closer one comes to the other. Oscar objects on notability grounds and cites the Wikipedia guidelines: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I respond by noting the significant coverage that has appeared in prominent regional publications, including the largest circulation newspaper in the region. (A national online publication, examiner.com, just published a piece on the company this week.) I consider this a straightforward response, not pettifoggery. Previous commenters had objected to the article on the grounds that it did not state why anyone should care about NetSPI. I responded by revising the article to explain the importance of the kind of work done by information security firms such as NetSPI. This was an effort to establish notability on a different footing. The article makes no ad-like claims that NetSPI is superior, only that information security is vital to the functioning of the modern economy. I should have thought that almost a self-evident proposition. If it is self-evident, I am happy to remove the discussion of the importance of information security. Would that satisfy the objection?Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar and Smerdis, please take a look at the revised article. I deleted the sentences that Smerdis objected to.Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 16:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: - While I admit this is getting a bit unwieldy for another relist; there have been no comments since Burgo Fitzgerald (talk · contribs) revised the article. A few fresh eyes would help this reach consensus one way or another. Thanks. ~ mazca talk 16:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but don't salt. There's one article in the local paper specifically about the company, and a couple (trivial) quotes from the CEO in other articles. Examiner.com is more like a blog site than a newspaper, there's no fact checking, no editorial review of local examiners; I don't think it's a reliable source. The rest is press releases. Gigs (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gigs--I agree that this doesn't need salt. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides the full-length article in the MInneapolis Star Tribune, there is another article (in MInnesota Business) that is exclusively about the company and that is not a press release. It was written by Elizabeth Millard, a respected high tech journalist. This is, in fact, another independent, secondary source, the desideratum of the notability guideline. Beyond these, the company and its leaders have established a reputation as experts in information security. That reputation has led to their being cited in Twin Cities Business and again in the Star Tribune (in connection with a data breach by the Coleman campaign in the recently concluded Senatorial election for Minnesota). The reputation has also led to guest articles and citations in trade publications; again, none of these was a press release. The company does issue press releases, which are listed on its web site, but none of the media references cited is the result of a press release.Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's weak coverage Burgo. It would be best if you stop pushing this for now and waited for some more third party coverage to appear. If your company continues to make the news, then I'm sure it will clearly satisfy the notability guidelines in the future, and then merit its own article. If you keep pushing this so much that the article gets locked from being recreated, then it will only make the task that much harder in the future. Gigs (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Gigs. Go ahead and delete. I will try again after the company makes more news. Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Brook, Hampshire. (X! · talk)  · @125  ·  02:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Farm House[edit]

Brook Farm House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. It is an old building, but there are lots of old buildings. Is it listed? Is there anything that makes it notable? Zero ghits, as far as I can see.

It is worth noting that it appears to have been added to wikipedia by its owners, so besides potential insignificance, there's a COI issue to consider. Tagishsimon (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Thanks for that. Listed status is of significance - Grade II is defined at "buildings of special architectural or historic interest" - see Listed building#England and Wales. Equally there are 418,000 Grade II listed buildings in England and Wales. I'm not convinced that on its own a Grade II listing satisfies WP:N, not least with respect to an article which does not explain what the special architectural or historic interest is which got the building the listing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Brook, Hampshire, where it is. It is alleged to have been its manor house. That article is also only a stub, so that the merger will improve it. Delete the resultant redirectas unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That would be a good solution. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be a solution that contravenes the project's copyright licences. Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Depends how it is done. There is so little content ... adding a sentence to the Brook article which correctly records that there's a C18 listed farmhouse in Brook would effect a merge without using the words in the article. That being the case, the article could then be deleted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Worth including. Can be broken out again if substantial sourcing is found. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Brook, Hampshire, the building is Grade II listed, but only dates from the C18th according to English Heritage (who should know about these matters). Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the last paragraph of this article to the last paragraph of Brook, Hampshire, as above (and correct the dating of the building per Mjroots's source). Deor (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List_of_Mobile_Suit_Gundam_military_units#Ra_Cailum_class_battleship. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ra Cailum class battleship[edit]

Ra Cailum class battleship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication at all of real-world notability. Prod was removed under the [incorrect] assumption that I don't think this should be deleted. The article contains no content that isn't written in an in-universe style. Mr.Z-man 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just like this is not a star wars/star trek wiki, this is not a "insert random fictional universe here" wiki. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Universal Century or Earth Federation; di-orphan non-free image afterward. --EEMIV (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Calathan (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is just the tip of a massive Gundam Universal Century cleanup that is long overdo. I'm not exactly sure what to do with this article, but it will require a complete restructuring of UC articles into a series of lists. --Farix (Talk) 01:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... as The Farix says. There is even a navtemplate ({{Universal Century ship classes}}) listing them. Would the nominator be amenable to withdrawing the nomination in favor of a mass merge proposal of these articles into a list, and remanding the work to the relevant WikiProject? I ask because it'll take more than five days for the work to be done properly. A list of Gundanverse ships can demonstrate notability, as there are multiple books devoted to just that subject. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have no problem with a list, but as it stands, the content in the article is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what there is to merge. Mr.Z-man 21:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would need trimming down to size during the merge, and then the list built up with out-of-universe sources. Not a quick project. (I note btw that content can be inappropriate for a separate article but completely appropriate as a subsection of a larger article or list -- WP:N explicitly states this.) —Quasirandom (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an appropriate list. Edward321 (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Quasirandom. Extremepro (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per proposal. Certainly I can see the reason why it was nominated, character pages are another example of the type of page which is typically written in highly inappropriate manners for wikipedia. However the merge proposal above is the preferred way of dealing with it in this case (although it may not be in other cases). Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I also support the merge but as Quasirandom pointed out it will take time and the workload alone can burn fews editors. Gundam's articles are a major headache for the anime project for years so i don't think it will be solved in the instant. --KrebMarkt 07:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has effectively been merged into List of Mobile Suit Gundam military units#Ra Cailum class battleship, all that is left is to redirect. --Farix (Talk) 12:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a decent target for now, pending the massive cleanup overhaul needed. I endorse this merge. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counterattack, since that's where it appears first. Jtrainor (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. In reviewing the article, its references and the comments put forth in this discussion, it is clear that the article is far removed from the requirements spelled out in WP:ORG. I would have no difficulty in welcoming the subject back in the future if it is shown to meet WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel[edit]

Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of nobility. SGGH ping! 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know if I'm allowed to make a comment on this page, so I apologize if that's the case. I created this page and I got notice on my discussion page that the article is being nominated for deletion and there was a link to this page. The reasons for deletion is somewhat cryptic so I'm not sure what to make of it. Granted, the Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel is not the most "notable" organization out there, but it is somewhat notable. The basic structure of the organization had been around for some 20 years, although under under different names and different directors. Sullivan County is a relatively poor county and the vast majority of criminal defendants in the county are represented by the Legal Aid Panel. Thus, the Panel is quite notable within the county and somewhat notable in the county's environs. I don't know if this "asserts notability", but I hope it does.

    Originally I planned on making a more comprehensive article on the organization, but I lost patience after a while. The article was being prepared at User:Pink_Bull/Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel. I removed large parts of content before I created the article for real (for the lack of a scientific term) because I was not happy with the way the article was going and was hoping that by making a minimal article other more experienced editors can help with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Bull (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete like other local organizations--unless thee is somewhere to merge. DGG (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I can just add one more point in response to the comment above: An impression might be given off that we are dealing with some small non-for profit legal organization. Although this is partly true, the organization is neither small nor just another legal organization. As governments are required by law to provide legal services to indigent criminal defendants, public defenders or legal aid officers take on a quasi-governmental role. To this end, these type of organizations are on par with District Attorney offices of a given jurisdiction. The point is strengthened where - like in Sullivan County - the vast majority of criminal defendants are indigent. There are multiple articles about District Attorney offices and I see no sense in distinguishing between DA offices and their opposing party, legal aid organizations. Moreover, there are other articles on Wikipedia about legal aid organizations. Some examples include, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc., Arkansas Legal Services Partnership, and Downtown Legal Services. Other organizations can be seen at Category:Legal aid. Sincerely, ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Bull (talk • contribs) 21:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This AFD discussion is for this article, not others. Articles stand and fall on their own merits. And Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly, as you are erroneously doing. Your subjective opinion of an organization's "worth" has nothing to do with whether it satisfies our criteria for having an article. Uncle G (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry if that's how my position was understood. I was trying to explain why the organization is notable in that geographic area, not why I consider it to be notable. I just added another source to the article, which I hope would now cause the article to satisfy all notability requirements. Sincerely,Pink Bull--Pink Bull (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As outlined above, this organization meets the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Org. It is an important and notable quasi-governmental organization that has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources.--Pink Bull (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:N and in particular, WP:ORG completely. Google news returned no hits that's actually related (it returned an unrelated hit). Google for the precise term returned 79 hits. Most of the legal aid services Pink Bull cited are state-wide and therefore inapposite. I just prodded Downtown Legal Services which also fails WP:ORG entirely. In addition, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.Tim Song (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no objective need to delete this article and it seems pointless to exclude a reference point for and hopefully more information about an organisation with an important function at US County level. The issue of legal aid provision in poor communities is of wider interest - it's currently the subject of controversy in the UK[4]. The Executive Director of the Panel is the chairman of the county's bar association, suggesting that the organisation is one of some local significance[5]. Opbeith (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've entirely failed to counter the argument that no in depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists. You have also erroneously conflated notability and significance. Notability is not fame nor importance. If you want to make an argument that actually holds water and that is in accordance with our policies and guidelines, cite multiple independent reliable sources that document this subject in depth. The source that you've cited doesn't actually document this subject at all, I note. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get hysterically confrontational. Rules are there for guidance with a view to achieving a desirable outcome. Wikipedia administrators' interventions enforce a rigid and uncompromising consistency aimed at ensuring an arm's length relationship from the dangerously controversial notions of truth and reality, but you might have the courtesy to accept that other people's views are advanced in good faith in the attempt to seek some sort of negotiated engagement with the real world. Please don't scream. Opbeith (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ORG. These types of orgs exist everywhere. Nothing making this one look notable compared to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I stand by my previous vote. County-level legal aid is simply not notable enough absent some special factor that are missing here. Issues over legal aid do not require keeping every legal aid-related article. And simple local significance does not satisfy WP:N - see WP:CLUB. Tim Song (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Pink Bull. --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pink Bull & Opbeith. Stellarkid (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Coverage in reliable sources is lacking, and as such, fails to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voice activated sequencer[edit]

Voice activated sequencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested Prod. No reputable third party sources can be found using Google, mostly a self promotional article and author has COI as he is the inventor. Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studio boot[edit]

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

Contested Prod. No outside sources can be found using Google, mostly a self promotional article and author has COI as he is the inventor. Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Duplicating Talk Page Post in Relation to Deletion Nomination) "NOTE TO WIKI: After reviewing the entire wikipedia website we feel this invention warrants being presented on Wikipedia with the other inventions, being it's the only one of it's kind. The invention is interesting and unique in a number of different ways. It's as creditable as any other description and invention on this site and we feel the general public should be able to read about these recent discoveries. Because it's a fairly new invention is no reason to deny the article. If someone wanted to read up about new midi devices and how they work, this would be what they are looking for and where they would look. We ask that you would consider our article as equal to others of the same stature. We understand this reply must be removed in order for the article to remain, therefore we will gladly remove it upon request." Added by author User:Kevin_Mixson to article. Rcurtis5 (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--advertising. The claim made above of having reviewed the entire Wikipedia is a bit of a stretcher, and those readers (royal plural?) seem to have missed the fact that many articles on Wikipedia have references from reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plausibly a {{db-spam}} speedy. Seems to be primarily advertising rather than any kind of neutral third-party-publication-based overview. I can't even find any evidence that this exists as an actual company; when I try, I find instead a different Studio Boot, some sort of design firm in den Bosch, the Netherlands [6], which is still not sufficiently notable. Fails WP:ORG. And the author's "warrants being presented" seems to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia: we're not here to provide a soapbox for people to present new stuff, we're here to document what's already sufficiently well known. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like spam to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Lubbock, Texas. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Lubbock[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Lubbock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The buildings in Lubbock are not of a substantial height to have their own list. This type of list is meant for cities with large skylines, not every city in the United States. The tallest building in Lubbock is under 250 feet (which wouldn't even be in the top 30 in Cleveland) and the city doesn't even have 5 cities over 100 feet. This makes this list worthy of deletion. Fryedk (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect - not notable enough for its own article, and has already been boldly merged/redirected by Tagishsimon. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dream Focus makes a good point, I found plenty of sources in the other articles. Although I think a merge would be better (since the parent article isn't that long), I'd be OK with keeping too. --Explodicle (T/C) 00:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of the taller buildings in the city can better be included in the city article.Gasp2009 (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of these buildings have their own articles about them, so they are notable. I see nothing wrong with this, or the dozen other similar articles also nominated by the same person for deletion. Dream Focus 22:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Really a pointless list. An 8 story building makes this list? My county just built a jail addition that was taller. I really fail to see the notability in the list. One of the buildings on the list didn't really have it's own article. The article it linked to was a much taller building of the same name in Dallas. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the same reasons as discussed at the ongoing List of tallest buildings in Amarillo AfD. I really don't see which of the usual criteria for deletion were met for this to be nominated. If the standard criteria aren't the reason for deletion, then (per MissionInn.Jim at the other AfD): 1)What criteria will be used to decide what buildings are "substantial" enough to warrant being on such a list, 2) How many are "enough" buildings to warrant creating such a list, and 3) What criteria will be used to decide which cities are the "cities with large skylines" that deserve such a list? Altairisfartalk 04:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But when would you draw the line? Lubbock has less than 5 buildings over 100 M. If every city in the world that had 4 100 m buildings there would be hundreds of such articles. Fryedk (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect lists of this sort serve little purpose - I think that people would look for this information at Lubbock, Texas. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect -- belongs at Lubbock, Texas at best. Doesn't make any sense to do this as a standalone article. Stellarkid (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - It's very vauge and not notable enough to be a stand alone article, although the information should stay. Airplaneman talk 19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ogilvy & Mather. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animals in the Womb[edit]

