Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 July 27 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thug Motivation 103[edit]

Thug Motivation 103 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deprodded without reason. Confirmed that artist is working on album, but no confirmed tracks or track listing, producers, release date or sufficient information. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. Taylor Karras (talk) 23:40, 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. Cirt (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo 64 Emulator[edit]

Nintendo 64 Emulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Content of article is completely vague. There is no indication of what specific piece of software the article is about. It seems to serve no purpose other than to state what all emulators do and give some random examples of supported games. There are no links to this article. Halsteadk (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I nearly nominated it for the same reasons. Mintrick (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in here is specific to N64 emulation, besides the list of games (which is useless - it's just a list of a couple well-known games). The text is barely coherent, and would not be useful at a more general article. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:05, 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. Cirt (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal and Rob Data[edit]

Kemal and Rob Data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, does not appear to be with a major label or major documented contributions to field. MBisanz talk 22:15, 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. Cirt (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dempsey roll[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to establish any sort of notability in its real form or its fictional form. TTN (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The lack of documentation of the real move and the triviality of the fictional versions does seem lacking the proper notability. The minute bit of research I did on Dempsey did not turn up anything on the move, and I believe the move was more popularized by the manga series Fighting Spirit (manga). Any details that do turn up are better suited for Jack Dempsey and the series. Unless significant coverage of the term by reliable sources turns up, I see no reason to keep the article on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment - Jack Dempsey died before the Internet. This may be notable, or not, but paper sources need to be found. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two of the sources I have are HBO boxing videos. One is specifically about Dempsey and his career, but has nothing about the move. There other is about Mike Tyson's career and his analysis of other boxers, including Dempsey. Tyson was also said to have used the Demspey Roll, but there was no mention of that in his video either. To be honest, after watching fight reels, I've never seen anything that looks like what the manga and anime portrayed. There are a few fights of Dempsey and Tyson were they do 2–3 consecutive hooks in a bobbing motion, but that's as close as I've seen. That's all original research on my part though. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - nom has it right; if there's somehow some offline sources relevant, a redirect might be appropriate, unless somehow somebody wrote a book on this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:16, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Mitchell (pornographic actress)[edit]

Blake Mitchell (pornographic actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources, no signficant or credible claim to notability, negligible content, fails all versions of WP:PORNBIO Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:20, 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. Cirt (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tino Quezada[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:ENT, unreferenced, prod contested by anonymous editor Per Ardua (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Per Ardua (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This non-notable article probably could have gone speedy. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Horribly fails WP:ENT and roles like "Bus passenger" and "corrections officer" aren't going to get you past it either. Working "alongside" notable people won't do it either. Notability isn't contagious. Future roles don't help and a word to the author: Proof your promotional efforts. It's up and coming, not comming. (And up and coming tells us he hasn't arrived yet). Niteshift36 (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and allow return once WP:BIO or WP:GNG can be met. The one-sentence article sums itup nicely: "Tino Quezada is an up and comming actor from New York City. He has worked alongside Jammie Foxx, Gerard Butler and is starring alongside Dev Pattel in M. Knight's, The last Airbender." Wikipedia does not want "up-and-coming". Wikipedia does not want note by relationship. Wikipedia wants here-and-arrived per WP:N. When Tino finally "arives", he'll be welcomed back. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:10, 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 delete - nn-bio of some school kid. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Robert Lucero V's Law of centrifugal Force[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Manuel Robert Lucero V's Law of centrifugal Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested prod, removed by creator with no improvement to article. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. RadioFan (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is very nearly db-bio material - there's quite a bit of information on the author, but next to no information on the "law of centrifugal force". (Which, incidentally, is based on an incomplete understanding of physics: the author would do well to read centrifugal force and take note of the concept of the frame of reference.) Zetawoof(ζ) 23:40, 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 16:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SmartLynx Airlines destinations[edit]

SmartLynx Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested Prod. There is no reason for this article, which looks to be promotional in intent. It should be deleted and the content merged into SmartLynx Airlines Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - I contested the PROD. I understand Jezhotwells' concerns however many airline articles are supplemented by a seperate destination list particularly when the list is long and would seriously effect the length of the article (e.g BMI (airline) which is supplemented by BMI destinations). In addition, the WikiProject Aviation/Style guide advises that "Once an airline has more then 10 destinations, especially international ones, they could be listed in a stand alone article" - the SmartLynx destination list meets this criteria with more than fifteen destinations. AreaControl (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no remotely plausible argument that this list would over-extend the length of the source article. In fact, the source article should be relabeled as a stub. Shadowjams (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Why can't this be integrated into the original article? An airline's notability doesn't justify the spin off notability of a dozen of articles... for instance, destinations, arrivals, connections, etc. Unless there're articles talking about these destinations/arrivals and why they're relevant, there's absolutely no reason for this kind of fork. Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a reason for it, it shortens the main airline article. Policies and guidelines provided by the relevant Wikiprojects mandate that airlines with more than ten destinations could have seperate lists, if this practise did not happen we would have incredibly long airline articles for no reason. This is a long established practise on Wikipedia for airlines AreaControl (talk) 22:24, 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.
  • Strong Keep - As already said, the page was made as there were over 10 destinations, therefor it fits into the criteria. Zaps93 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 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 keep. per improvement in article Spartaz Humbug! 21:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary slavery[edit]

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

contested prod removed without improvement to the article. Unreferenced WP:neologism