Animals in the Womb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm fairly unclear on just why this article exists because there's nothing here which states why it is notable beyond who was responsible and who it is for. Seems like a fairly normal ad campaign (balancing on the back of a notable documentary) so basically it's failed WP:N, lacks sourcing (WP:RS) and seems to have been created out of WP:ILIKEIT. treelo radda 15:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unsourced areticle about a non-notable ad campaign. (Is it just me, or NickelodeonFan = SpongeBobFan = GreenBayPackersfan09 = Zach Benjamin = all the rest?) - SummerPhD (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there is an issue of a sockpuppet drawer then I'd point you towards this SPI case and add a few bits about it here, AfD isn't really for checking up on sockdraws. treelo radda 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of those sources are industry press articles which don't amount to much more than veiled press releases or announcements. Quite a few are very brief mentions, some are in relation to a nomination for non-notable awards and the several DagensMedia references really do only mention it in passing whilst others are regarding the product, not the advert itself. A nomination for the Cannes Lions is somewhat notable but seeing as it wasn't a win it doesn't seem encouraging. If you're going to source, please at least run them through a translator or otherwise read them because most every one of those "sources" are not good enough, by the same metric every high profile advertising campaign can be considered notable. treelo radda 19:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I changed my mind while looking at the Ogilvy & Mather article. Merging it there is probably better, as the article won't become any longer than a stub with the little information available from the reliable sources I provided above. Theleftorium 20:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the parent article Ogilvy & Mather. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I can't determine the level of coverage in the non-English language sources above, the nominations it has received establish notability. If "keep" is not an option, then merge to advertising company, per above.--Pink Bull (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The keeps either debated how other articles should be deleted (not a relevant argument) or failed to clearly establish notability, as opposed to the delete vvotes which were clear in their arguments. I am also salting the page, given the consensus for that here. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 404 podcast[edit]

The 404 podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has been recreated several times without significant improvement over the version which was deleted as a result of this AFD. An administrator has declined G4 speedy deletion due to questions about the result of that previous AFD. Reopening the discussion. RadioFan (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am amenable to speedy deleting the article (G4) and not salting the title, if it's going to be worked on in userspace. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and salt. Complete failure to provide independent reliable sources. I speedy deleted this yesterday under criterion G4, reposting of deleted material (see WP:Articles for deletion/The 404). When I deleted it yesterday, I also userfied the text, advising the editor to locate independent reliable sources. Discussion about that was placed at Talk:The 404 podcast - and that page was tagged {{g8-exempt}} and was visible even as the next iteration of the article was created. It's still there as of right now. Since the article was recreated today, I take that as a sign that other editors concede that there are no further independent sources to be found.
I considered opening a deletion review thread about the non-speedy-deletion today. While I feel that the first AfD was closed properly, I think it's best to get a clear consensus on the merits of the subject, specifically its verifiability. However, if this AfD closes with a delete result, I think the title should be salted - since twice attempts have been made to create it but in neither case would a good article have come of it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This podcast has more notability than many other articles on Wikipedia, so I am wondering why this particular podcast is under fire. The article could use some work and is slightly one sided, but that can be worked on. I say wait 30 days and see what becomes of this article, then if the article is still one sided with other errors, then reconsider deleting it. I still would not salt the article either way. It seems like people from other competing podcasts are trying to ensure that 404 doesn't make Wikipedia. Patman21 (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's focus on this article not others beside WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument to make in an AFD. This isn't about a podcast rivalry (do those really exist? that's really sad) It's about meeting the same notability and reference guidelines that apply to all articles.--RadioFan (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt until such time that a userfied article can be produced that meets notability guidelines. This has been recreated too many times and I don't see a problem with the conclusion to the previous discussion on this article. Apparently the kinder method of userfying it and allowing it to be moved back when improved wont work.--RadioFan (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It passes very well the google test for notability. - avsa — 189.122.80.235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment what exactly is the "Google test for notability". All the google news hits are coming from CNET, it's producer which makes it a primary source and not applicable as a reference to show notability here. This subject may be notable but not in its current form. Better references are needed and its the responsiblity of the editors who add the information to properly cite it. Leaving it for X amount of time for someone else to do really isn't a good option.--RadioFan (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, counting Google hits is specifically excluded as a measure of notability. So, a "Google test" accomplishes nothing. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Based upon the logic presented prior and as I am returning from an extended hiatus relative to Wikipedia, I can only state that if we are obliged by standards to vaporize this and salt the title then all podcasts should be considered non-notable and thereby be deleted and salted. The same opprobrium reserved for garage bands and your first grade teacher would likely be well applied to all podcasts that presently have entries. Smk (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further to my vote: While noting the raising of ALLORNOTHING, I will also say that a look at TWiT also shows a paucity of verifiable sources and references only materials TWiT or its collaborators have produced. The body of literature out there on podcasts is small as is anything that looks at the media landscape. For the reasons enunciated over the history of this ill-fated article, I do not see a way for it to be resolved without violating No Original Research. Smk (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You say keep. Then why are you marking all the TWiT podcasts for speedy deletion? Either I'm missing something, or you're being a hypocrite (no offence intended)! --DanielPharos (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Smk - All podcasts which fail our inclusion guidelines should be deleted, yes. As should any articles that don't meet the criteria. If that means we have to ravage podcasts, they deserve to be ravaged. Greg Tyler (t • c) 22:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I'm not all that impressed on how Graeme Bartlett overturned Julian Colten's close with a simple "I think it should have been a no consensus". Then take it to DRV; you don't simply recreate it. Tan | 39 22:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I did not recreate the article, just declined the speedy delete, if the issues raised in the earlier AfD were addressed it is worth having another AfD. The previous AfD was very evenly balanced on keeps and deletes with apparently valid arguments on both sides. It looks like there may be lobbying from somwhere to keep this article. And Tan could even now speedy delete, I would not restore it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and salt. The 404 podcast as a topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are no sources that address the subject directly in detail, and significant original research was needed to extract the content of this article especially the 'Inside Jokes & Common References' & 'Notable Guests' sections.There is no significant coverage more than a trivial mention other than the podcast's own blog. I question whether it is ethical that the show hosts are actively directing their listeners to re-create the entry because they were unhappy it was correctly deleted before (http://twitter.com/the404/status/2778778767)I see no sufficient coverage from reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline.All the sources provided for the article are links from their own blog (cnet website) - primary sources. One link is from the personal blog of the former main host of the podcast who is also a current regular guest. I posit that the current hosts have a massive campaign to re-create the entry based on a need to self promote. There is evidence of an ongoing attempt to get their listeners to re-create the article and add as much detail as possible in the hope that it is not re-deleted (http://twitter.com/the404/status/2798784442). I propose that the show is simply not notable. The show has significant hits in Google owing to their status of being one of the podcasts produced by CNET (now CBS interactive), a for profit concern with a huge footprint on the web. CNET has had years of google search engine optimization to appear on the top of pages as part of their business model is to attract advertising for their podcasts. Even if google search results were a credible reason to demonstrate notability - this fact should be considered.If re-deleted the show hosts will undoubtedly lobby their listeners to repost the article(http://twitter.com/the404/status/2798784442)This has happened before and will happen again.

user:callsfromthepublic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.37.148 (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep This is clearly a notable article, The 404 is a podcast produced by CNET, a notable organization that produces notable content including other podcasts that have been considered notable by Wikipedia standards. From the information on their page they have clearly had notable guests and are reporting notable news and information. The charge that the hosts are making an attempt to create a Wikipedia entry for the express purpose of self-promotion is ridiculous. I seriously doubt that a Wikipedia article will drive that much traffic to a podcast. The idea that this article is not notable enough for wikipedia standards seems to be more a akin to some sort of juvenile internet flame war. There is no reason this article should be deleted so it should remain and hopefully as time goes on any references and sources can be appropriately added.--DavidPomeranzRox (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC) — DavidPomeranzRox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • If you do some additional research regarding C-Net, hardly any of its writers and editors have their own Wikipedia pages. So, I wouldn't use the argument that C-Net by association should make it notable. Notability is not by association. Also, the hosts are not behind this article - the fans are. And last, notability is not a work-in-progress activity. You don't create an article and then months later become notable. The article should be notable the very pico-second it is published no Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that the last two votes were by completely new accounts. Tan | 39 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Bribery?" I think not. It was a joke (the show is funny, after all). Unfortunately, I think some personal biases have entered this debate, as neither of the 2 above references are accurate. As I mentioned before, discussion about a Wikipedia page (by the hosts, listeners, or anyone) should be irrelevant. If the entry is notable (which I think it is) and worthy, then it should exist. I don't think that anyone is attempting to circumvent the Wikipedia guidelines, either (by first creating a wiki page and then making the show "legit/notable"). Whether or not discussions have occured about a Wikipedia page is irrelevant, in my opinion. People talk about Wikipedia and its contents for a variety of reasons, all valid. And CNET should not have to "host its own wiki;" Wikipedia is here for all sorts, regardless of affiliation, so long as entries meet certain criteria. Jcfay (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem: The evidence provided by Psychopez prove that The 404 is asking people to create the page for them. I'm assuming The 404 is aware that it is not allowed to create an article about itself - that would be a conflict of interest. I don't watch the show, but I've been told by friends who do that The 404 wants to use the Wikipedia article as reference, for example, to look up the inside jokes related to the show. The reason why this information is relevant is that it demonstrates motive to circumvent the notability requirement by creating the article, and then spend the following months developing the notability. I'm a deletionist, and we believe in establishing the notability before the article is created. We don't like creating articles just for the hell of it, and then wait for the article to develop. Too many articles like this become lost, and fall into stub land for eternity. Deletionists used this same argument when the Michael Jackson death article was created before the fit hit the shan, and the article was deleted. The article was re-created about a day later WHEN it was determined that the death was not natural. This is an example of proper procedure - let an issue marinate and develop before creating the article. In the case of The 404, you assume that the show will be a success and will be notable. That's what inclusionists and optimists believe. Groink (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there IS an active wiki about the hosts, the inside jokes, etc: see http://the404.wikia.com/ with 500+ pages. — Catherine\talk 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About ten more references added since my last mention, but all the new ones still point to within the C-Net domain. And, @the404 sent out a friendly tweet "Thanks so much to all contributors to our Wikia: F*ck Wikipedia, [Wikia] is all we need, feel free to dive in and edit!" I told you they were trying to use Wikipedia as a reference tool. Groink (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it is a well known podcast with many devoted followers who want to spread the 404. the longer the page is up the more external sources will be added. this is much more notable than some of the other items on wikipedia, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimoisaka_Station which is a one sentence article. the 404 is continuing to grow in popularity, they deserve their own wikipedia page — 99.135.33.176 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
    • Several problems with your argument. First, all train stations in Japan are documented on Wikipedia as a wiki project. Second, inclusion is not an argument that has credibility on Wikipedia. All inclusion means is that all the other articles are also facing the same issue as this article, and may lead to action being put on those articles. Groink (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I'll admit first that I am a listener of this podcast. At the same time, I do think a lot of the extreme opposition against the existence of the article (and the podcast itself) seems a bit premature and somewhat unwarranted. Yes, the article itself definitely needs some clean up and professionalism. At the same time, in terms of notability, this is a podcast for one of the largest tech resources on the web. This podcast has repeatedly entered among the top rankings on iTunes among its category and has become among the first of the CNET shows to receive official corporate sponsorship and advertising (from Becks Beer). There is at the very least room for argument for legitimacy and notability for this podcast and it should only be fair to grant a fair amount of time for users, fans or not, to append the wiki with relevant information and references. If really after time, the article is still not up to standard, deletion can be considered. However, accusations of "bribery" and insidious Twitter campaigns and the calls to salt the page seem to be a bit excessive for a seemingly innocuous article (this article is far from anything controversial). The nature of this show is a bit playful and cheeky - but to allege some conspiracy by the hosts to damage the integrity of Wikipedia would be very debatable. Finally, against the proposal of salting, the podcast is also continuing to grow in viewership - even if the decision later on is to delete it, the option to revisit at a later date should be available. Dc82 (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Premature"? Five months is plenty of time to find sources. None have been found, and there have been editors working on the article since the last AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What "five months?" As far as I know, this wiki had been deleted and unavailable since it's last deletion. The podcast has definitely continued to grow during the past few months when the wiki was deleted. It's very hard to edit/add anything if the article is extremely difficult to reach (in a deleted state). At the very least, as the wiki is up now, time should be granted for users to attempt to address many of these issues and fix the article.--Dc82 (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Dc82 on this. As someone who is relatively new to Wikipedia, I found that navigating and locating deleted items is challenging. I would also agree with Dc82 that some of the criticism here really seems unwarranted, inaccurate (regarding the alleged Twitter "campaigns," "bribery," and circumvention of Wikipedia rules), and perhaps of malicious intent. Jcfay (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt And I use Buzz Out Loud as a baseline for this. BOL achieved notability by becoming the top podcast on iTunes, among other reasons. The 404 comes nowhere close to achieving any form of notability. Remember now that notability does not mean thousands of people know about the show. The show, rather, should contribute something that reaches the general popular culture. This article relies too much on WP:SELFPUB, and I'm afraid that we're going to see a flood of fans creating content on their web pages in order to be used as sources for this article. As I suggested in the talk page, create this article off-line and then publish it when it has satisfied notability and include reliable 3rd-party sources, rather than creating the article and then spending weeks making the article compliant. I see far too articles being create prematurely. Groink (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"BOL achieved notability by becoming the top podcast on iTunes" By that standard, the 404 is valid, as it (the video podcast version) has definitely made it on the iTunes top 10 in tech, I believe under it's "new and notable" section.--Dc82 (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BUT, besides doing your own primary source research, are there other reliable sources that state this fact? Thing such as looking at a top-10 list, Google search results, etc. are all examples of original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. Groink (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More about the current references. Of the fourteen currently listed, only four are outside of C-Net or Ziff-Davis (Z-D owns C-Net.) One link is to Apple's iTunes - its distributor. One link points to YouTube which is actually not a reliable source under WP guidelines. One links to IMDB, and has nothing to do with the show, and the others are blogs which to date are generally not reliable sources under WP guidelines. Groink (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since this article was just speedy deleted with the instructions that it doesn't have a place in mainspace until there is notability backed up by reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete and salt I listen to the 404 podcast and it is an entertaining show for people of a certain taste. However, it is plainly obvious they have been caught doing what has become their modus operandi of self promotion. To those who say the show is notable since it has reached the top of Itunes before; do you know how that happened? not organically, the show solicited its listeners to post 5 star reviews on Itunes in order to game the system. This is well known to regular listeners of the show. The only saving grace is that this method of gaming Itunes is temporary. The show hosts have similarly repeatedly lobbied their listeners to 1. create a wiki page and 2. add external sources to prevent deletion (http://twitter.com/rhapsodyartist/status/2804423274) This last message explicitly links to THIS discussion page to get their listeners to vote to keep the article. It is humorous to see they even think there is a hidden wikipedia insider agenda againsts them (http://twitter.com/rhapsodyartist/status/2805762921) (http://twitter.com/rhapsodyartist/status/2781736545) What I find most blatant is that whereas the show hosts declare they will themselves not edit their own wikipedia page, they tell their listeners EXACTLY what to put on the page (evidence: The404 episode388 http://feeds.feedburner.com/cnet/the404video?format=xml 15:05 minute mark). I implore you to watch this part - they are 'begging'

67.82.206.9 (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)DarthMaul/DarthWiki[reply]