Comment- this could basically be used as an example of Community Service or Volunteering. Slavery is forced servitude. You can not be a voluntary slave.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary either.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBC had a discussion on unpaid workers[1] [2] on the web vs old style paying journalist. i guess you people don't know there really is Voluntary slavery out there. the example that was given was the Huntington Report where most of their journalist don't get paid. Jane Benn (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC) comment added by Jane Benn (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you prove any of this?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Could you provide a specific reference please? Saying you heard or saw something doesn't quite get it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an article on Voluntary slavery? did I miss something?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea, you might be able to construct an article on "Unpaid journalism" because that term is used in the sources. Deciding for yourself that it constitutes "voluntary slavery" is original research and would probably be seen as extremely insulting to these journalists. We don't get paid to write Wikipedia articles either, that doesn't make us slaves. Volunteering to do something is not slavery. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the meaning used by the current article doesn't seem notable as discussed above, let's redirect it to Dominance and submission or somewhere similar which certainly is notable and which the phrase could easily mean. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Didn't the definition say free work for profit making organisations? Is Wikipedia a profit making organisations? One of the experts on the CBC radio show said: a few people making profits over the work of many working for free is not new. That sound like he meant slavery and if people are with there own free will helping others get rich by working for them for free it could be: Voluntary slavery. Jane Benn (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Voluntary slavery is deleted this discussion has been good. why aren't we being paid to make the entries in Wikipedia? why do web journalist overwelmingly get zip while others get rich over there labour? unpaid journalist might not be insulted but might demand payment if they knew they were Voluntary slaves. Jane Benn (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Content may well be king but it feels so wrong to me that the content on The Huffington Post is obtained for free by luring writers with promises of “visibility, promotion and distribution.” Sure, it cannot harm your career to have an article published on the site, something which I’m unlikely now ever to manage after writing this article, but there should surely be some monetary compensation for the writers involved." [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Benn (talk • contribs) 21:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • We aren't being paid because we're supposed to be doing this because we care. But you are right, it isn't exactly the same thing because Wikipedia is not-for-profit. But, don't these journalists know they aren't being paid? They weren't dragged out of their homes and chained to a desk and whipped if they didn't type fast enough (at least I hope not). Probably they do it for the same reason that actors appear in web-only tv shows for free: because they want the exposure and hope it will lead to actual paying work. Slavery is by it's very nature coercive, I don't see that here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Huffington Post CEO Betsy Morgan and co-founder Jonah Peretti dismissed criticisms that the liberal-leaning news aggregation site's traffic could plummet after 2008 election buzz quiets down, saying that over half the site's traffic now comes from its non-politics sections. "We're in six verticals, (and) we're going to many more," Morgan said. The Huffington Post now "employs" 1,600 unpaid bloggers but has fewer than 50 full-time employees, and has seen its traffic triple in the past seven months." [4]

"In December, the Huffington Post raised another $25 million in funding. It was riding a wave of popularity--and scrutiny, considering its controversial views on paying for content and labor--in the wake of the 2008 presidential election, and was starting to aggressively expand coverage beyond politics. Long-term profitability, however, was still a question mark.In December, the Huffington Post raised another $25 million in funding. It was riding a wave of popularity--and scrutiny, considering its controversial views on paying for content and labor--in the wake of the 2008 presidential election, and was starting to aggressively expand coverage beyond politics. Long-term profitability, however, was still a question mark." [5]

  • That's a good source for an article about business models of news companies, but since it doesn't mention the phrase "voluntary slavery" we can't use it for this article without committing original research. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the interest of putting this issue to bed: A fundamental condition of slavery is not being able to quit. Writing a blog for free is not slavey, no matter if someone else is making money off it. These bloggers probably enjoy what they are doing, or they wouldn't be doing it. None of which even matters if there are no sources that actually use the words "voluntary slavery." No sources, no verification, no article. Verifiability is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and is one of the few things on Wikipedia that is non-negotiable. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • we need to know what the expert ment by: "many people working for free to making a few rich is not a new thing" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.15 (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • why isn't any one trying to help save the article. if i hadn't participated in the debate it would have been deleted the first day it went up. Has anybody, among you, started, an article and it was deleted or do you only go around stopping othere who start articles? Jane Benn (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is trying to save it for all the reasons everyone has stated here. It fails the most fundamental criteria that must be met for an article. It can't be saved without verification. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that particular point, but that is the reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your frustration, Jane. I have also made a page and had it deleted. It was on a topic which I thought was clearly notable, but when I made it I failed to give enough sourcing for other editors to verify that. So the person who deleted it was acting perfectly reasonably. Still, I was a little upset by it - but instead of remaining so I went and collected some sources and (with a friend) rewrote the article. It's now here, and I don't see it being deleted again any time soon because it has numerous reliable sources which directly address the subject of the article. If you, or someone else, can find those for this topic then I'm sure we'll all be willing to support the article's inclusion - but sourcing of that type really is non-negotiable.
Also, as an aside, deletion discussions (and PRODs) are always left for at least seven days before anything's deleted - so there was no risk of it disappearing the day you made it if you didn't respond quickly enough. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have rewritten the article from a good source which contains an extensive account of historical occurences of voluntary slavery. None of the previous content, which seemed too recent and polemical for us has been retained. Please reset the discssion from this new baseline. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's all there is to say (I'm assuming the source you cite specifically uses the term "voluntary slavery") then Merge with Slavery. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, based on your criteria that we re-evaluate based on how the article looks right now, I still say merge because it's a very short stub, with no prejudice against splitting it in the future if someone actually does expand it beyond it's current state. --Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm also not convinced by this rewrite that the topic needs its own article. The merge recommendation here is still the right one.--RadioFan (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It also goes by the name self-sale. The topic is widely discussed in scholarly sources, especially in ancient Near East scholarship. Slavery and History of slavery are pretty much fully pimped out. Neither cover self-sale or voluntary slavery and it's very likely that merging this material into one of those articles would result in it being later removed.

The concept had significant usage in Greco-Roman times, it's hardly a neologism at least as far as written history goes. We could rename the article the Latin equivalent, but that almost never flies on the English wikipedia (maybe okay for Romanesque wiki's like French, Spanish, or Italian, but not this one). Far better this translation than its historical latin counterpart. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in the new format about the historical practice. No very strong opinion on a merger, but that can be decided elsewhere after getting the opinion of anyone watching Talk:Slavery. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Bin Jassim[edit]

Fahad Bin Jassim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Biography that does not assert the importance of the individual; speedy delete declined. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G6 would only apply if no one at all would want to keep it. perhaps you are thinking of A7? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is a sheik, and is connected with the other ruling elite in the country, although this is more revealed by what links here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ruling elite of which country? What did he rule? "What links here" only indicates that he was a son of a Minister, certainly not notable in and of itself. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally unsourced bio with no assertion of notability. The term sheikh is often an honorific that doesn't immediately assert notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:46, 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) 00:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Storm (film)[edit]

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

This is the only reliable source with significant coverage that I can find. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Three millions people watched it, that makes it notable. Common sense, over the suggested and constantly changing guidelines. Dream Focus 16:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This film sounds awesomely bad. And William Shatner is a fan:[6] Here's some sources:[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Consider that barrel thoroughly scraped, but there's enough reliable sources to make this a Keeper. Fences&Windows 01:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and further expand and source the film per offered sources. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:37, 1 August 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. This rationale is nearly the exact same as the last AfD which got quickly SNOW'd out. The group is clearly notable, since they won a major talent competition and have lots of reliable coverage. JamieS93 19:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity (dance troupe)[edit]