Perhaps I haven't gone far back enough to past episodes, but at least during the time I did see the 404 video podcast on the top 10 in iTunes, I don't recall them telling people to post 5 star reviews. And with that point, BOL has actively asked for 5 star posts during their shows and for a while, even called out each person on air who gave them such a rating. To your point about the hosts "lobbying," I think what you call "blatant," it's definitely one extreme view of what they're doing - one can just as easily make the argument that they're trying to respect the rules of Wikipedia by asking third parties to edit the page. I'm sure especially as people in the tech industry, it's probably not that hard for them to log on someone's computer and edit the page themselves if they really wanted to. Even in recent episodes as the Wikipedia issue arose, they weren't asking listeners to sabotage or ruin Wikipedia; they were trying to address the issues brought up here, in terms of notability, references, etc. They asked their listeners not to just post up filler or useless information, but to try to find references outside of CNET, relevant information, etc. I just find it funny that there seems to be so much anger and opposition directed towards this page and the hosts; what some try to spin as "self-promotion," others might see as their opinion as a right to exist (as an article), that they do do legitimate work and it should be worth nothing. Again, we're not talking about some kid's webcam show that reaches 15 views. It's one of CNET's top podcasts that not only is continuing to grow in viewership (currently nearly 100k downloads and 200k impressions of their podcasts each month), and is notable enough to attract corporate sponsors (Becks Beer).--Dc82 (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt (as recreation expected). Many sources, but nothing reliable. Little notability, and certainly no inherent notability "because it's CNET". Seems an obvious close to me, so I'm slightly perturbed by all these keep !votes with very weak reasoning. Greg Tyler (t • c) 19:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we must be going for a record for comments from WP:SPAs here.--RadioFan (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This podcast should be kept because of its unbelievable ability to land amazing/Famous celebrity guests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.166.226.83 (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2009

  • Comment Ripping through all the dialog here, the "keep" is making the following arguments:
  1. The show made a top-10 list on iTunes. I asked for a third-party reference pointing this out. None so far.
  2. The show pops up on Google a gazillion jillian times. Google search results are not reliable, and proving such figures is considered original research, which is against Wikipedia policy.
  3. The show has a large following. As I said in the past, this does not qualify as notability. A guy who ran over a crowd of people, and then appear on CNN, MSNBC and FOX does not make him notable.
  4. The guys at The 404 are encouraging its fans to better the article. All I've seen for the last 24 hours is a bunch of notable guests added to the list, and a bunch more references pointing to C-Net, which I pointed out as WP:SELFPUB. Why isn't this point being made to these editors? Under WP:OR, the show is not its own resource!! It is like trying to prove Jesus exists by quoting from the Holy Bible.
  5. Each of the notable guests may have his/her/its own article on Wikipedia, but none of them has the Midas touch where just appearing makes the show notable. Living in Hawaii, a tiny burger joint in Honolulu where Barack Obama once worked at does not make the burger joint notable.
  6. The show has a major sponsor. That also does not qualify as notability. The PBA Tour has a major sponsor, and Lumber Liquidators the sponsor isn't even notable to have an article of its own. The Tour itself makes its own notable status.

Treat Wikipedia as if it is a research paper you're writing in college. Any college professor would tell his students that qualifying sources, avoiding using POV, and using itself as a source are taboo. Groink (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability criterion set forth in WP:WEB by virtue of being produced through a respected online publisher that is independent of the creators(CNET and CBS Interactive). Ngaskill (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 404 is NOT a web page. It is a podcast. In case you think podcast = web, it doesn't. Podcasts are the same as a radio show. Groink (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never claimed this was a webpage but that not withstanding the guideline is NOT called WP:WEBPAGE. This is a WP guideline for all web based content which verbatim includes podcasts. Ngaskill (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't meet criterion 1 as it is not "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." It doesn't meet criterion 2 as it has not "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." And it doesn't meet criterion 3 as it is not "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". It is distributed by CNET who, the lead says, "it is produced by". That's not independent; hence it fails all criteria. Greg Tyler (t • c) 17:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article fails WP:WEB in that it doesn't meet any of the 3 criteria. As discussed above, there is a lack of significant coverage in 3rd party sources (nearly all sources found so far are primary sources or blogs), there is no indication of any well known awards, and based on the arguments above ("produced by CNET"), the distribution is not independent of the creators. This last point makes me think that maybe the best course of action is merging into CNET. The "morning zoo" type antics on the show itself regarding encouraging listeners/viewers to astroturf only hurts notability arguments here and is just plain disruptive.--RadioFan (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really seems like there is no assumption of good faith on the part of many of the no votes here. While this podcast's tactics, many editors may find distasteful, they are not a disqualifier for the page's existence. I am not defending this article in its current form, it needs significant work but I stand firmly that the notability standard set forth in WP:WEB is met here. The distribution is clearly different from the creators here. This is a podcast by editors that is published by a major media outlet (CNET) which is in-turn a subsidiary of a major media conglomerate (CBS). The way I would interpret that guideline is preventing self-publications (i.e. I set up a microphone in my basement and put it on my own website.) It seems that minimum bar has been met to me. If we can agree that this standard is met, the article then needs to be edited for an encyclopedic neutral point of view and removal of original research. Ngaskill (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I, and other editors here, disagree. This is clearly a CNET production. The shows email address is @cnet.com , the podcast is listed in iTunes under artist "CNET.com". Previous comments on this article identified it as a CNET production. That was when it was used as an argument to show its notability. Now its being argued not to be a CNET production in hopes of fitting it into WP:WEB's criteria. This isn't a game of save the article, we cant have it both ways. Also, please don't accuse editors of bad faith and let's focus on discussing the merits of this article. This isn't an us vs. them contest. This discussion is quickly becoming very polarized. Disagreement doesn't equate to bad faith. Also, while the podcast's tactics are not a disqualifier for a Wikipedia article, they need to be taken into account by the closing admin in determining if creation protection should be applied should the outcome here be delete.--RadioFan (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, disagreement isn't bad faith but I'm also not casually calling the other side's position "morning zoo" type antics. The guidelines don't state "the sources must have different email addresses" but rather that "the content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." I contend that CNET both on its own and as an affiliate of CBS Corporation meets that standard because it is not editing, scripting, choosing the content, scheduling guests etc. for this podcast. To draw an analogy, we don't assume that Chris Matthews's TV program is "the same" as MSNBC though they likely supply him a paycheck and an email address. Ngaskill (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see your argument at all. As publishers of the content, they are not independent and hence not reliable. They don't script the program, true. But they do have a conflict of interest. By promoting content that your website is in charge of the distribution, you are not providing a reliable source. I don't see how you can contend that at all. Chris Matthews's TV program isn't the same as MSNBC (I assume as I'm English), but we wouldn't use MSNBC to prove the program's notability. MSNBC and CNET are involved in the 'fore mentioned situations, and thus cannot be treated as independent or reliable sources with regard to that subject. Picture it like a conflict of interest, if that helps. Greg Tyler (t • c) 23:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument doesn't fit the policy. We aren't arguing about sourcing but about notability (I'll admit the article needs worked on for multiple things like sourcing and neutral point of view.) You claim that "but we wouldn't use MSNBC to prove the program's notability" however the guidline for WP:WEB says otherwise. Sorry to quote it but it seems that perhaps people would like to assume what it says:

"web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria." ... "3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)."

To me that indicates that the threshold of notability is met when a major media organization publishes web content provided it is independent (i.e. a press release or public relations statement wouldn't qualify nor would a company's blog itself.) If someone wants to make an argument to delete instead of improve for reasons other than notability I'm open to it. Ngaskill (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't understand why you're keep pointing out that The 404 and its people who produce and star in it are "independent" of C-Net and CBS. Wilson, Jeff and Justin are employees of C-Net, just like the others such as Ina Fried, Tom Krazit and all the other writers and editors of C-Net. The article itself says they are. Is there any source outside of C-Net that establishes the fact that C-Net has absolutely NO editorial, control or other input in the program? Would the show dare to trample over a C-Net sponsor? C-Net is "respected" when it reports un-biased news reporting. BUT, when C-Net entered the blogging and podcasting business, its respect amongst the Internet community can change. Many people do not consider blogging to be objective reporting, much like for example people do not respect Fox News or MSNBC because of its leaning towards the right or left respectively. If one were to read the comments in many of its news articles, there is mass confusion between what C-Net sees as news vs a blog. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia itself mentions that blogging is meant to bypass the editorial process. And as such, people may no longer respect C-Net as a neutral news source. So in short, if you're declaring WP:WEB #3, you have the burden of proof that The 404 is factually independent of C-Net, AND that C-Net is still a respected news source. Groink (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One other thing I want to point out, and that is WP:FANCRUFT. This essay basically suggests that if a large percentage of this article, such as the inside jokes listing or the guest list, cannot for the life of it be verified by independent sources, the article can actually lean towards WP:NOT, where "the specific focus of the discussion may be that the article is a compilation of facts that reliable sources outside of fan-based reliable sources have not found interesting enough to publish." To paraphrase, others can WP:SELFPUB in order to boost the independent sources, but if these kinds of sources are overwhelmingly being used, then the article can be interpreted as not being notable. Sources outside of the clique should be talking about show. Groink (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard is not a respected news source but a respected source right? CNETTV which is the "catch all" for all of their organization's video podcasting was a nominee and people's choice winner of the webby awards 2009 as per http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?media_id=97. As to establishing the process of their story selection this seems to me to be an unreasonably high bar to set, I highly suspect this level of specificity in an outside published resource exists for very few broadcast or media sources in general. Certainly there are copy editors and guidelines set by the network and you're probably right that it would be frowned upon to deride a sponsor but I suspect that would be the case for almost any commerical broadcaster, not really sure how that threatens its independence.
    • Two problems there. First, it is a known fact that the Webby Awards is a pay-only award. If C-Net did not pay to be in the award selection, then it would not have been picked in the first place. The article's criticism section explains this, therefore that source is not credible. Second, what you're basically saying is that a company as a whole can be reliable, but its services may not. That's like saying AT&T's 3G network sucks, but AT&T is still a reliable company. I beg to differ on this logic. If C-Net loses its credibility on its primary product - news and information, then I can't see how one can still stay that C-Net is a reliable source. It just does not click! Groink (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In looking at the listings on Alexa, CNET averages the 70th most visited site on the internet and from what I can tell is fairly consistently the top rated English language technology themed website in their daily listings. It seems that in general the public is using this as a respected source. Additionally, NewsCred which is a feedback service to rank the credibility of stories through sources is ranked 99.03% credible with a large same size. http://www.newscred.com/source/show/name/cnet Additionally while I understand there are complaints about the Webby Award system you must also take into account that this was the winner of the public vote award and I am also not aware of any comparable alternative major awards to use otherwise perhaps other editors can assist in that regard. Ngaskill (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the fancruft subject, I do agree this article needs significant work in that regard but that can be fixed, I don't think this is a reason to delete. There is at least enough objective content for the page to exist in a form comparable to many of the other podcast articles on wiki. Ngaskill (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are thousands of Wikipedia articles out there that are less notable than this podcast. The 404 is a podcast from CNET, a popular technology news site. The 404 was also featured on FOX News' Strategy Room a while back. I don't think you can say that about villages with less than hundred citizens. Clearly they have plenty of listeners, otherwise we wouldn't be having this heated discussion about the article. For me, this just proves their noteworthiness. --Pdedecker (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. but wikify. As Doc and Niteshift said, they have charted twice. That passes WP:MUSIC. (X! · talk)  · @822  ·  18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top authority (rap group)[edit]

Top authority (rap group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Found this while new page patrolling yesterday. I was tempted to speedy, but the group does exist and it has an appreciable number of Ghits, but not much, if any, seem to be reliable sources. Nosleep break my slumber 13:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User created the page as Top authority some four hours after creating the page nominated for deletion here. It was previously A7'd as Top authority (gangster rap), but no previous deletion discussion has taken place. Given the user's seeming proclivity for recreating the article, I think it's a good idea that that be done, to open it up to G4. Nosleep break my slumber 16:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing in the article to show notability and apparently no intention of the author to supply it. Favonian (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Top Authority's Somethin' to Blaze To was #21 on Billboard's Top R&B Albums chart in April 1994 and Rated G reached #16 in early 1996, satisfying WP:Music. "Correct title and improve" would be good. 86.44.29.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I've never heard of them, but they do indeed have a handful of charting albums and one entry on the Hot Rap Singles chart. That sufficiently passes WP:MUSIC. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 05:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Barely notable. They did chart twice: Rated G at #144 and Top Authority at #192. The only chart that really matters is the Top 200. Heatseekers etc. don't really establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article is going to be kept, it's in serious need of wikifying. Nosleep break my slumber 17:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per WP:NEOLOGISM Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrangemenship[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, fails WP:NEOLOGISM. Seems to be promoting the neologism, and also perhaps the company it's attributed to. Kotiwalo (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of this debate is consensus to keep, but merge and redirect. This is a good candidate for WP:NAC, so I am closing it. I have also performed the merge and redirect ([26][27]). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minister for Men[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Minister for Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe this article falls under the WP:Fringe theories category, and undue weight to the topic. I further believe that, because the author has admitted here to having created the article with the express purpose of furthering his cause, this violates WP:SOAP as well. The author (Tripple132 (talk · contribs)) and his clone (sock?) (Trippleact (talk · contribs)) have been the only significant contributors to this article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article seems to be an amalgam of a few opinions and the topic doesn't appear to be notable. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly reasonable article which can be built upon. Many references as well.--86.27.86.255 (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based upon this evidence I have struck out this attempt to pervert the course of debate through sockpuppetry. Uncle G (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Like WP:COIs, problems with WP:SOAP can be, well, rinsed out. I've done some cleanup on the article. WP:UNDUE is inapplicable: In a nutshell, it requires that an "article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." It expressly contemplates "articles specifically about a minority viewpoint...." Put another way, it's an internal policy, addressing how much weight is given to various views within an article, as opposed to a policy like WP:N, an external policy addressing whether an article ought to exist at all. The WP:FRINGE issue is tricky, but, mutatis mutandis, I'm persuaded by the references collected in the previous AFD that we have sufficient sourcing for at least a brief article (cf. WP:NRVE). Finally, notability. WP:GNG is the only applicable guideline, and this article skates about as close to the line as I get before m:Deletionism supplies the rule of decision. We have coverage from the BBC, the Telegraph, and even from across the Atlantic (the New York Times), along with some incidental coverage (direct and indirect) in other outlets, but it's watery fare. All things considered, I lean ever so slightly towards keeping; I could be pushed either way with good notability arguments.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC) [Addenda: If the AFD fails to gain consensus for deletion, I would support a merge and redirect, as proposed by various users below.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)][reply]
    • Well, the New York Times reference is a passing tongue-in-cheek reference to a generic idea of a minister for men (as the yang to a minister for women's yin). It does not say that there is a 'proposed government office' of this sort, not even as an implication. I don't see it as a meaningful reference at all. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Telegraph reference says a 'cross-bencher had a novel solution to youth unemployment. Lord Northbourne wanted a Minister for Men," and then goes on to say that Lord Falconer, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office said that this was not a serious question. We apparently have a case where a single apparently frivolous reference in parliament that has been dismissed as non-serious is elevated to the level of 'proposed government office'. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article points to sources noting that it was raised in both the Lords and the Commons. If it has been proposed, it has been proposed - by whom is simply not covered by the bare statement that it has been. That Lord Falconer, qua the representative of a government with no intention of adopting the proposal, was dismissive of the concept is unsurprising and has little bite. While you're correct that the Times article mentions the idea only in passing, I think it serves to situate the idea in its broader context (the same idea and rationales used to percolate in students' unions and in the lobbies of NUS Conference, FWIW). At any rate, this is as close to a borderline case as I'd ever be willing to keep, and as my comment above hopefully made clear, I won't lose any sleep if consensus is to delete.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Times article does not mention 'minister for men' in the same sense as this article at all and cannot be considered as a source to meetWP:N. The article is about a 'proposed government office' and the Telegraph article makes it quite clear that there is no such proposal in existence. One MP calling for a minister for men in a single parliamentary debate does not make it to the level of a 'proposed government office'. (If we took every single suggestion that every single parliamentarian has made in parliament and used that to assert notability, we would be in big trouble!) (I know you're a borderline keep but these two sources are really giving more reason to delete than to keep!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are holes in the nomination; in connection to the delation criteria of which this article has been nominated for (in question). --Jack4867 (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC) — Jack4867 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • keep astonishingly it does seem to have the sources to meet WP:N. WP:Fringe theories category, and WP:UNDUE are not deletion criteria. Artw (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RegentsPark. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep topics like thse ones do have a place on Wikipedia; but i do not agree with person below, i don't think it should be merged with Men's rights as it is a separate ideological point of view on a certain political concept, therefore it should stay.--StormBlaster1000 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC) — StormBlaster1000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge with Men's rights. (note that i have a partial understanding of how merge is done, how content is transferred, so its possible im off base) until this becomes an actual position, or has significantly more coverage, it appears to be a minor news event being used to promote discussion of the issue. ill pass on the author of the article being part of this, that could be fixed, though he needs to understand how COI works. i think on balance this is just not notable on its own, but is a minor part of the mens rights movement. regentparks comments are quite germaine regarding the quality of the references. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is ridiculous; Wikipedia has a Minister for Women page (Yes, I understand that that exists within the cabinet), however, in connection to this, this certain article is a political ideology as stated above, and therefore it rightly deserves to be a page (an entity within its own right) on Wikipedia. What's even more scandalous about this article being nominated for deletion is that it is packed with high quality, sufficient and trust-worthy references. --Guardian7000 (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC) — Guardian7000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep and I agree with individual near top of this material - It should not have been nominated for deletion and should be reverted to initial version.--Tom768 (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC) — Tom768 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep There are a range of sources and references which support this as a valid, sufficient and high quality article within its own right. It has had quite a bit of attention and I am in agreement with person above; Wikipedia has a Minister for Women page (regardless it exists is inconsequential), however, I suggest reverting this article back to its original/initial - past form as it carries more info in regards to this particular topic. --Lord0000 (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC) — Lord0000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge per Mercurywoodrose. An interesting subject, sadly I don't believe it has enough reliable sources for its own article. --Mas 18 dl (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The several single-purpose account contributions to this discussion were attempts to pervert our processes through sockpuppetry. I have struck the discussion contributions. Uncle G (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The article just about satisfies "weak keep", but it would do better on the Men's rights page: more people will read it and fewer will vandalise it. - Pointillist (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thusfar, I see three users supporting deletion, (the nominator, RegentsPark, and Drmies) and five users who oppose deletion (myself, Artw, Mercurywoodrose, Mas 18 dl, and Pointillist). All the users opposing deletion except Artw have either predicated their opposition to deletion on a merge and redirect ("M&R"), or expressed support for a M&R when the nomination closes. Given this state of play, two things seem clear: that there isn't a consensus to delete, and one is unlikely to form in the day's run time left on this AFD. We're headed toward a no-consensus close. Can I invoke WP:SNOW to propose that we save ourselves time and bother, close the AFD now, and add the M&R templates to this article and Men's rights?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can support such a conclusion. By including the issue as just one part of a larger item on Men's Rights, I believe Wikipedia will have struck the proper balance between giving the issue its visibility without giving it the undue validity of its own article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with men's rights and redirect. Crafty (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was delete. Arguments for keeping the article do not appear to address notability concerns. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talyst[edit]

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

Non-notable company, created by employees of the company. Cannot find independant sources with infomation about them. Bacchus87 (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

twinkle didn't want to put it there apparantly, fixed now Bacchus87 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I agree, there's no notability that I can find. I looked for reliable sources but all I found were press releases and such. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete--I am new to Wikipedia and trying to follow the rules. I followed the wiki template for one of our competitors, Omnicell and am trying to inlcude the same sorts of information. We are a young, privately-held company, but have appeared in Inc. magazine, dozens of helathcare publications, and have recieved a number of national awards. I am working to correct the content so it does not have some many marketing adjectives. perryholz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator, (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two Brothers Brewing[edit]

Two Brothers Brewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not meet Wiki standards for notability. Article exists solely for advertising purposes. Lighthope (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The subject matter meets WP:NOT as there are numerous references to the brewing company in reliable sources, including multiple references in the Chicago Tribune, e.g. [28] and [29], as well as others. Not that the article couldn't be improved and/or rewritten, but it is at least adequately sourced at present, and there are more sources that could be added. Geoff T C 02:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 2 is a bad link. Reference 1 itself reads like a paid advertisement, says nothing about the business other than its name, address, and menu, imparting no information of interest to anyone doing research on the subject of brewing or micro brewing. Therefore, this fails to meet notability requirements. Lighthope (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welford Street Miracles[edit]

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 23 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.[30]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Note: This was nominated twice on the same day. I have merged the nominations. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reliable sources indicating any notability. --Crusio (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable book published by a vanity press. Edward321 (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleonize[edit]

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

Procedural nomination - was originally tagged for speedy but refuted. Article editor has placed a comment asserting notability/importance of the band at the article talk page. For discussion by the wider community. --VS talk 11:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Quite aside from that the tone of article is about one cut above a Myspace entry - and it's telling that of the miniscule 41 G-hits, most of the returns are Myspace, blog and YouTube entries - I can't see anything suggesting that this outfit fulfills any of the criteria of WP:BAND for notability. Any reliable sources out there which would hit WP:GNG? I couldn't find any.  Ravenswing  11:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original speedy tagger. The band is unsigned, and there doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 14:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G2 Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA BEACH Football 10[edit]

FIFA BEACH Football 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination - has been tagged for speedy deletion as a CSD G2 but I am not convinced as yet and would appreciate further input from editors understanding of this topic. --VS talk 10:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, by ANTARCTIC SNOW. I cannot imagine any sensible keep reason will be given. DGG (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage in Antarctica[edit]

Same-sex marriage in Antarctica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N. Unsourced, no evidence this was ever discussed by anyone. Hekerui (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per reasons given in the prod before it was removed. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 10:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nominated for prod for the same reasons. Conversation about a "null set".    7   talk | Δ |   10:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20-Mule-Team Delete: Another of those ridiculous "completist" articles along the lines of Mauritania at the Winter Olympics and Scouting in the Vatican that fail of any rational existence, let alone standards of notability. I have to admit that the section in the article seriously discussing whether homosexuality was restricted in a section once claimed by Nazi Germany (recognized by no other nation and officially lapsed in 1945) was ... unique, if nothing else. Fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:BULLSHIT.  RGTraynor  11:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Goes without saying - blatant 'vandalism' Dvmedis (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the reasons stated in the prod and per RGTraynor. I would hesitate to call it vandalism, though, absent some evidence of bad faith. Tim Song (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete I agree totally with RGTraynor-- the article is obnoxiously ridiculous. From the article "As there is no official government, there is no same-sex marriage in Antarctica, which is one of the seven continents." By that standard, there ought to be an article called "Same-sex marriage on Mars". I think this will be an Antarctic snowball. Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete pure original research. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per common sense. This article is absurd. As RGTraynor said, fails WP:V, WP:N, and WP:BULLSHIT. Entirely OR. Neil Clancy 16:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essentially non-existent concept. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 18:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nachna Onedei Naei[edit]

Nachna Onedei Naei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was proposed for deletion, but was previously proposed. I nominate with the reasoning given: Fails WP:NSONGS, WP:N. Refs given completely fail to mention song itself by title. Hekerui (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @822  ·  18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rummy poker[edit]

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

Even the original creation note admits this was something someboday made up some day. I'm 95% sure it was previously Afd'ed or speedied under a variation of the name but I can't remember what that was. vanity article with no references, no importance, no notability, no nuthin'. 2005 (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist guy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tourist guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

DELETE. Subject lacks non-trivial coverage and is hardly encyclopedic anyhow. I think enough time has passed that this can be evaluated fairly. JBsupreme (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Passes the general notability guideline. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 09:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Character also has an entry on Who2: [31] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPNic (talk • contribs) 12:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lacks non-trivial coverage? What's this then? I wouldn't call The Guardian trivial. I found that after reviewing the previous AfD for this article - which happened to have a pretty clear consensus in favor of keeping this article. It may be "old" but that's no reason to delete it if it received any significant press coverage, which it did. If you review the previous AfD, there are more links to media coverage which I'm not going to bother linking here. I was also interested to note that JBsupreme was also the deletion nominator for the first AfD. Neil Clancy 16:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since I agree with nominator. There's not enough serious discussion to make this throwaway phenomenon notable. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well known phenomenon that still receives coverage 8 years later. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability (e.g. Guardian)  Chzz  ►  01:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Besides the sources in the article, there are several books that discuss the picture: [32], [33], [34], etc. (The first even says that it "may be the most widely known 'urban legend' or hoax on the Internet".) Zagalejo^^^ 04:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sufficient sources exist to demonstrate notability. You could argue that internet memes in general are 'not encyclopaedic', but in that case, as list of Internet phenomena shows, you've got a long fight ahead of you... Robofish (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. -- RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 21:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There has been significant debate over whether there are reliable sources, and whether the roles are considered minor, but no clear agreement. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allie DiMeco[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Allie DiMeco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