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

Delete. This act has failed to achieve notability since appearing on the programme and have achieved nothing outside of the show. As previous articles have decreed (Brian Belo, Anthony Hutton) - winning an RTV show doesn't equal a Wikipedia article. Bravedog (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep on the contrary to the nomination, winning Britain's Got Talent confers automatic notability. While the Got Talent series is somewhat sui generis, the understanding in the previous AFD was that Julian Smith, had he won, would've passed NMUSIC, so the spirit of that guideline should be conferred onto the dance troupe. Sceptre (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nothing has changed since the previous AFD; notability is not temporary. Although all coverage is bound to comment on their involvement with BGT, there is coverage that doesn't revolve around their inclusion in the contest or their odds of winning – such as [14] (BBC) and [15] (local news) – and therefore passes the general notability guideline. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 13:01, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. (Non-admin closure.) Vicenarian (Said | Done) 17:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soho class frigate[edit]

Soho class frigate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced stub, seems to be based off of non-RS website AboveTopSecret.com (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread285661/pg1#pid3243812). — NRen2k5(TALK), 19:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh? Rather, relief; the other way round would be scary. The world hasn't gone mad and we're not in the middle of WW4 yet. NVO (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems notable. I am concerned about possible copy vio of image though. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ship classes and individual ships meet WP:N. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a real ship design (it's listed as being active with the North Korean Navy on page 395 of the 2009 edition of The Military Balance and I think that I've seen it in Jane's - both are very reliable sources) and warships are automatically notable given the level of coverage they receive. The article needs sources though. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reference in the article certainly looks reliable enough. Also shows up on one of my favorite semi-reliable sources: [16]. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I should note that I added the reference yesterday, after the article had been nominated for deletion. It was previously unreferenced. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, per SNOW and because the reasons for deletion cited by the nominator are no longer a problem. Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 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 Speedy keep, AFD started by banned user, someone else can do a new one if they want. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lulzim Zeqiri[edit]

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

Un-notable, vanity page. Freedomcomeup (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Capitalismojo (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Joe Chill (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Three basic reasons: There is no notability. No references. The only assertion of notability is being a co-winner of a (regional/local?) arts prize in 2003. (And I couldn't find any evidence that this prize exists.) Capitalismojo (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC
  • Delete per nom. -Falcon8765 (talk) 08:03, 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 merge to Winti. Spartaz Humbug! 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ampuku[edit]

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

Article is around 2-3 yrs old, and content is disputed. Can't find any sources and it isn't WP:NPOV. ZooFari 19:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, also I have read the article three times and still can't make heads or tails of it. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for.....hell, I don't know what policy to cite. But like Capitalismojo, I can't figure out what it is talking about. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Winti (if that's even possible - I echo the confusion of Capitalismojo and Niteshift36). — QuantumEleven 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Winti. Following Uncle G's rewrite,[17] the article is sufficiently comprehensible to merge. In addition to the sources that he used, this book offers some coverage, but I don't find enough sourcing to, in my opinion, merit a standalone article. GRBerry 14:09, 2 August 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel Circle of Stars[edit]

Disney Channel Circle of Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not an actual recording group; it is an infrequent gathering of musicians (for example, Artists Stand Up to Cancer). They have not released any albums, and neither of their two recorded songs have charted, a violation of WP:BAND. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 18:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correction - those are chart positions for the albums that their songs appeared on. And they weren't studio albums from the group; they were soundtracks that featured numerous artists. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 19:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The group, however, is not. No charted singles, no studio albums... and you still want to keep this? Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 00:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do explain why, when I have already called him out on how all of his points are invalid. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 03:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Turlo Loman accurately cites guideline, and subject is something reasonable people could plausibly want to find information about. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The group is about as notable as the Artists Stand Up to Cancer. I do agree with you that it is something people might want to find information to, but they are at this point not worthy of an article. As ASUtC is a redirect to "Just Stand Up!," perhaps information about the group can be merged into The Lion King (soundtrack) and Cinderella (soundtrack), especially as they had a different line-up on both of their songs. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 21:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria is met you say? Can you prove it, please?--The LegendarySky Attacker 03:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do. Turlo Lomon's explanation was flawed the minute he discussed how soundtracks the group appeared on - not their studio albums (which they don't even have) or singles - charted. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 18:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, they "performed music for a work of media that is notable", namely the Cinderella and Lion King soundtracks. Although that criterion goes on to say "if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article," since there are multiple soundtracks they contributed to and there is more to say about them, this wouldn't work. And in any case, that would be a merge, not a deletion. Rlendog (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested a merge - see above. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 02:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A merge discussion doesn't require AfD. But a merge still wouldn't work here, since they significantly contributed to at least two soundtracks. So the article could not be appropriately be merged into either one. Rlendog (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, a merge wasn't my original suggestion. Secondly, a merge would probably work well, especially since the line-up was significantly different on both of their soundtrack appearances. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 04:42, 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. Cirt (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marty kopulsky[edit]

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

Delete, Non notable. Did a google search and found he was credited under one broadway play in nytimes. nothing that even remotely mentioned him in ht article. [[18]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Can't find evidence of substantial treatment in reliable sources to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Deor (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems fairly notable for me, considering it'a a person that has made many appearances in many theatricals and TV shows. And the article's long enough to identify the subject. -- 科学高爾夫迷 17:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how he is notable as applies to wp:rsHell In A Bucket (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is another reliable source. -- 科学高爾夫迷 18:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TThat confirms he exists and works on broadway nothing more. Just working on broadway and having your name on the net does not make that person notable. Sorry that isn't a reliable source and doesn't explain how this person is notable.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see WP:CREATIVE to apply the wp:rs to.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to qualify for WP:ENT though. -- 科学高爾夫迷 20:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok which of these does he qualify as? Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities. Sorry but your arguement is wrong.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't come close to passing WP:ENT from what I see. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no coverage of his work, no evidence of awards or other recognition that would be indicative of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:32, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mesa Airlines v. Uslan lawsuit[edit]

Mesa Airlines v. Uslan lawsuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOTNEWS. Lawsuit of no apparent significance between employer and ex-employee that settled no important legal issues, was decided on technical grounds, and has no significant sourcing outside of as-it-happened local newspaper coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [also WP:NOTNEWS, heavily POV article created by SPA while dispute was going on, employee group involved in same dispute, no non-trivial coverage beyond as-it-happened local news]:

Hawaii's airline Employees Repelling Ornstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete as a non-notable lawsuit; if appealed, it may become notable. No comment on the other article, which is not entirely clear. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Really just an employee dispute that got covered by some business news and local sources because of the dollar amount. Big numbers don't mean notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:22, 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 Speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Alvarez[edit]

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

Autobiography per WP:AUTOBIO, non-notable per WP:BIO, unreferenced. Prod contested by creator. Per Ardua (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G11 as wholly promotional, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 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. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Cohen[edit]

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

Autobiographical self promotion. Only "source" is a reference to his own website. noq (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As stated in WP:BIO, There must be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I dont see any of that there. Harlem675 17:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. Google doesn't bring much to the surface either. Favonian (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to the article's talk page you are Brett Cohen's publicist and manager. Isn't that a cause for COI concern in this discussion? Favonian (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy if possible. Self-promotional, uncited, original author has been indef blocked for incivility and vandalism. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I'm a bit puzzled by one of the references used in the article, TV MOM: JERRY'S NOT MY BOY. As far as I can see, Brett Cohen isn't mentioned there at all. Favonian (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Cohen is not directly cited but the article is based on HIS interview with Liz Sheridan; therefore, the citation is accurate. (Parker (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Here is the interview by Brett Cohen which the New York Post article above cited: [19] (Parker (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Um, this is a blog site. I should also point out that Gailwin/Parker has been very quiet on this site until recently and I strongly suspect that this individual is a friend/meatpuppet rather than a legitimate promoter. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that my posting history under my account accurately reflects my wikipedia usage. Whatever, I'm opting out of this one now
Comment: I move for this to be speedied. Both users in question have been blocked and this discussion just got hit by what I believe to be a zombie proxy operated by one of the users. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second that motion. Favonian (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails many criteria, meets none Vartanza (talk) 04:55, 2 August 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 as a clearly non-notable, or non-existent, company. In my book, certain articles like hoaxes and intrinsically non-encyclopedic pages have a higher deletion priority than others. JamieS93 22:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's Motors[edit]

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

Fails notability for companies. This article borders on patent nonsense, and as far as I can tell almost everything here is a fabrication. Possibly a garage called "Mothers Motors" might have actually existed, but other than that it's a hoax. Dbratland (talk) 16:34, 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. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Levin[edit]

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

Article about a marginally notable businesswoman, created by editor with apparent strong COI with the subject. Only notability appears to have been winning the one award. Toddst1 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only claim to notability is that she won an "Ernst and Young Entrepreneur award in the 'Turnaround entrepreneur' category for the South-Eastern region". Hoowever this is not a notable award. Hence she fails WP:PEOPLE. LK (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet had the time to create the article on Leaders' Quest, but I think if you were to look at their website you would understand why she is notable, plus if you were to look at what the one voice movement does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Israelboy (talk • contribs) 07:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't see where a minor award gets her past notability. Niteshift36 (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. JForget 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krista (singer)[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails GNG, ENTERTAINER. Even failed to find her recordings (singles or album) on allmusic. Bongomatic 14:41, 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. JForget 22:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Near future in television[edit]

Near future in television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We can't get any more vague than "Near future in television". It's unencyclopedic and just plain silly. Not to mention that the article doesn't even respect its own definition of "near future", or almost entirely consists of upcoming anniversaries of TV shows. --Conti|✉ 13:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed; the efforts are certainly appreciated. --Ckatzchatspy 18:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but add more refs. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If the article had more content and was sourced, then keep, but there isn't, so no. BOVINEBOY2008 01:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Already shows signs of abuse, with regular additions of supposed "anniversaries"; the limited amount of relevant information can be merged (or is already available) elsewhere. --Ckatzchatspy 02:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and removed the anniversaries of shows that have been canceled but I think the shows that are still airing new episodes should be kept. I also changed "celebrates" to "marks". TomCat4680 (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just saw this after having removed the stuff. It, too, is crystal-ball material as we are assuming the series will still be on and the anniversary celebrated. --Ckatzchatspy 18:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the anniversaries are gone now, and the rest of the info is sourced, so I think this afd should be withdrawn. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to 2010s in television, and add a link to and brief summary of 2010 in television. This is exactly what was done with Near future in film (AfD). There is reliably sourced information about television events which are planned and almost certain to take place in the next few years, and these should be documented. But an article which by its title can never have permanent content is not the right way to do it; articles on decades are the proper way to present information when there is not enough to fill articles on individual years. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to reliably sourced information about future events, and WP:IINFO won't apply if the scope is properly defined to be a specific time period rather than a vague "near future". DHowell (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crystal ball gazing mixed with barrel scraping - digital switchover and the Olympic Games, and a couple of proposed series. This isn't a proper article, and it never will be. Fences&Windows 02:35, 1 August 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. Icewedge (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Starr[edit]

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

Not notable fictional character. No indication of meeting Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Kotiwalo (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article lacks context and statement of notability. --I dream of horses (T) @ 13:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A quick Google search reveals that the initiator of the article is also the author of the adventures (well, so far only one) of Keith Starr: Mibba. Nothing around which indicates notability. Favonian (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 15:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I did what I could with the article, my Google searches suggest that it is unpublished fiction, i.e. see what happens when you type in the author's name and the character on Google (no reviews or interviews even). As such, unless if the stories became published and critical commentary comes about, we cannot do much beyond what I tried--in other words we would either only be summarizing or duplicating one author's ideas. I usually support inclusion of fictional characters on Wikipedia, but within reason. They should receive at least some kind of media attention or inclusion in say multiple works of fiction in order to write an article effectively. Maybe the article is WP:HARMLESS, but unless if it becomes an internet sensation, it just seems not much different than if I invented my own character, write a short story on my personal website, and then tossed an article on here. I encourage the author to keep writing and would gladly support undeleting this article should the stories become published or receive reviews that we can use to expand the article. Finally, while not a WP:HOAX and verifiable, we really do need more than just the one author's source here. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that this is a notable character. Edward321 (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:HARMLESS.--Pedro thy master (talk) 01:08, 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 WP:SNOW, book is not just unpublished - per article, it's still unwritten. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Generous Courtesan[edit]

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

unpublished book by non notable author, fails WP:CRYSTAL WuhWuzDat 12:22, 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 keep. (X! · talk)  · @767  ·  17:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Woodburn[edit]