On top of her only major acting credit being a minor role on a TV show, there is not enough reliable information about her for her to have an article. When I did a Google search, all I found were MySpace, YouTube, and Facebook profiles, fan sites, and her IMDb page. None of those are reliable sources. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 08:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete keep [see comments below]. She appears to play a major character in a television show that is presumptively notable for Wikipedia purposes (it has an article, but has never been tested in an AFD). Nevertheless, WP:ENT supplies notability only when an actress "[h]as had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" (emphasis added). She may go on to great and glorious things, in which case see WP:RECREATE, but for now, see WP:CRYSTAL. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The initial AFD discussion was a unanimous keep, nominator aside, and the subject has only become more notable since than, including an award nomination that has been treated regularly on wikipedia as notable. Despite the nominator's claim, there are quite a few sources out there establishing a basis for notability for her appearances in multiple productions; the fact that her most well-known appearances are within a single franchise does not mean they do not involve multiple productions (especially with both movie and TV credits). There are, for example, a significant number of articles about actors in the Harry Potter films who do not have significant credits outside that franchise. Not an unusual thing for younger performers. The WP:ENT language quoted is not well phrased, and the idea that multiple seasons of a television program amount to a single production is not one that has demonstrated consensus support. The fact that it may be difficult to write more than a stub article based only on online sources does not mean that an otherwise valid stub should be deleted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:ENT supplies notability, that overrides WP:GNG. The topic-specific notability guidelines augment GNG, and (in my view, at least) must override it for those articles to which they squarely apply. If that isn't so, the separate guidelines are superfluous and irrelevant, and the GNG is the real guideline in all notability questions. Thus, the mere fact that the separate guidelines exist tells us that they are controlling when applicable. For example, Jess Cates probably fails the GNG, but WP:COMPOSER supplies notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jess Cates).
That is a purely academic point for purposes of the present nomination, though. As you noted, the GNG doesn't supply notability -- but neither does ENT. As I mentioned above, ENT supplies notability only when an actress "[h]as had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" (emphasis added). So far as I can determine, the subject has appeared in one television show. While I appreciate that user:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz feels that the guideline "is not well phrased, and the idea that multiple seasons of a television program amount to a single production is not one that has demonstrated consensus support," that is what the guideline says. An editor can appeal to the purpose of a policy to override its text, see WP:GAME, but in order for that argument to stick, one must identify the purpose of the policy and explain why the text contradicts it, which Hullaballoo hasn't done. See WP:PIMP, WP:What "Ignore all rules" means, and especially WP:EXCEPTIONS.
To be sure, Hullaballoo is right that there's a generality problem inherent in ENT's language. Arguably, each individual episode of a show could be characterized as a "production." At the other end of the scale, we could consider the entire show a production, particularly where (as in Scrubs or Babylon 5) there is a dedicated production facility that remains in existence between seasons. Where's the line? We should to select the level of generality that best fits the purpose, text, and scope of the rule. Cf. Bork, The Tempting of America 149 (1997). Hullabaloo proposes, in effect, to draw the line at each season. That makes some sense in the context of movies, and it may even make some sense in the context of particular shows. But as a general proposition in the television context, it doesn't seem a good fit. Two seasons may have different writers and directors - but so too may different episodes. My view, at least in the context of television shows generally, is that the show itself is the "production." That it has run for multiple but contiguous seasons no more transforms it into multiple productions than running for multiple episiodes does.
Accordingly, in my view, ENT is the applicable guideline, and it can't supply DiMeco with notability (at least, not yet), therefore the article should be deleted until changed circumstances brings WP:RECREATE into play.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a movie, followed by a related TV show after the movie proved popular, which makes at least two productions however you count them. And WP:ENT is guideline, not policy. Rather than interpreting the text in a vacuum, we should examine the consensus it reflects in interpreting it. The first AFD was nearly a unanimous keep, with multiple users expressing the opinion that a regular role in an ongoing TV series satified the notability requirements of WP:ENT, an opinion that persists today Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Michael Tyler. If you want to say that there's consensus that a regular role in a TV series doesn't satisfy WP:ENT in light of such examples, you should able to at least provide some contrary examples of AFDs where the consensus reflects your interpretation of the guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd that you would cite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Michael Tyler. For one thing, it's still open. For another, the point for which you cite it is, so far as I can see, only being advanced by you and has been roundly and persuasively rejected by user:MickMacNee. To my mind, the most sensible rule is that one show is one production. Friends is one production. So are umpteen seasons of The Naked Brothers Band. I can see the case for making the rule a rebuttable presumption, allowing a showing that season X of a show was functionally or de facto a separate production from season Y. That might be true, for example, of Family Guy, which was cancelled and then revived some years later. But as a rule, it seems to me that a show ought to be treated as a production, rather than treating different seasons or different episiodes as different productions.
Your stronger argument that the first movie was separate from the TV show. If that's true, DiMeco has had significant roles in multiple notable films and television productions, and WP:ENT accordingly supplies notability. I had understood that this was a series of so-called "TV movies," in the same sense that Columbo could be thought of as a series of "TV movies" rather than a show. I don't know what the distinction is, in a technical sense, but on closer review, it does appear that the first movie was an actual movie (theater release and everything!). That probably makes it a separate production, just as The Transformers: The Movie and The Transformers (TV series) (or the movie Clerks and the show Clerks: The Animated Series) are separate productions.
We don't have to resolve that "probably," however. Your very best argument, and for me the clincher, is that we have already decided this question. I somehow managed to miss it, although it was included in the nom and you mentioned it above, but this is the second nomination. The first conclusively decided that DiMeco was notable, and although I have some doubts (I am still dubious as to how truly separate the TV show and the movie are as productions), absent compelling reason to do otherwise, I defer to the consensus of the earlier nomination. I have accordingly changed my vote above to keep. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of her notability as an actress who has been in multiple notable productions, there is simply not enough reliable information about her to constitute an article. The only sourced information in the article is from IMDb, which can be edited by anybody. If we were to remove all unreliable sources, we would only be left with her YAA nomination.
When information about her comes out in reliable sources, perhaps the article can be recreated. Until that happens, I stand firmly by my nomination to delete the article. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 23:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there were no reliable secondary sources available, we'd be in a situation like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jess Cates. In that nomination, WP:COMPOSER supplied notability, but I agreed with user:TenPoundHammer's reasoning that deletion should follow when there are truly no secondary sources on which to base the article. While there were a handful of primary sources available, they wouldn't cut it by themselves because WP:RS and WP:PSTS very strongly suggest that an article can't rest on primary sources alone. Granted, IMDB doesn't appear to be a reliable source ([35][36][37]), at least for most purposes ([38]). But the article's failure to cite reliable secondary sources is quite different from their not existing. The number of ghits suggests to me that here, in contrast to Cates, there may well be secondary sources that can be found and added. And, crucially, Cates was a first nomination, so we wrote on a blank page. We shouldn't lightly set aside the keep consensus from this article's earlier nomination. I've added the "citations needed" template to the article; if it truly proves impossible to find workable secondary sources after a reasonable period of time, I may support renomination, but at this time, we appear to have notability, and I'm just not sure that I buy that there are no secondary sources out there.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even bother to look at those ghits? As I said in the nomination - YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, fan sites, IMDb... none of that has information that we could include in the article as they are not reliable sources. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 00:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I bother to look individually at anywhere from 131,000 to 777,000 ghits? No. Neither did you (it would take upwards of 36 hours to do look at 131,000 pages, even assuming--unrealistically--that it only takes one second to open and evaluate each hit). I agree that a lot of the sources, at first glance, don't appear reliable, but that wasn't my point. I think that it's likely that there are secondary sources available. Now, frankly, I'm a deletionist. If this was a first nomination, and we accordingly had our druthers, I would agree with you that we should delete now and see what shows up in the future. But the community has already considered and rejected an AFD for this article, including the same argument you're pressing about sourcing, and we owe a degree of deference to the earlier consensus. The bar is higher now. Given the posture of this nomination (a second nomination when the first produced consensus to keep), given notability (via WP:ENT), and given the plausibility of finding secondary sources, it's appropriate to see if editors interested in the article's continued existence can dig them up once they have (as they now have been) put on notice that this is "do or die" for the article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chances are, if something is up that far into the ghits - and fake MySpace profiles come before it - it's likely not notable enough to be included. I highly doubt useful, reliable information on DiMeco would have such a low PageRank. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 02:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is in a movie and then a TV series based on the movie, have they been in two separate productions?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the show is essentially an extension of the film. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Clerks: The Animated Series essentially an extension of the filk Clerks? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same thing. C:TAS is not a TV series that followed a TV movie. The movie was basically a two-hour pilot for the show. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 01:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found an interview with her in Newsday: Becker, Siobahn (November 25, 2007). "Talking with... actress Allie DiMeco", Newsday, p. G26. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...And? She may have been covered in a reliable source, but it's going to take more than one interview to provide enough information on her to make a decent article. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the concerns that prompted you to recommend deletion for this article was that she has not been covered in any reliable sources. (In my view that represented your strongest argument for deletion.) I'm pointing out that she has been, at least in one. That suggests that if more effort is put into searching, others could well be found as well. In addition, I found multiple reviews of the TV show, in a wide range of newspapers, that mention her and her character by name, indicating that her role is not "minor" as you suggested in your nomination. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. With WP:ATA in consideration, there is no consensus between keeping and merging/redirecting. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marigold (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marigold (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Nirvana B-side. Never charted, and secondary source info is close to nil (and I say this as someone who has researched and written several in-depth Nirvana-related articles). Throughout its lifespan, the page has been primarily redirected to Heart-Shaped Box, the single it appears on. However, recently an anonymous IP has been reverting the redirect to an article, so here we are. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Heart-Shaped Box. There's probably a bit of info from here that can be moved across to that article too (like the fact that it was written by Dave Grohl etc), but I agree that it probably doesn't need its own article, much as I like Nirvana :-D Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 14:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article - this is the only Nirvana song released where Kurt Cobain was not involved in its composition. It is significant as it showed Grohl's musical abilities long before Foo Fighters. This song much have some significane if Grohl still preforms it live with another band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.21.143 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not being written by Kurt Cobain does not make it notable according to Wiki guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but improve. Seems to be a fan favorite and has sparked much debate over who actually sung vocals / played drums - Cobain or Grohl. I think if the article was improved or lengthened a bit more, it would be much more worthy to be on its own. Ericleb01 (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Internet fansite notability does not transleate to actual notability. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Heart-Shaped Box. There is some information on the song's writing, recording and subsequent performance by Foo Fighters that should be mentioned in the latter article, but there isn't enough coverage for a separate article.--Michig (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Quite a few books seem to have some coverage of this song, including The Rough Guide to Rock, The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, Alternative Rock, Icons of Rock, A Look at the Influence of Post-Hardcore, plus a number of books about Nirvana. None of the coverage in the books I could access through Google Books was particularly extensive, but the sheer volume of sources covering the song, plus the fact that there is at least one notable cover, leads me to believe that the song is notable enough to keep. Rlendog (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of books merely mention the song; actual in-depth information is scarce. Thus a separate article is unteniable. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In depth coverage is scarce, but many of the books have more information that a "mere mention". Rlendog (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. Looking over the books you listed, The Rough Guide to Rock simply states that "Marigold" was the B-side to In Utero in a single sentence. Same with the Post-Hardcore book. And Icons of Rock. And the Alternative Rock book. And the Rolling Stone book. The most you get is the paragraph in the In Utero book that mentions how the song was recorded, but that book also mentions the recording of several non-notable Nirvana songs as well. None of this establishes notability. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Several of the sources state who wrote it, under what circumstances, that it was originally recorded on an indie cassette Pocketwatch, how it ended up being covered by the Foo Fighters, a brief description of it being a "touching, indelible song", etc. Not very in-depth, but more that just mentioning that "'Marigold' was the B-side to In Utero in a single sentence." Stating that the In Utero book that mentions how the song is recorded also mentions several non-notable songs is circular and irrelevant. The other songs' non-notabilty is not established - if they meet WP:N or WP:NSONGS they are notable, and their coverage in In Utero is at least a step towards WP:N, and just because a source covers non-notable songs doesn't mean all the songs it covers are non-notable.Rlendog (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the fact that the song, as was mentioned previously, highlights Dave Grohls desire to do more than drum it should be kept. For me, it's the song which shows Grohl produce a song which sounds like Nirvana but yearns for something slightly more positive in outlook or feeling i.e. Foo Fighters. As Foo Fighters approach to music is almost the antithesis of Nirvanas' and Marigold is the first glimpse of Foo Fighters founder Grohls personal attitude to music it's important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.116.198 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is objective or based on sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but improve. There's no doubt the current article needs to be improved, but that's hardly a valid reason for deletion. As to the song's notability, it appears to be notable for several different reasons, some of which I admit I am lifting directly from the article's talk page. In WP:NSONGS, it is stated that "Songs that ... have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." This song certainly qualifies, since the Foo Fighters, Nirvana, and Dave Grohl solo/in early bands all have recorded this song, and those artists are some of the most notable in rock history. It was mentioned on the talk page that this song "didn't chart, didn't sell, it's not notable", but there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of song articles on Wikipedia that were never on any Billboard chart, so that's not a valid reason for deletion. Finally, even the argument on this nomination page seems slightly biased: It is stated that "Throughout its lifespan, the page has been primarily redirected to Heart-Shaped Box, the single it appears on." - the thing is, that's just not true, lots of people have contributed to this article in its history and most of the redirecting seems to have been done by one user, WesleyDodds, who, coincidentally, happens to also be nominating the article for deletion. I have a feeling that personal feelings and a desire to "win" are affecting his judgement of this song, and for any article to be deleted because of the actions and feelings of one user, I think, hurts Wikipedia in the long run. Considering the considerable interest in this song, and the fact that WP:NSONGS considers it notable, I think working on this article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards is the more desirable option, rather than deletion. There is plenty of information available on it, we just need to find it and cite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockypedia (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: the Late! version has close to no info on it, ditto with the Nirvana version, and the Foo Fighters version merely appeared on a live DVD. Also, keep in mind that the song was not covered by unrelated distinct groups; all of these versions are groups/projects which feature Dave Grohl (in the case of Late!, it's Dave Grohl recording solo under a psuedonym). Notability is not inherited, and secondary source info is scant. There is very little to write about the song.WesleyDodds (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's starting to seem like every single cogent point that is introduced that shows this song is notable is merely dismissed out-of-hand by one editor who seems to be on a mission to delete this article - after there's been so much written about this song, merely saying "there is very little to write about the song" doesn't make it a true statement. There's a term for that, called "up-is-downism", and it's closely related to the circular logic you're using. You claimed that all the book sources about the song had "a single sentence", which wasn't true. You then claim that notability under WP:NSONGS doesn't apply because "the song was not covered by unrelated distinct groups"; yet WP:NSONGS doesn't say anything of the kind. That kind of "discussion" doesn't help us; it's more of a blinders-on approach of "just deny everything in order to get my mission done." I sincerely hope you can take a step back and become more objective about this rather than treating it like a competition. I think everyone else on this talk page has been pretty objective and respectful, I hope the process works, and I hope you can join it without prior prejudice. The article needs improvement, no doubt, but there is info available on websites and in books on all the versions of the song, and we as editors will work to enter that info and cite it (I say "we" in the all-encompassing sense). I think that should be the goal.--Rockypedia (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the best solution to that would be to improve the article with the sources provided. If they are good sources and proper mentions of the song in those sources then it would be more difficult to vote for deletion. Personally, I'd be delighted to see this article come up to scratch, but as it stands now, with the sources available, it makes more sense to redirect it Heart Shaped Box Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but once it's deleted, doesn't that make it much more difficult to bring it back? Also, you seem to agree that the song is notable and deserves an article, but the reason for deletion that's being presented by WesleyDodds is that it's NOT notable, a separate issue from the issue of how the article needs to be improved.--Rockypedia (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Deletion is not meant for articles that can be improved, or a means of providing a deadline for improvement. Wikipedia does not have a time limit. As long as the article meets notability and doesn't present any other issue that would warrant deletion (which this does not) it should be kept and improved when editors see fit. Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, my point was that we don't have (and can't seemingly find) any suitable to sources to prove its notability. Apologies if I wasn't clear :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the book sources found by Rlendog.--Pink Bull (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of chiropractors[edit]

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

Unnecessary Fork of Historical figures in chiropractic Versageek 06:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not only an unnecessary fork, but an attempt to promote living and non-notable chiropractors by a new user who has even been blocked for his use of socks to keep it and another article going. Even when cleaned up it's an unnecessary duplication. Brangifer (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to U.S. Route 199. There is certainly enough information in these two articles that warrents moving them into the other article. (X! · talk)  · @823  ·  18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 199 in California, U.S. Route 199 in Oregon[edit]

U.S. Route 199 in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
U.S. Route 199 in Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The only content that is not included in U.S. Route 199 (besides the junctions list) is the history section. However just about everything in the history section applies to the whole route, not just the California/Oregon portion. Rschen7754 (T C) 06:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remerge - this highway is short enough that it doesn't need to be split by state. --NE2 06:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to U.S. Route 199. Should never have been split. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 08:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to US 199. Unnessecary content fork. Dough4872 (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (at least to U.S. Route 199 in California) The article's history section in particular is more detailed and has more references than what was covered in the main article US 199 - a mishmash between California and Oregon segments. If you believe this article needs far improvement, we should all know there's a reason for "peer review". Mgillfr (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a separate article on US 199 in CA. The route as a whole is relatively short and can be entirely covered in one decent article. Dough4872 (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is NE2 (talk · contribs)'s crummy version of it - with lots of bolded words in places where it shouldn't be bolded, a voilation of MOS:BOLD. And at least the coverage in the history section of US 199 (CA) is more detailed. If the California article is kept, then I'll find the necessary references that aren't there in the article currently. Mgillfr (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bolded words are the names of historic routes that were encompassed by the highway. They are bolded because pages with those titles redirect to that page. This is actually in accordance with USRD's MOS (see WP:USRD/MOS#History), it does not directly contradict the main MOS either (see MOS:BOLD, which is generally phrased positively and does not make any prohibition of this formatting.Synchronism (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, MOS:BOLD states only in rare circumstances should bold text exist outside of the lead section. Alternate titles should be bolded, yes. However, the ones notable enough to bold should be in the lead, IMO.Dave (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that bolding should not be used excessively. I'm a bit confused though; those guidelines make no mention of notability. Do you disagree with WP:USRD/MOS#History or my characterization of MOS:BOLD being in accord with WP:USRD/MOS#History?Synchronism (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that sentence in WP:USRD/MOS#History. However, I do recognize that is my opinion and others may disagree. To the best of my knowledge nobody has nominated an article for FAC with bolding in the history section. However I do believe when that day comes, the reviewers will request the bolding be taken out of all sections but the lead. Someday we'll find out.Dave (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite the same, but Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway survived an FA review after a complete rewrite that included bolding in the history. --NE2 05:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NE2, good find, and well done in saving the article. So there is precedent, fair enough.Dave (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If an article has enough information, why can't this article stay? Obviously, this article has more coverage of info than US 6, US 95, and US 97, and those three articles get to stay. Mgillfr (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bunch of fluff to make the article look bigger. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So how come California segments of US 6, US 95, and US 97 get to stay but have no fluff or detailed info whatsoever? 03:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
All of those routes are nationwide routes where it is beneficial to split the main article. US 199 is such a small route that it is not. In truth, this is a *horrible* argument you are using - you're saying "Well why do these articles get to have state detail articles?" when all the ones you mention are main U.S. Routes and you're trying to defend the splitting of a secondary U.S. Route article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean secondary as in 3-digit, then what about US 101 and US 395? Mgillfr (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean secondary as in 3-digit; I mean secondary as what is not on {{U.S. Routes}}. US 101 is actually a primary route. 395 is an exception only because it is super long. Do I really have to explain this to you? (If the answer is yes, you probably should not be editing, or at least editing road articles). --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is my philosophy is that if a road is in two or more states, than you can create a state-detailed article for each state, right? Mgillfr (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is against WP:USRD/NT. It needs to be in three or more states, and the portion in each state has to be substantial. Otherwise we get crap like Interstate 95 in the District of Columbia. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By three or more states, can we do it to U.S. Route 491 if we want to? (not that i'm planning to, though, just asking) Mgillfr (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it's a bad idea as the Utah portion is extremely short, and this is a desert highway with relatively little occurring over its length. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, US 491 is a specific example listed of a route that should not be split.Dave (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (preferably delete since no one is likely to look for these titles). Article is misguided and has no encyclopedic value over U.S. Route 199. Johnuniq (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Content appears decent at first glance, but would be better off incorporated into the U.S. Route 199 article. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Sub articles are redundant to the main article. The main article is no where near long enough to merit splitting into subs. Also per the guideline at WP:USRD/NT under normal circumstances a route of this length would not be split into sub articles.Dave (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — The article should not have been split as the parent article isn't long enough to support the split. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The split is unnecessary, all the information can be contained neatly in one place. A single page location is preferable to readers and editors alike, given the road's short length and the historical interconnectedness of the two state's segments.Synchronism (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is unanimous consensus that the article should not exist. SpacemanSpiff's link shows that the content is incorrect, and therefore not worth merging. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English cricket team streak of 27 Test matches without defeat[edit]