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

A student with two self published books. Notability not sufficiently established. noq (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, sources like this incline me to say gthis person is notable [[23]]Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, though I'm disturbed at the idea that self-publishing a couple of books and getting them on Amazon is an indicator of notability. Someone recently pointed out a scam wherein they might arrange to have some PDFs printed by Lulu.com and sold through Amazon in order to call themselves a "published author" on their CV. Reviews, independent sourcing, evidence the works have sold in some volume. Arguably, merely having a column (regular or otherwise) is not in and of itself notable (though often the work they have done to earn it is). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Her work has been praised by many authors such as Laurie Stolarz, Catherine Clark, and Randy Powell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.92.123 (talk) 00:24, 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. about to become a near snowball here - sufficent consensus JForget 23:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The link of the article nominated was only a redirect to Handsworth Grange Community Sports College. I added the oldafd tag on the talk page of the latter as well as removing its afd tag. --JForget 23:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Handsworth Grange School[edit]

Handsworth Grange School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article bareley contains anything, I did try to find references for it but I only really found one decent one. This doesnt meet WP:GNG and I dont think its suitable for Wikipedia. Harlem675 09:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral – have you tried talking with the article's creator? Often with this kind of article a gentle nudge may get them to fill in more information (of course nodding to WP:RS, WP:N etc etc). I would say "delete" but I always think it is better to give a chance for people to fill in more info, and have had some successes with that approach. However, school's out for summer so perhaps it will meet no response anyway. It is likely delete therefore and have the editor recreate it later if need be. SimonTrew (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Looking at the history, it appears most activity is by bots and removal of personal details (which still exist on the edit summary): phone numbers, addresses etc. Nothing of interest here in the article itself and because of the personal details I think it should go delete. The original creator is redlink. SimonTrew (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I did mean the edit summary and not the history diff. The phone numbers and addresses/postcodes were added on the edit summary at creation. SimonTrew (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no personal details here. Even if there were, then it would be a matter for cleaning and certainly not grounds for deletion.
TerriersFan (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote another response which appears to have miscarried but anyway this supersedes it. You are right, the details are given for school (inc. postcode) and headteacher's name, not particularly personal as such. They are on the edit summary of the creation as I said. I don't like to say yes I want that deleted (I am an inclusionist) but this is so scant of any meaningful details it is useless as an encyclopaedia entry. I still think it should be deleted and then created again if there is anything useful to say about it, or in the alternate, why don't YOU add the information you say exists and the RS etc? Otherwise it is the usual case of people saying "oh there is some stuff that could be added" but not actually doing it themselves. My stats will show you about 85% of my time is in article space, a bit in template space, some in user space and very little in WP space. Just take WP:BOLD and add it. SimonTrew (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a high school, large in UK terms, that is significant in its community. It also has sports college status. Such articles should be expanded not deleted and reliable sources are avaialable. TerriersFan (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 15:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 15:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The accetped view is that all High Schools are notable. Some may question that, but we do not have any objective criteria for deciding which are (and are not) notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TerriersFan expansion. Salih (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in line with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education: large secondary school, content of article is referenced or easily verified from school website. Qwfp (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Secondary schools are generally considered notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 18:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a large secondary school, which are generally considered notable. Allow for expansion.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 21:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is not a high school, neither in the american nor british sense. To say it is confuses the argument. It is an empty article and should be deleted. I agee that it should have some expansion, but since none has been shown, and those that have said it could be expanded have not done so, then delete it and when someone can be bothered to say something about it they can create it. Even though I am an inclusionist, I don't want 35,000 empty articles about schools. SimonTrew (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not empty now; it has sufficient information to keep as a stub. Salih (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently sourced and meets guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a High School and it is notable. I seem to recall that it has a long history, but School web sites these days never talk about the past. It is all about now. This needs investigating by an editor closer to Sheffield, where I was born. than to Melbourne, Australia. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a valid stub article with sufficient content on a suitably notable subject. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a secondary school which seems to have had a troubled history in recent years and consequently a lot of coverage in the national press. Plentiful sources are available to expand the article. Dahliarose (talk) 23:55, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Rosser[edit]

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

This nomination by 203.153.202.161 (talk) was incomplete. The edit summary says "shameless self promotion, does not meet WP:Notability". I'm not expressing any opinions myself. — Rankiri (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the article is filled with POV written by the subject, and those "sources" don't include the info presented here. 203.153.202.149 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC) — 203.153.202.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep, member of a notable band, and quite a bit of controversy and coverage over the Skinny Blonde thing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Being a member of a notable band or a controversial beer does not make this subject notable. See WP:N for notability standards. Sources listed are also not reliable, flat PR release without fact checking. 203.153.202.149 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. There are multiple independent sources for Rosser, for instance this, this and this, all of which I was able to find in about thirty seconds. I'd suggest a little more time looking for sources and a little less time trying to delete articles would be in order. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep member of notable band - independent verifiable references - may need to be re-written. Dan arndt (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in his own right apart from The Vines as sources indicate. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 17:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have gone through and cleaned up some of the problematic areas of this article, added sources, tweaked grammar, etc. Article could still use some work but I think it is far from "delete-able". :-) -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 17:52, 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 16:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have played animated characters[edit]

List of actors who have played animated characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and a pointless trivia list. Per original prod by User:RadioFan, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Prod removed by article creator without reason. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I just don't see any relevance or why anyone would care... it's almost like this is someone's "Garage band" but it's their "wikipedia project" ... ???? give me some notability assertion, use, or something.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A legitimate list. If you want to know this information, this is a good list to see, it linking to the movies and actors and series, all of which have wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 23:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — "I like it" is not a valid basis for keeping a noncompliant article. —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response It don't like nor dislike it, not caring about the subject matter at all. But it is a perfectly reasonable list to have in an encyclopedia. You could also have a list for actors who became elected officials, or Harvard graduates that became president of the United States of America. Dream Focus 22:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be precise, that's WP:USEFUL, not WP:LIKE. And they are arguments to avoid, not arguments that are not valid.
Om the contrary, Usefulness is a relevant criterion for navigational devices such as lists. DGG (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ATA: "Remember that a reason which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", can still have some valid points in it. For example, if a person argues for why an article is interesting, and the arguments for "interesting" are also reasonable arguments for "encyclopedic", it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay."
    If we're keeping track, I see here in this thing I just wrote that when it comes to looking at the content of arguments, a WP:USEFUL is worth 1.347 LIKEs/WP:IDLs and a wopping 1.782 WP:ITSCRUFTs, if only .304 DITTOs, and .287 WP:VAGUEWAVEs. Don't bite the noobs. Most of the folks here are permanoobs. At least the newcomers still have a chance of turning into real editors some day. Anarchangel (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize all actors into Category:Voice actors and Delete per nominator. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps then a new category... because there are more voice actors who have never been themselves in front of a camera, and more actors who have never provided voices for animation. This list or new category shows where the two fields meet. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Acceptable list--I dod not see what the list is noncompliant with--this is not indiscriminate since it refers only to notable fictions. If it referred to all such animated characters even in work not notable enough for Wikipedia , then, and only then, would it be indiscriminate. Brings together Wikipedia content for the sake of navigation (One person's trivia is another's important content) . Browsing is one of the key functions of any encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another inaccurate interpretation of the IINFO guideline. The problem is not that this list does not have discriminate inclusion criteria; the problem is that Wikipedia is not to indiscriminately include any and all lists of information. (In other words, IINFO does not say "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information"; it says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".) Powers T 13:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that this is where the IINFO references began. An uncategorical assertion that DGG's statement is incorrect, according to a specific rule, followed by vague assertions as to the meaning of a sentence in IINFO. There are many suppositions in the above two sentences regarding the use of WP rules and their role in maintaining the information on WP, and a great danger of misrepresenting them, as they are not defined. However, the most visible here is the belief that the choice of the word order of the sentence "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" was deliberate and in itself definitive of something. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not se the problem: "an indiscriminate collection of information" is a collection made without discriminaitng. This one does discriminate and includes only the notableDGG (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I really that unclear? The "collection" in that quotation is not the list, it's Wikipedia. The guideline says that Wikipedia must discriminate when it comes to deciding what information to include. Certainly the list must not be indiscriminate, either, but we can all agree that's not the issue here. The issue here is that Wikipedia must be more discriminating. Powers T 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that Wikipedia discriminates does not say anything about how Wikipedia should discriminate, and does not give any reason whatsoever why the criteria you are using to discriminate against this list are any better than the criteria DGG and others are using to argue for this list's inclusion. See also User:Uncle G/On the discrimination of what is indiscriminate. DHowell (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's essentially trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia should not include just any old list of information, even if it has well-defined inclusion criteria. Powers T 13:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is not trivia nor an indiscriminate collection of information, as it serves as a navigation aid that serves to improve the project... one that meets the criteria of WP:STAND as it is based on reliable sources. Should the nom wish the numerous references be brought over from the 12 listed articles, fine... but that is a matter for cleanup and not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The topic itself is not notable. If people want to read cast lists of movies based on animation properties, the appropriate place to do that is at the seperate articles. This is akin to making a list called "List of actors who have played judges". WesleyDodds (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If your List of actors who have played judges could be sourced just the folks in this list can be, and met the guidelines of WP:STAND, it would be welcome. Your solution of repeating the information in the 12 seperate articles would have readers not know that these 12 had a common link, and does not improve the project. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can source a list like this, but it doesn't mean it should exist. As I stated, these cast lists belong in the film articles. This is just poor organization. You don't need a list article on this topic, because the relationship between these topics is trival. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With a set criteria for inclusion, the list is not trivial. If I wanted to find out which actors have played animated characters, are you then suggesting I scour their articles to see if perhaps they have done so? Or that I scour the various film articles to see? Sorry, but that's not very efficient. As a simple and effective navigation aid, and one that meets WP:STAND, the article improves the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to wanted to find out which actors have played animated characters, the questions is why? Are you looking for actors who played particular actors? Or are you just curious about actors in general who played animated characters? Because for the former, you'd go to specific character or film article. For the latter, well, there's no reason such a list to accomodate this should necessarily exist in the first place, because it's just a broad topic. As I stated before, it's like expecting to find a list of actors who played judges. It doesn't illuminate anything for the general reader. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A discriminate list of actors who have played animated characters quite nicely illuminates its content, just as would your hypothesized list of actors who have played judges. Why does anybody use Wikipedia? Curiosity? Research? Fun? Who cares and why does it even matter to this discusion? I am not going to even attempt to get into the heads and reasonings of hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia users. Their reasons are their own. However, making use of Wikipedia easier for readers greatly improves the project. And as stated numerous times above, the discriminate list meets WP:STAND. A more cogent question is why would anyone want to make Wikipedia more difficult to use? Why would anyone demand to know why anyone reads these pages? Anyone wishing to know what actors may have played animated characters would type in that search and discover just who has done so. I am not going to sit in judgement and decide that readers must search though hundreds of other articles to find the information contained in this one guideline supported list. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A very clear failure of WP:NOT in that the list is indiscriminate information and a repository of loosely associated topics. --Farix (Talk) 16:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is discriminate, and useful for navigation. Maybe could use a better name. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the list is discriminate is irrelevant; see my note above about IINFO. Powers T 15:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You keep pointing to the disputed WP:IINFO. In reading it, it is easy to see that the list is not a plot-only description, the list is not a lyric database, the list it is not an excessively long list of statistics, the list is not a news report. So even were it not disputed, WP:IINFO does not apply. However the undisputed WP:STAND does apply and the list meets inclusion criteria. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not this again. The list of examples at IINFO is not exhaustive. Powers T 23:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first appearance of the argument that relies on the assumption that 'If it could fall under WP:IINFO, therefore it does'. The points for why it doesn't are again, not addressed. It is a valid point to say that the article fits none of the examples given in IINFO, just as it is to say that the list does not include all of the possible infractions of IINFO. To say that IINFO does not pertain to this article because there is no evidence in IINFO that it does might be considered a negative proof. But to say that if X could be true, then it is, is such a primitive logical fallacy that it isn't even listed anywhere that I know of. At the risk of giving it undue credit, it is similar to Begging the question and Circular reasoning in that it relies for its proof on the existence of its assertions, rather than on their logical consequences. This is what I was responding to when I first addressed the inadequacies of IINFO, below. I had not seen Powers' suppositions above, which have now been counterargued. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTDIR Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTDIR says "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic ". The actors in this list "are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". As such, the list passes WP:NOTDIR. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, many movies start out life in other media. This include fairytales, books, plays, comic books, games (Red Queen), video games, older movies and animated series. What these things have in common is that they spring from the human imagination. A list of movies that started out as animated series wouldn't bother me much, although I would prefer a category, but this goes too far. I say delete as a violation of WP:Synthesis. Abductive (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:STAND. WP:DIR fails under point 1. WP:IINFO contains four key WP rules: A diversion of enthusiastic plot writers to more encyclopaedic content at the cost of allowing deletionists free rein to query anything with a plot summary in it, WP:COPYVIO (no argument there, other than why a reiteration is required), an IDL about any statistics other than for presidential elections, and WP:RECENTISM, which is an essay. No wonder it is disputed. Can you tell us, LtPowers, in your own words of course, I am not requiring you to argue in terms of my framing of my argument, what it is in or about WP:IINFO that you find relevant to this article? Abductive: a long road, but the journey was mostly in a carriage marked WP:IDL. That the destination turned out to be WP:SYNTH I find inexplicable. Care to elaborate? Anarchangel (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I was getting at by saying WP:Synthesis is that the outside world does not make such lists or distinctions. Actors are categorized in a lot of different ways, such as the Rat Pack. What I look for is reliable sources that think a category is interesting. For example, if somebody made a list of actors who started out as stand-up comedians, I would say that since various critics have noted that this is a path to stardom, such a list would be ok. Abductive (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, Anarchangel, the list of examples at WP:IINFO is not exhaustive. The examples are merely that -- examples. Specifically, the guideline says that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." When someone invokes IINFO, what they're saying is that "even though this list may be accurate, it is still not encyclopedic information, because it's too specific or too trivial."