English cricket team streak of 27 Test matches without defeat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable enough for a seperate article, recommend delete and merge to England national cricket team. SGGH ping! 14:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect It is merely an interesting fact that deserves a mention in the national team article. No basis for a separate article at all. --Jack | talk page 14:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete and merge. If this was notable enough for it's own article, it would set a precedent for probably a dozen similar articles. JH (talk page) 16:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - delete and merge is not an option due to licensing conflictions (both CC3.0 and the GFDL), specifically the need for attribution; merge and redirect is the only option in such a situation, even if the resulting redirect is bizarre. Redirects are cheap, anyway. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect I don't think this AfD discussion is necesssary, merge and redirection can be done outside the AfD system on the article talk page. In fact, it probably shouldn't be deleted if the material is to be merged into another article for licence reasons. Of course, this material is unable to support a stand-alone article and its best place is as the nominator says, in England national cricket team. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated belowMerge to England national cricket team#Team records, the resulting redirect will probably be a bit absurd, but no other way to do this since the info isn't in the main article. Until this AfD, I didn't know that England actually held this record! -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 22:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The title is wrong. The abandoned Test is not included in the relevant statistics and England are only credited with 26 in a row. Tintin 06:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And we lost the one-day international that replaced the abandoned Test! --Jack | talk page 06:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Removing all the original research will practically strip the article down to nothing. No prejudice against recreation with multiple reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd girl[edit]

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

This page is pure original research, with an (un)healthy dose of opinion and lack of sources thrown in. It's been in that state since it was created in 2005. It's not being improved; it's festering. To borrow from the talk page: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not TV Tropes. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Nerd. I added cited stuff there regarding nerd girls. I'll see if there are more sources out there to make a decent section.--Lenticel (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anybody have access to “Why be normal?”: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls Language in Society (1999), 28 : 203-223 Cambridge University Press (doi:10.1017/S0047404599002043)? We might some good material there.--Lenticel (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - been here since 2005? Go go go.. Was probably created as a joke Dvmedis (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: FWIW, I don't think it was a joke, just someone's pet theory they wrote an article on. The article would be perfectly appropriate on a site like TV Tropes, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then redirect per Lenticel. Too heavy on the OR and the opinionating to be saved. Artw (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to merge: there's nothing here worth saving. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research  Chzz  ►  01:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Lenticel has the right idea. Xe merely has the wrong source. There are plenty. Try this one for starters:
    • Timothy Shary (2002). "The Nerdly Girl and Her Beautiful Sister". In Frances K. Gateward and Murray Pomerance (ed.). Sugar, spice, and everything nice: cinemas of girlhood. Wayne State University Press. ISBN 9780814329184.
  • As you can see, this is not a "pet theory". It's something that has been the object of serious analysis. This article doesn't reflect that analysis. Indeed, it doesn't even mention any of the examples of this character as the outright lead character in a movie that Shary gives: She's Out of Control, She's All That, and Welcome to the Dollhouse. But we solve that with proper writing. As I said, Lenticel has the right idea. Uncle G (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a matter of principle. This is a clearly noteable archetype of modern fiction, given that it seems to be in half the TV shows made nowadays, and somewhat distinct from the male "Nerd." Redirect is not a solution unless there's a new section added to Nerd regarding nerds in popular culture. Geek#Geek_chic may help, as there is some conceptual crossover. Either way I am very strongly in favour of preserving the information in some way. Not being fixed yet and having a random selection of tags isn't a valid reason. Anyway the format's clearly not yet encyclopedic so it should have been tagged with Template:Cleanup instead of the frankly baffling POV tag. How are the people who like to do cleanup gonna find it? RayBarker (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if you just collapsed the bullet-pointed text into regular prose and Stipped out the massive list of examples(perhaps mentioning one or two in the intro text) the article would be nearly on a par with the "Characteristics" section of the Nerd article, which is also somewhat light on references. RayBarker (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is terribly written, contains zero third-party sources, and seems to be all one person's essay/"original research." Even the header term "Nerd Girl" is debatable as being the defining terminology. More appropriate would be to add something well written and researched to an article on feminism and pop-culture. Deadchildstar (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted (CSD G11) by Graeme Bartlett. NAC. Cliff smith talk 16:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surya Experience[edit]

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

Unreferenced, non-notable per WP:BAND, can find nothing at all about them online apart from their own site and their Facebook page. Prod contested by article's creator. Per Ardua (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this band performs at the Palmilla hotel at Los Cabos, where John Travolta made his anniversary party last year, also the frontman of this band actually is Javier Asencio, a mega-known famous multi instrument musician born in Argentina. Several people asks about the band after going to the Los Cabos, Mexico (Lower California) hotel Palmilla (important celebrities) so that is why I strongly believe they should be included in Wikipedia. They are getting very well known and it is important that their name appear in the FREE encyclopedia, because there's people looking for them. Thanks Rostik (article creator) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.28.152.28 (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Surya Experience deletion

Dude, this band performs at the Palmilla hotel at Los Cabos on a daily basis, where John Travolta made his anniversary party last year, also the frontman of this band actually is Javier Asencio, a mega-known famous multi instrument musician born in Argentina. They have been playing on the Argentinian scene for years.Several people asks about the band after going to the Los Cabos, Mexico (Lower California) hotel Palmilla (important celebrities) so that is why I strongly believe they should be included in Wikipedia. They are getting very well known and it is important that their name appear in the FREE encyclopedia, because there's people looking for them. Thanks Rostik (article creator) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rostik80 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a read of WP:BAND, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Articles in Wikipedia need to meet certain standards of notability, and assertions of notability need to be backed up by multiple, verifiable, reliable sources. I can't find a single thing about the band online, and very little about Javier Asencio. If you can find something, please add it to the article: I'd be glad to help you with this if you can point me at the information. Thanks, Per Ardua (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rostik80, Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider or a vehicle for self-promotion. Please see WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:PROMOTION for more information. — Rankiri (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, G11. The article would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic, but even then its subject clearly fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. No results on Google News, no relevant Google results[39][40]. — Rankiri (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Deleted as an ad Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

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

The result was snow delete. ÷seresin 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPod Nano Touch[edit]

IPod Nano Touch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - Completely unsourced speculation. WP:CRYSTAL. Prodded, {{prod-2}}'d, and then deprodded by creator without explanation. Googling turns up a couple unreliable YouTube videos, and not much else. Certainly, there's no indication the nex-gen Nano/Touch hybrid is going to be called by this name. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I almost had coca-cola come out of my nose when I read Cybercobra's request. This article must be deleted because this device does not exist. It isn't in the planning. It is based on a few photos people have uploaded to the Internet, developed by amateurs. I say they're amateurs because the artist couldn't even spell the word "coming" correctly in the image. One of the images even had the SMS and Phone icons - neither of them even appearing in the iPod touch. I can't believe this article was created based on these false rumors. And the information about pricing and such - where are they coming up with this stuff? Seriously, think about it as if you were working for Apple: would Apple even make something like this, and compete directly with the iPod touch in both price and capacity? If this article lives on, I'm going to create a page for the Apple Macintosh Post-It Notes Saturday Night Live advertised a dozen years ago. Like Cybercobra wrote, WP:CRYSTAL with Pixy attached to it. Groink (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone's wishlist item. See here. Bongomatic 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Really? JBsupreme (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given by Groink. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 10:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Groink. This is ridiculous. How someone could have deprodded in good faith is beyond me.Tim Song (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 18:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and other given reasons above. --Taylor Karras (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SNOW, anyone? Drmies (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand FA Cup 2009 Qualifying Round[edit]

Thailand FA Cup 2009 Qualifying Round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not exactly sure what this is, but it looks to me like it's the upcoming lineup for a soccer matchup. The only content is the chart in the middle, which I think puts it into unencyclopedic territory. This should be integrated into the 2009 Season, or 2009 tournament article, or something similar. But if I'm way off on this, let me know. (I imagine there are others like this one as well) Shadowjams (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam jordison[edit]

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

Insufficient context to merit an article for the subject. Redirect to The Guardian HarlandQPitt (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep but gut the nonsense on the page and fix the capitalization; author of several nontrivial books, journalist(-ish), plenty of attention per web search. JJL (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Despite promising to improve the article twice on my talk page, the author of the only substantial content has left it exactly as is. HarlandQPitt (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Can't vote on this one either way: Seems notable, but article is in clear violation of the WP:NPOV policy. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bizarre article which does not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't have time to check notability at the moment, but would point out that if this is to be redirected then Crap Towns would be a much better target than The Guardian, as it appears to be the subject's main claim to fame. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no idea who wrote this odd article about me, and obviously can't pass judgement on whether it merits deletion. Would prefer it if you don't just redirect my name to Crap Towns, however. It would be like being caught in a permanent loop... Meanwhile, am quite digging the idea of commenting on my own wikipedia mortality. Am I allowed to verify things in the article? Drop me a line if you do undertake to tidy up and I'll tell you if I think you've got stuff right or not! Samjordison (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2009 (BST)
  • Comment it's usually best to comment on the article's Talk page and let other editors enact any changes to avoid WP:COI issues. But yes, please do that! Sign your posts with this character string: ~~~~ and of course please provide secondary sources for your claims as much as possible (see WP:RS). Be sure to mention if anything is inappropriate on the page (see WP:BLP). JJL (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet notability through numerous books as well as writing in the Guardian, Idler and Independent. Plenty of sources if you do a Google search. Haven't got time to put them in now, but happy to do so next week if article survives this process. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and redirect) to Crap Towns, which is the subject's verifiable claim to fame. Writing for the Guardian is not enough to create notability in its own right. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. That the article is interesting is not a valid argument against deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of enemies in Doom[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of enemies in Doom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contains a whole TON of original research and/or game-guide-speak and is mostly unreferenced. Development section is already covered in Making of Doom and the monsters have no assertion of notability besides a sentence saying that they 'have become iconic in computer gaming'. Supposedly the problems from the last deletion had been addressed, but it doesn't seem like they have. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Doom is notable and has enough valid articles that a list of enemies is justifiable, I think. But there's no sources for almost everything listed, and despite several years of opportunity, it doesn't look like any are being added. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WAF. Real-world context is crammed into the last two small sections, which are easily subsumed into Doom (video game) and Making of Doom. Marasmusine (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wow, what a fascinating article. I just spent 45 minutes reading it and Googling pics of the creatures discussed. Well written, informative, absolutely brilliant. However, because it is such an amazingly good article, you guys will no doubt destroy it or else severely emasculate it. So, my vote, for whatever it's worth. --Captain Infinity (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The point isn't whether it's informative, as you could surely find many other similar pages on the internet with a google search if you wanted to find out about Doom. However, the page is written entirely in-universe with original research, and wouldn't be suitable for wikipedia.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense meant to you, but the article you've pointed to is crap compared to this one. --Captain Infinity (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...then why not improve that one instead?--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As noted above, what useful real-world content there is could be merged.--Drat (Talk) 00:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the entire thing is entirely either in-universe information or material otherwise found in game guides. Also per the consensus established in the first AFD. I will also point out that being well-written (which, IMHO, I have been much better writing and much better articles than this) is not a reason to keep (just as being poorly-written should not be a reason to delete). MuZemike 01:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Per Captain Infinity. Also Im about to add another interesting fact about the Cyberdemon.76.167.244.204 (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that it's "interesting" is still not a valid reason to keep the article.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-player characters in Diablo[edit]

List of non-player characters in Diablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, non-notable list of minor characters. Also is entirely referenced from either the game itself or a strategy guide. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sole keep vote provides little or no explanation; while it was considered, I gave it appropriately little weight in evaluating the discussion. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–Chile relations[edit]

Barbados–Chile relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

this article was previously nominated in a group nomination, upon closer inspection, I believe it is not notable due to lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, almost all is multilateral [41]. it needs something more significant than a few meetings and wanting to cooperate such as this. the article also uses synthesis to imply that Mercosur and CARICOM meetings and negotiations are actually bilateral relations. such information is more appropriate to Mercosur and Caricom articles or indeed a new article such as CARICOM-Mercosur relations which is notable in its own right. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ignoring for now that the article seems to be based mostly on a multi-lateral agreement, and that nothing mentioned is earlier that 2005 even though relations have supposed to have been in place since the sixties, there is no independent coverage of the topic as a whole, just snippets relating to individual events over time. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried my best to find something more than them establishing relations in '67 and then a visit in 2005, but... nope. "The Prime Minister Owen S. Arthur will on November 7-8 2005, pay the first ever official visit of a Head of Government of Barbados to the Republic of Chile". A single visit after 40 years? Obviously Barbados doesn't put much importance on this relationship. Fences&Windows 17:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of actual notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per G12. Enigmamsg 07:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rassool Russell Auckbaraullee[edit]

Rassool Russell Auckbaraullee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable self-published author. I could find no reliable sources anywhere. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:MADEUP Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Presidential Conscience"[edit]