Powers T 13:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You reopened the AfD, complaining about how you didn't get to comment, for that? Because the article could fall under WP:IINFO, it does? Does backing up your assertions with facts mean nothing to you? You can go on forever with that horse hockey; I give a reason why it doesn't fall under IINFO, and you say, but it could.
Here's a reason: my previous question, which you haven't answered yet:
What is it "in or about WP:IINFO that you find relevant to this article?" Anarchangel (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'When someone invokes IINFO, what they're saying is that "even though this list may be accurate, it is still not encyclopedic information, because it's too specific or too trivial."' Are they, indeed? I would say that would be an example of someone 'invoking' IINFO incorrectly. The words specific and trivial are nowhere to be found in that entire page, as connected to any rule. There's "If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk". Your solicitous misreading of WP rules to me is unwarranted, especially when, at your insistence, this entire AfD had to be restarted, then stopped again after 10 hours, and restarted again, after it had been closed 'no consensus', to bring these pearls of wisdom to me.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you meant you yourself find the article too trivial and too specific, although you said that of a third person, "they", and neither trivial nor specific are words used in IINFO. It isn't too specific, as the article shows. If it were, for example, the article would be too short. It isn't too trivial; if it were, for example, there would be a significant number of data that didn't have their own articles. Or weren't cultural events that people across the world paid out a total of millions of Euros to go see. Or weren't people about whom more words will be written in a lifetime than even real contributors to WP enter into mainspace in their whole career. Anarchangel (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I insisted upon nothing. I suggested to King of Hearts that his closure was improper (either incorrect or premature) because it accepted your argument at face value, even though it contained a misleading inaccuracy (the implication that IINFO didn't apply) and a direct question to me that I did not have a chance to answer. By directing that question to me, you implied that your reasoning was contingent upon not getting a good answer to that question. The action of re-opening the AfD was King of Hearts' decision alone; I would have been fine if he had taken any one of a number of other routes, although I of course may have decided to open a DRV in response. To say that I insisted upon the re-opening is unwarranted, misleading, and quite frankly, tiring.
Second of all, regarding IINFO: Your original statement went through the four examples and explained how none of them apply here. From that, I inferred that you were suggesting that IINFO as a whole does not apply to this case. My reply was meant to refute that suggestion. If you were not suggesting that, then I apologize. To answer your question more clearly, the part of IINFO that applies is its admonition to avoid indiscriminately including information in the encyclopedia. An infinite number of intersection lists such as this one could be created, but IINFO requires that we be discriminating when it comes to which of those lists we should include. WP:SALAT backs this up; two of its admonitions apply here: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value", and "some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge".
-- Powers T 20:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I contend that my use of the word 'insisted' was accurate; I don't want to get into that, it would be very messy. I had pointed out the problems with IINFO as a whole, concluding "No wonder it is disputed".
  • My reasoning stands alone and is not dependent on answers; however, I still pursue consensus, although I wonder whether I shall ever see consensus created where it did not already exist. So my request served two purposes: one, to further the discussion, and two, to show that you had not given concrete examples of how IINFO forbade the article. Pursuant to the first, to seek to overturn the decision of the AfD as a whole because of wanting to respond to your interpretation of my argument is sacrificing a large, concrete consensus (albeit in the form of an assessment that there is no consensus, and none is forthcoming) for the sake of a hypothetical pursuit of a potential, and considerably smaller consensus.
  • The only reason to assert that IINFO does not apply to this article would be that it can not be extrapolated from WP:DELETION#Reasons for deletion, and in particular, you have given no examples of how IINFO applies to this article; when pressed, you cited 'too specific or too trivial', which turned out to be from a completely different rule, SALAT. That's an 'error', where are mine? Are you at least willing to concede your examples are not in IINFO? You insist on repeating the assertions of 'too specific' and 'too trivial', despite the fact that I have already answered them; the proper form at that time is to either concede or counterargue, not bring them up again. Here is what I said earlier on the subject: "It isn't too specific, as the article shows. If it were, for example, the article would be too short. It isn't too trivial; if it were, for example, there would be a significant number of data that didn't have their own articles. Or weren't cultural events that people across the world paid out a total of millions of Euros to go see. Or weren't people about whom more words will be written in a lifetime than even real contributors to WP enter into mainspace in their whole career." Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're trying to overwhelm me with arguments, you're succeeding. Am I to respond point-by-point, or should I attempt to glean a thesis statement from your paragraphs and respond to that? Powers T 13:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0131704/fullcredits#cast
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402022/fullcredits#cast
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0952640/fullcredits#cast
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1231580/fullcredits#cast
Admittedly, not all of these actors are notable but many of them are. And, as I said earlier, the list is far from being complete and will only contain a much greater number of entries with each year. — Rankiri (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoopi Goldberg as Judge Cameo, and other cameo appearances don't count. She didn't play an animated character, she was just in a movie with them. Unless they were a notable character from the cartoon itself, then they wouldn't be listed. Dream Focus 20:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of live-action films based on cartoons and comics, 114 entries, incomplete. Movies Based Upon Anime/Manga, 60 titles, incomplete. From 351,000 Google results for "live-action remake of * animated: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. These results show that, from a practical point of view, the list can be seen as virtually unlimited and therefore unmaintainable. It also appears that the list was created just for the sake of having such a list, as I don't see how it can be of interest to anyone but an extremely limited number of people. Determining membership involves original research, as—according to your own Woopi Goldberg example—I have no documented way of knowing whether someone's role in a movie adaptation of some cartoon series can be counted or not. Sorry, but it seems like a clear-cut violation of WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. — Rankiri (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No article requires anyone to prove someone is a main character or not, it just common sense to those who have watched it, and doesn't violate the no original research rule. List of actors who have played notable animated characters would probably be a better name. The possibility of how long the list can grow is not a valid reason to delete something. A very small number of people might be interested in a list of kings from some ancient civilization, but that doesn't disqualify it. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. We don't delete articles that get low hits, or low ratings. This is not a directory, since we aren't listing every Chinese restaurant in New York city, or every page from a phone book. This list meets all Wikipedia standards for a list. Dream Focus 23:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet the question remains: What evidence is there that this combination of inclusion criteria is notable? Powers T 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each and every piece of data in it is the subject of an article, and was considered notable for that purpose. Anarchangel (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have made rhetorical what is in fact a valid question. With those companies as a subject, the article would be notable. However, the focus of your hypothetical list is too small; there wouldn't be enough companies. I would suggest Corporations established in the 20th Century Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:SALAT: The potential for creating lists is infinite... To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists. Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories... Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list). Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in WP:WWIN, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge... Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category.
The official policies clearly state that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory of everything that exists or has existed. A list like this should give a reasonable indication of why the subject might be important or significant, otherwise it clearly falls into under the mentioned policies. You also ignore the fact that the inclusion criteria for the list covers more than a hundred of titles with hundreds and hundreds of actors. — Rankiri (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proof by assertion. And ad nauseum, to boot. You and Powers have correctly copied IINFO, multiple times, but you still haven't shown how it pertains to the article. IINFO is vague, perhaps deliberately so, but either way, it requires a user to point to correlations between the article and the guideline. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I've fully explained my position on this. Please reread my earlier comments. — Rankiri (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A clearly pointless list, imo. Barras (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can not delete something simply because you do not like it. Does it violate any rules? Dream Focus 16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The violated rule is WP:SYNTHESIS. The universe can be divided up into an infinity of infinities. We don't create lists such as List of actors who have portrayed hippies or List of actors who have played politicans because the journalists, critics, scholars and other who create the secondary sources we rely on don't make this distinction. Abductive (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way are the notable, cited facts somehow inherently un-notable, or requiring proof of notability, in combination? You have reached a conclusion that neither of the sources support. Is that not SYNTH? You are the ones coming up with this brand new theory, that there is a thesis to this article and it requires verification and notability. You are requiring us to prove this OR of yours wrong. The facts of the article are cited and notable. We never said the article had a purpose, a design, or a motive. We said it had utility. And as for there being no 'meme' matching the title out there, requiring us to only phrase our article titles as Top-100-lists-of-whatever-VH1-thinks-is-catchy, forget it. There's even that.
    Actors who played Batman characters
    Anime characters played by white actors in live-action adaptations
    Actor John Goodman played Fred Flinstone in the movie
    Batman again
    which actors have played Superman over the years? Anarchangel (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read WP:SYNTHESIS and don't see as how that is violated in any possible way. You can easily verify those movies were based on something previously animated, and who was in them. Dream Focus 23:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you notice the part about how secondary sources are required for interpretation? The raison d'être for a list is what needs secondary sources, nobody is debating the fact that these people played animated characters. Abductive (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to choose your words a little more carefully. Secondary sources are required for verification. Interpretation sounds like OR. Anarchangel (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary sources? You can easily find a credit listing for the movie. The main articles about them list who stared in them, and that the film was based on a cartoon. If you need references just go there. If you don't doubt the information, then you are just wikilawyering. Wikipedia is not a set of rules, or a bureaucracy. Use common sense. Dream Focus 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No secondary sources exist saying actors who have played animated charaters are a notable class. Abductive (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources do not establish notability by 'saying actors who have played animated charaters are a notable class'. They establish notability by being reliable sources of note and mentioning animated characters and the actors that play them. As for whether there are any that note the combination, see above. Enough of this brainstorming about how the article might be deficient. Research and back up your claims with evidence or go write essays somewhere. Anarchangel (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No list out there does that. Check out WP:list and all the [Dynamic List which show things like List_of_companies_named_after_people. For a list, its fine. It links to notable subjects which have their own wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google books says there are secondary sources. One of the books analyses the situation, saying, "...engineering structures and systems — like bridges, skyscrapers, airplanes, and power plants — are frequently produced by companies named after people." This validates my argument. Abductive (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeh, he was wrong. You threw pointless meaningless arguments and one of them finally stuck. There are sources for buildings named after people, just like there are sources for each and every one of these people, and each and every one of these movies, as evidenced by the fact that each and every single example of both categories are linked to articles about them.