AfDs for this article:
"Presidential Conscience" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Student film with no evidence of notability provided or found ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Now that the rationale for deleting this page has been effectively canceled out, I do not see any consensus for deletion ever forming. —harej (talk) (cool!) 04:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation (disambiguation)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Disambiguation (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As a requested move discussion on Talk:Disambiguation (disambiguation)#Requested move, there is no need for this page since it only disambiguates between two pages. (Note that Disambiguation redirects to Word-sense disambiguation, which is the main use of the term). —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Disambiguate redirects to Ambiguity. Should that redirect be changed? Should Ambiguity be added to the dab? I feel like dabs are cheap and it isn't strictly necessary to delete this, personally. There is also a metalink to Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Perhaps that's a secondary concern, but we seem to be happy to retain a cross-namespace redirect there from Disambiguation page as well. Dekimasuよ! 03:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC) (continued) For what it's worth, I've added a link to Precising definition to the dab page, as it's used in this prescriptive sense as well as the aforementioned descriptive sense. Dekimasuよ! 03:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page is entirely unnecessary, and in fact was already deleted once, after an AFD in 2005. If we still had BJAODN, this would be perfect for it. Instead, we can put it up at WP:DAFT. Firestorm Talk 03:36, 23 July 2009Changing to keep per additional articles that have now been added, turning it into a legitimate dab page. Firestorm Talk 16:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous AfD is not at all applicable, because there was only one article linked from that page, and Disambiguation (audio) didn't exist at that time. Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion? Dekimasuよ! 04:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there are 3 links on the page a hatnote wouldn't be a good solution so I will probably end up changing my vote to keep. But Im not sure that 3rd one really is a separate topic from word sense disambiguation. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 03:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And hatnote where needed. Recreate if/when a third+ notable "Disambiguation" item appears. +mt 06:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A disambiguation page for two items where one is primary topic is obviously not useful, since a hatnote on top of the primary topic page to the secondary topic will be sufficient. However, I see that precising definition has been added to the page after the article was sent to AfD. If that is indeed a relevant link that belongs on the dab page, then the page should be kept. The precising definition article doesn't mention the word "disambiguation" anywhere, though. Is it really plausible that a reader looking for that article would use "disambiguation" as their search term? Jafeluv (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I added memory disambiguation, so that makes 3 or 4 items (depending on whether precising definition belongs there or not). cab (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep disambiguated per cab. Memory disambiguation belongs on the dab page, and so do word-sense disambiguation and disambiguation (audio). For three entries, a disambiguation page is useful even if one of the uses is primary topic. Jafeluv (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At first glance, I thought this was someone trying to be cute by making a disambiguation page about disambiguation. However, since Wikipedia has at least 3 articles that refer to different types of disambiguation (one is linguistic, the others appear to be computer-related), then a dab page is appropriate. The process of disambiguation applies in other fields where one is called upon to sort between more than one possible outcome, such as the legal principle of resolving an ambiguity in a contract against the author of the contract. Mandsford (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 18:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to disambiguation, replacing that redirect. This is a valid disambiguation list, it's just got a silly name. There's no obvious primary topic, so the base word -- with no parenthetical qualification -- should be the dab page. • Also change the redirect at disambiguate to redirect to this disambiguation list. And once the dust is settled and all the links are snapped, delete and salt Disambiguation (disambiguation) to keep the wise guys (such as myself) from re-creating every April 1st. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As DragonHawk points out, this is a perfectly sensible DAB page; it just seems silly since the same word appears in two different uses. At least three of the current pages are appropriate for a DAB. (I'm less sure about Precising definition.) I would recommend adding Ambiguity as well, possibly noting "See also". I have no objection to moving the page to Disambiguation in place of the current redirect. Cnilep (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleem-Ud-Din Khan[edit]

Aleem-Ud-Din Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was PRODed by User:I dream of horses on 19 June with the comment, "Biographical stub article about politician and business doesn't state WHY he should be in an encyclopedia--doesn't seem to have won an election, award, etc." PROD was contested by User:71.126.137.177 on 25 June with the comment, "Removed prod due to actual evidence for notability in "political career" section". As I understand that section, however, Khan stood for election twice but was not elected either time. I can find no mention of this name in news archives. Subject seems to fail WP:N. Cnilep (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just fails WP:N. Little if any notability. Google returns at the most <40,000 results, depending on the spelling used. [42][43]Tim Song (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - jurists are not per se notable, and this one does not seem notable; no relevant citations. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @823  ·  18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Catholic Church Theosophia Synod[edit]

Liberal Catholic Church Theosophia Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article doesn't really explain what this organisation is, or what it is notable for. If you wish, examine the 16 Google hits. Abductive (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Keep This shows a small notability with the whole template thing, but overall, I don't think that we would miss it should this page be deleted. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Certainly not the most high quality article on Wikipedia, but despite what the nom says it does explain what the organization is, just not very well, and that's not a reason to delete anyway unless there is no context at all. The sources are another matter, however and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of independent reliable sources. Overall, I think this article could be improved, but I'm not sure it ever will be without some better sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I nominate articles that have no sources, but try to make each nomination read differently than "this has no sources". Abductive (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is a reason to delete: this outfit fails of notability. From what I could piece together from the aforementioned (and desperately miniscule) 16 Google hits, this outfit was a splinter sect of a splinter sect of a splinter sect consisting of less than a half-dozen parishes, which according to a couple of the sources itself split in two and rejoined different factions of the Liberal Catholic Church. No reliable, independent sources exist.  RGTraynor  11:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no assertion of notability, no sources cited. So far as I can tell, RGTraynor has it right, and one has to wonder: are we going to have a new article every time a new church is founded? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the mirroring edits, since the page should either be deleted or redirected. Per Ardua (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unsourced, hopelessly confusing article. Delighted to see it re-created in a useful form idc. Springnuts (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is a very poor article. If I am right in thinking it is a very minor sect, it cannot be kept. If it indeed has the same content as Liberal Catholic Church, the best solution will be to merge/redirect, removing the article from the related template. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it is an unhealed split from Liberal Catholic Church. But I can't be sure; which is part of the problem. Springnuts (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles failing WP:Verifiability must be deleted. Abductive (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the article stinks. It is terribly confused and unclear. However, I must ask if anyone has any specific objection to it becoming a redirect? Then it could still help users find content they were looking for. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection here.  RGTraynor  02:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection. Per Ardua (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might this then confuse the issue still more by implying that LCCTS is the same organisation as LCC? Which we are unsure about? Springnuts (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly; the word "synod" often means a church council and in no way would a person know that this synod is a schism. I also point out that the article creator is aware that the article is up for deletion but has made no effort to explain it better. Abductive (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strokers Dallas[edit]

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

Blatant advertising. Fails notability Dbratland (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Strokers Dallas isn't 'notable', perhaps Rick Fairless is, since he's well known in custom choppers due to his TV and radio appearances. I'll grant you that the long blerb someone added to the article from the menu doesn't conform to Wikipedia practice. If we remove the menu blerb leaving the rest of the article, which won't be much more than a stub, be more palatable? n2xjk (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. If you wanted to write a page on Rick Fairless, I think you could justify it. He is the subject of parts of some books and of some articles. But this restaurant still fails notability to have a page of its own. It's perfectly fine to delete Strokers Dallas now, and then some day if Rick Fairless were created, a redirect from Strokers Dallas to Rick Fairless could be created to go with it.--Dbratland (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A search didn't find any deep articles about Strokers Dallas that weren't PR. tedder (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as this article it completely unsourced, and comprises of original research in which various personal opinions about the proprietor and his family are made in contravention of WP:BLP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Above, Dbratland talks about 'this restaurant' but Stokers Dallas is three (or more?) businesses in one, the Chopper dealership, the restaurant/bar and tattoo shop. I think Strokers Dallas has sufficient notability to remain an article. I'll remove the menu blerb, which I expect triggered the deletion request. n2xjk (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the number of links to Strokers Dallas from other motorcycle related pages, albeit many of those are via the Template:USA motorcycle manufacturers. n2xjk (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is the lack of secondary sources on the subject of Stokers Dallas (not on the subject of Rick Fairless or his radio show or on any other thing; on Stokers Dallas). The relevant criteria are on the page Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". This other stuff is beside the point.--Dbratland (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see from your user page you are into motorcycles, but can you see why I think Strokers Dallas is unique even among chopper dealerships? I've been there, and I live in New York and don't own a motorcycle of any sort. Notice that in this reference it is described as a "Landmark/Tourist Attraction": [44]. Maybe in this case its a little harder to separate the person from the business, because any coverage of Rick Fairless includes mention of Strokers Dallas, and any coverage of Strokers Dallas mentions Rick Fairless. In any case, Rick Fairless and Strokers Dallas having been covered on Discovery Channel and Speed Network, which are on most US cable and dish networks, would seem to handle the national media requirement of 'notability.' n2xjk (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NCircle[edit]

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

This article about a tech service (information security) business does not make a strong case for its notability. Proposed deletion was apparently tried before, on the grounds of advertising, and the article was apparently deleted under that proposal once; see the talk page. No formal references, but a long list of external links, apparently tech industry trade publications in which representatives of this business have been quoted, on articles relating to various patch updates from Microsoft and Apple, the programming in IPhones: most are not closely related to this business, or about it as their actual subject. Some are blogs. Others are dead links. This non-consumer Internet related business does not appear to obviously meet the business notability guidelines. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as this linkfarm is pure spam. In any case, there is no evidence that this company, its products (or should I refer to them as nProducts?), employees or directors are notable.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AS STATED IN THE DISCUSSION PART OF THE NCIRCLE PAGE:

I've read through the notability page and I think that this article meets all the specific criteria.

"Significant Coverage"- I've linked multiple news sources to the article that cover both the company and products. They are very highly rated news sources within the field that nCircle works, and show the impact that the company and it's employees have on the IT Security field.

"Reliable"- The sources that are linked are published in multiple magazines and are separate from nCircle and its website or advertising media.

"Sources"- All cited sources are secondary sources.

"Independent of the subject"- The information in the article is not from nCircle advertising or publication materials. It is separate from the company and can be verified through the secondary sources that have been cited.

"Presumed"- with the amount of coverage that has been posted in the media section, as well as the number of topics to which this article relates , (IT Security, network security, penetration testing, payment card industry security standards, etc.) the article has enough objective evidence of notability and can be presumed notable.

I feel that I've met all the noteability requirements as laid out in the notability page. Is there anything else I can do to make it more noteable, or to prevent it from being deleted?

As for the argument that the links are not sources about ncircle but where ncirlce is quoted: ncircle is highly respected in its field for information on security. That includes a lot of software patches and security measures. Not every article will be a biography of the company, and cannot be expected to be. They do, however, show very well that ncircle is where major news sources turn for information on the security atmosphere and that fact reinforces the notablility and impact of the company.

Why is this coming up again? I met all the requirements and had a discussion with someone about it all once. PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT SO THAT THIS DOES NOT GET DELETED. It is not spam, or marketing, or anything else having to do with the company-- it is merely information about the company and its history.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpelton (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CORP. This is a spammy vanity advertisement. --EEMIV (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of the 10 or so refs given, 3 are dead links. 2 are semi-press releases. 1 is written by the company's employee. The remainder, 3 news stories in which company employee is quoted, and one short "company profile", does not seem to satisfy WP:CORP. This is blatant advertisement. Tim Song (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Toolan[edit]

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

Non-notable young go-getter. Smells like self-promotional spam to me. —Chowbok ☠ 18:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTBLOG. Speaking of that, the only Google hits I can find are to places like Facebook, and those pages appear to be about different individuals with that name. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL. Joe Chill (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only arguable distinction is the Fulbright; but we obviously can't have a page for every Fulbright recipient. Also per THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL. Tim Song (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another online CV full of promo-speak. One would imagine that if he worked for the UN, then he would be able to come up with better references than a couple of photos of him at a party. In fact, many of the links to references appear to not support the phrase they are associated with: For example: "He was named a Fellow of the International Human Rights Consortium (IHRC/CIDH) in Geneva, Switzerland where he spent time covering sessions at the United Nations’ Working Group on Indigenous Populations[11] and attending the very last two Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights with an ECOSOC NGO in 2004 and 2005." where ref 11 contains only one mention of Jeff Toolan which says: "In the evening, a large group dined at the Groton Hotel, where proprietor Jeffrey Toolan spontaneously gave a moving speech about his work with the United Nations!" (the Groton Hotel is in Groton, New York). Hardly conclusive proof of being named a Fellow of the International Human Rights Consortium. Astronaut (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fastpencil[edit]

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

Article that lacks reliable sources, written in a spam-mode, and one that would quickly fail WP:CORP; a "weak claim of importance" lacks consistency —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete couldn't find any third party coverage [45]. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this article was created by a WP:SPA. It fails notability. The references are somewhat disturbing - including a cite that links to a secured login page. I really don't see the encyclopedic value of an article like this. Groink (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Without prejudice against renomination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Abigail[edit]

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

No reliable third party sources. His official website says the song "mojito song" was certified gold, but I can find no third party sources to confirm that. Aditya (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – Multiple third-party sources I found on Google News do confirm that his single "Mojito Song" charted. I added two sources just now. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator withdrew after notability was demonstrated. Closing over 2 outstanding delete !votes per WP:IAR (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pasquale Sbarra[edit]

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

Hasn't played a game yet and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE Spiderone (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. It appears that the nominator has withdrawn but there are still outstanding delete !votes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A'la Fu[edit]

AfDs for this article:
A'la Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I tried finding reliable sources to help improve/source the article, but Google shows none. The only site with proper information in it is: [46] which is basically self promotion (not a third party source). Aditya (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Without prejudice against renomination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheraz Ali Muskrahat[edit]

Sheraz Ali Muskrahat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No gnews hits. Non-notable author/writer. Gordonrox24 | Talk 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Klamm[edit]

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

Previously deleted as a copyvio of http://andreasklamm.wordpress.com/about/ but the formatting makes me think it's equally likely the wordpress page was copied from the Wikipedia article (or, of course, from the author's hard drive) to ensure it stays visible. Or whatever...you know what I mean. Anyway, with that aside, I can't find anything reliable to verify his notability; the article makes plenty of claims, but most of them are from the same or similar sources. Seems to be just an exercise in self-promotion. Closedmouth (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is Reduce to stub a valid verdict? Because if all narcissist content were to be removed from the article that is what would remain. Not sure about notability, though, as long as he is director of a radio station (equally fishy, created by same COI editor, could maybe be co-nominated). P.S.: Just reinstated the AfD template on the page. --Pgallert (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to vote for that, if you think it would improve the article, just do it. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would be a larger task, I have offered help in this regard on the talk page. Without the original authors consent it smells too much of possible drama. Also, the notability issue would have to be sorted out first. --Pgallert (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That is one bizar article, thousands of words and not a single reliable reference. Or book--unless we start counting Books on Demand as a major publisher. There's plenty of hits for the name on Google News! But they're all press releases (almost all from pressemitteilung.ws), even if some of them at first glance don't look like it, such as this one. I'd love to go through and start chopping, but it's too much, and I have faith in the AfD process. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete incredibly detailed article but nothing to really demonstrate how he is notable in a third party source. -Falcon8765 (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. I wouldn't call it detailed either, just long, rambling and promotional. This article was created by and pretty much the only contributor is an account associated with the radio network. Wikipedia is not a webhost for this company nor is it a vehicle for promoting their shows.--RadioFan (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - autobio spam and ranting WP:SOAPBOX violations. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This is a discussion in which the !votes are spread all over the place. The arguments for keeping seem to rely on speculation on the notability of roads. Whether or not the guidelines should be amended, as for now, we must stick to what we have. These roads are not inherently notable, and failing GNG, should not have their own articles. I was on the verge of calling this one a "delete," but found SmokeyJoe's argument difficult to disregard. Therefore, I am closing this as "no consensus" between delete and merge. If anyone objects to the merger, please drop a note on my talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbediengveien ++[edit]

Abbediengveien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Abbediengen terrasse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aagots vei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aasmund Vinjes vei (Oslo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aasta Hansteens vei (Oslo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Small, suburbian roads, not notable in any way. Geschichte (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Norwegian Wikipedia has done a great job of creating viable articles for very many of Oslo's streets, including historical data. We should treasure the opportunity to be able to transfer that work here with little effort. __meco (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The preceding argument is based on no policy or guideline I am familiar with. Is there WP:TREASURE or WP:GREATJOB? Edison (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of what we have done in the past, we should start keeping them. DGG (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with that notion. Maybe it's time to revise our notability guidelines if articles on streets like these which rather self-evidently are useful in giving people a background on the geography of their neighbourhoods and thus also a stronger sense of community, aren't deemed worthy in the present wording of the guidelines. __meco (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why? We have never established that every street in the world is inherently notable. A street is not a town. No evidence it satisfies WP:N. Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree what I said is not current practice. I'm suggesting we might want to change it. An encyclopedia can include a gazetteer. If a village of 10 house is notable, even if it has no organs of government, so might a street be of the same size.It's not unreasonable for someone to want to look it up here. We can provide verified information. And the consensus at the Norwegian WP appear to think so also, so I'm not uniquely peculiar in this view. I have waited for some support such as this to make the suggestion here. DGG (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, if you wish to launch Wikiteer as the "online gazetteer anyone can edit," I wholeheartedly encourage you and will support the project any way I can. It would serve a useful function different from that of an encyclopedia, just as Wiktionary and Wikinews do. This is not Wikiteer. Edison (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According the first of the five pillars Wikipedia incorporates the same elements of gazeteers as of encyclopedias. Print encyclopedias have always overlapped with print gazeteers, but the two types of publication have been kept separate for reasons of physical size. There's no reason to maintain such an arbitrary ill-defined distinction when we don't have such restrictions. Keep. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, maybe we have the opposite situation, and policy needs to be changed the other way? Who says a village of 10 people is notable? That's the way we do things now, but why? Gazetteers exist for a reason, and perhaps we shouldn't be duplicating their work at Wikipedia. Firestorm Talk 04:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is this AFD listed twice? Someone please delete the duplicate. Edison (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to indicate these roads are notable at all. Some roads, such as Downing street, are notable in and of themselves, while most roads are not. Bad Article Ideas criterion 2 applies here. Firestorm Talk 03:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing the GNG. Town streets that lack documentable historical or other significance have routinely been deleted at AfD. If DGG and Meco want to change this situation, I suggest that they seek a more appropriate forum. Deor (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable streets. Joe Chill (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all to the suburb they are in. These street articles contain encyclopedic information, such as history, how names, and appropriate intra-wiki links. This sort of information is part of the vision of wikipedia containing the sum of all human knowledge (but keeping spam and nonsense out). Granted, streets should probably not have their own articles, due to lack of interesting content differing from the next street, and the organisation and presentation of the information needs work, which means that merging all the streets into their suburbs, and dealing with them there is a productive way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these street articles seem to contain some documentable historical or other significance, and so the information has a place in Wikipedia.
  • References to WP:N and WP:GNG argue that these should not be stand-alone articles, but say little about whether we want to keep the information somehow. In each of these cases, the suburbs are existing articles that look like they need more content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I can't say it better than meco's response to DGG and DGG. Pzrmd (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per SmokeyJoe. Not all streets are notable. See WP:50k. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Unanimous consensus to keep exists. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pave the Way Foundation[edit]

Pave the Way Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization that does not meet the criteria laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It has not been the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". There are no sources cited in the article and the only external links are to their website and a reprinted press release (you can tell its a press release because it ends with the section "about the pave the way foundation" and a link to the email of their PR person). Savidan 01:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article asserts notability and there are several sources. The claim "initiating the largest Jewish audience in history to meet with a sitting Pope" would demonstrate notability. There are not many references to substantiate this and other claims; inline citations would help and the article has been so tagged. A Google search reveals several news articles about this organization. Although these are not from top-of-the-line sources like the NY Times, they seem to be reliable. I suggest we let the Wiki community of editors enhance this article, especially by adding verifiable secondary sources. Truthanado (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The claim you mention originates on the PTWF website, not a reliable or independent source. [47] I have performed the same google news search. There are reprints of PTWF press releases or otherwise trivial mentions. Savidan 01:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the creator of the entry, I found the foundation to be a fairly notable group within Christian-Jewish relations. There are actually very few interfaith organizations such as the PWF that address inter-religious issues in a bilateral perspectives, instead of doing just Jewish concerns about Christianity, such what the anti-Defamation League is mainly interested in. Also, the organization's research on biblical, cultural and historical topics (including Pope Pius XII) probably gives it sone kind of notablility. It has also been recognized as a valuable dialogue partner by Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox authorities. ADM (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ADM, your comment fails to make any reference to independent, reliable sources. Savidan 17:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added refs from USA Today & the Jerusalem Post, and there are more in G News archive [48], mixed in among the press releases. Needs adjustment for NPOV, though it could be worse--If you really want to see a POV article, check the esWP version. The author should have done some research to find the refs; and so should the nominator. DGG (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These articles are primarily about Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. They only trivially mention PTWF. The USA Today article only mentions them because it takes a quote from their spokesperson (this is no different than many other non-notables that are quoted in newspapers). The JTA article reprinted by JPost is a blurb about the documents, not about PTWF. Savidan 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as showing their work in context, DGG (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In spite of "It has not been the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources"." it took minimal looking to find http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/12057. The Tablet is is a reliable independent source, pre-eminent in its field, in the UK certainly. If an organisation convincing the Pope to host a three-day symposium at Castelgandolfo and speak to it himself isn't an indication of notability, how high do deletionists want to set the bar? Opbeith (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, minimal looking finds http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/tag/pope-pius-xii/ - Reuters religion editor Tom Heneghan's Reuters Blog considers the organisation notable enough to refer to the symposium and link to the website. It is tedious the way people waste everyone's precious time by picking on an article which is useful, has involved contributors in work but is less than perfect in fulfilling Wikipedia's formal rules. Fine, focus the spotlight on the genuinely trivial or self-serving and get them to justify their existence. But why be destructive and deter people from working on Wikipedia? Pedant administrators destroy a lot of enthusiasm and deter potential contributors. Sometimes their efforts result in a lot of useful work being thrown away. There's no hope of making every Wikipedia article perfect, so concentrate on productive scrutiny and if a worthwhile article is defective, help make good the deficiencies, or just send a friendly reminder to originators and major contributors, while respecting the other calls on their time. That's a lot more productive than fostering antagonism, resentment and discouragement. Administrators have a responsibility to understand the world Wikipedia and its contributors exist in. Opbeith (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yungstar[edit]

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

DELETE this as well as Patrick Lemon which was created as an end-run around our WP:BLP policies. This has been tagged for two years as being a living person biography in need of sources and they're just not getting here fast enough. Is this person notable or not? If there isn't anything in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties then please do the right thing. JBsupreme (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toh Tuck[edit]

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

This article fails to explain why the subject is notable. It is not clear whether this residential area exists or still under construction. Apart from being unencyclopedic , it is not referenced. Hitro 20:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Being a neighborhood of Singapore is an explanation of why it's notable. But I'm having trouble figuring out if it's actually a distinctive neighborhood. There seems to be a collection of streets with the "Toh Tuck" variation; ie Toh Tuck Road or Toh Tuck Terrace. But these seem to be part of the Bukit Timah neighborhood, which I would likely choose to keep if there was such an article. For this one, I don't know if anyone says "I live in Toh Tuck." --Oakshade (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've not done any research into this, but our Bukit Timah article implies that there is a district with that name as well as the hill the article focuses on. If this is the case, and the Toh Tuck collection of streets is part of the district, a merge might be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as Singapore is small enough and densely populated enough to only have so many regions, and this one is well-attested on the web. JJL (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether a merge is warranted can be worked out on the talk pages. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge as a real place. Remove the bus routes as per WP:NOTGUIDE, consider adding it to Wikitravel. A section on the history of the bus routes would be appropriate, but things specific to the immediate now are not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have deleted the bus routes section, removed the references and already categorized. Considered okay to keep. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There was a potential development towards the end of the discussion; while I considered relisting to allow this to be evaluated, I feel sufficient consensus has formed to close this as delete. This decision made with no prejudice towards recreation/restoration if it's confirmed that the Kosovan league is indeed fully professional. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egzon Kuqi[edit]

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

Not yet played at a fully professional level for a major club. I feel he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOTE Trevor Marron (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE due to him not having played in a fully-professional league and playing "internationally" for a team in the NF-Board made up of de-facto states, races/origins of people and territories and islands passes either. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of third-party sources, beyond the odd trivial mention. --Jimbo[online] 08:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kosovo national team is not officially recognized by either UEFA or FIFA (and, imho, will hardly get recognized in the next future). League appearances in Kosovo are irrelevant, since the league is not fully professional. Therefore the subject fails WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that the subject has played in a fully professional league per WP:Athlete. Plainly does not meet WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not yet a fully-pro footballer, can be recreate after he made his La Liga debut. Matthew_hk tc 22:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to this forum post, the Kosovan league is fully professional. I don't know if there's anything more concrete out there, but if this is true it'll certainly have a bearing on this AfD. I'll see what I can find before casting a !vote. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hilal ibn Ali[edit]

Hilal ibn Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has no sources and fials WP:n Irunongames • play 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - unlikely to be an auto-biog, if he is the son of Imam Ali and currently resides in a mausoleum. References and evidence of notability may yet appear: this article was AFD'd 3 minutes after it was created. Why so hasty? Per Ardua (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, Didn't mean to add auto-biog. Also just because your a son of someone important doesn't mean you are notable. Also you have to remember that their are no sources at all. If they are to improve the article I think I would drop the AFD Irunongames • play 00:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The two given refernces are reliable and verifiable. Rirunmot (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete At present none of this is reliable enough to go in wikipedia. The article calls his mother 'Umama' one of the two web refs calls his mother 'Ameneh' and the other of the two web references calls his mother 'Amamah' the article as written is largely OR and unless better references can be cited this cannot realy remain. Polargeo (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think that we should treat differences in transcription as evidence of unreliability. Remember that spelling of names even in their native alphabets was still inconsistent nearly a millennium after Hilal ibn Ali's mother's time (William Shakespeare used several different spellings of his own name), and transliteration between the Arabic and Roman alphabets is by no means consistent even today. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YubNub aliases[edit]

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

A unofficial web service for which I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The subject thus does not meet the primary inclusion criterion (N). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 00:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nowhere near enough coverage in reliable sources to assure the web service's notability. No Google News results and only about 200 Google search results, none of which look like reliable sources. Since it is out of service, is unofficial, and has received such scant coverage, it's likely not worth merging to or even a mention at YubNub. Timmeh 00:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YubNub may not be the most popular web service, but it is used by hundreds if not thousands of people every day. This sub-article covers a significant aspect of YubNub configuration that was provided by YubNub aliases and now Yahoo! Open Shortcuts. Considering that this is a subject of interest to more technical users and not the general public should lead you to conclude that it is notable as far as web content goes. gomelet (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails to meet WP:WEB; no assertion of or evidence of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whiz Kids (Book)[edit]

Whiz Kids (Book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a book that has no indication of meeting the notability guideline. I could find no sources, neither in a search of Google News nor in a library database, that would help to support its general notability. Anon IP removed the Prod tag without comment. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Mesaros[edit]

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

I can't find evidence that he meets WP:People. I can't verify the claim about Purchasing Magazine to see if it helps, the 'seminal' book seems very non-notable, the Ohio thing seems pretty trivial as well (the 36 World-class finalists). I've edited it a bit so people might want to check earlier versions. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article reads like a resume, not a wikipedia article, was created by a user whose username suggests he might be affiliated with this company, and has been deleted twice under CSD G11. (second time the deleting admin restored it himself). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Laubach[edit]

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

Article about a storm chaser with no assertion or evidence of notability; created and heavily edited by Laubacht (talk · contribs), presumably the subject of the article. RunningOnBrains(talk page) 04:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - KMGH Denver refers to him as among "Colorado's best-known severe weather chasers". I doubt this is enough to establish notability, though. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @921  ·  21:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - described as a "weather paparazzi" in news articles: [49]. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Deville (Talk) 02:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Amine Kabli[edit]

Mohammed Amine Kabli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable footballer who doesn't play in a professional league Spiderone (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 10:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - he's played in the Morocco top flight. Do you know that its only semi-pro? Jogurney (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Kabli has played several years in the Moroccan top flight and has significant accomplishments such as winning the 2008 Moroccan Cup. Article needs more work, but is close to passing general guideline, and I suspect it passess WP:ATHLETE as well (I have no reason to believe the Moroccan top flight is semi-pro). Jogurney (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The list of fully professional leagues doesn't include the Moroccan league so we can't assume it's professional either. I don't think being called up and not playing makes someone notable either. Spiderone (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I agree that a national team call-up does not provide much notability, this guy has played eight seasons in the Moroccan Botola and was part of the 2008 Cup-winning side. I'd say that's notable for a nation like Morocco with a strong footballing tradition. I suspect the Botola is fully-pro, but don't have the sources to show it (since my French is extremely limited and I don't read any Arabic). Jogurney (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nomination is incorrect, the league is professional - at least according to List of professional sports leagues#Football: Association Football. Nfitz (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This "list" also features the Bangladeshi league, the Azerbaijani league, the Icelandic league etc. too. It is also unsourced and therefore unreliable. Spiderone (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep Seems like nomination was in bad faith. Cheers, I'mperator 23:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Edgar[edit]

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

Little known public figure from Illinois. Does not satisfy notability guidelines Faye45fashions (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Being the governor of the State of Illinois easily passes the guideline for politicians WP:POLITICIAN. Curtis (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Faye45fashions may be a one purpose account. Curtis (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that purpose is vandalism. Vandalism of new kind. Hitro talk 19:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This must have been some kind of joke or a living example of pure blatant vandalism. Hitro talk 19:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I'm not sure what this nomination is about but I have a hard time believing it's serious. Rnb (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_23&oldid=1142644724"