1. Popeye contains citations to prove it existed. 2. Robin Williams says he played Popeye in, and follow this carefully, Popeye (film). 3. Likewise, if you can still keep up, the film article says Williams played this character. And to list Williams as playing Popeye in Popeye is WP:SYNTH? It isn't exactly a brainteaser to come to this conclusion, is it? Where is the overreaching Original Research required to come up with Robin Williams (actor who played Popeye) = Actor who played an animated character? Anarchangel (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • The OR required is not that required to come up with the list, but rather that required to include the list in the encyclopedia as a notable intersection of properties. Powers T 20:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, yes. Now we come to the meat of it. This is where deletionists and inclusionists really differ. WP rules about Content of articles only apply to the focus of an article inasmuch as they are WP:DELETION#Reasons for deletion. That, and the inevitable grey area caused by "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to" are the rules that apply to articles as a whole. That two rocks (actors and animated characters) are required to bang one against the other is not original research. Whether it makes a spark or a flint chip or is a waste of time is in the mind of the reader. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiterating my Delete per above. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:VOTE potentially readable as a second editor's vote struck for clarity's sake. There is no need for votes to be written twice, ever. You seem to have a little time to kill. Perhaps a reason? Anarchangel (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC) -Clarify- I meant reason as in, perhaps a reasoned argument for deletion could be made in a similar amount of time to a vote. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that once an AFD is relisted to garner more consensus, you have to reiterate your vote. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard that, and the AfD was reopened for another reason. Abductive (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the AFD was relisted to garner more consensus; it says so. As a note, editors should refrain from editing other users comments. I'm fine if a neutral admin feels they should cross out my comment. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up per AfD - if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for deletion. This article needs clean-up, mainly expanding, to show the significance of the genre and add sourcing. These are not reasons to delete. And categories are complimentary to lists, we don't choose one or the other - they work together to convey information - a category by definition is a brute force list only of those articles that exist and have been correctly categorized. -- Banjeboi 19:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for this straw man argument. No one actually suggested that the article should be deleted because it's poorly written or that categories aren't complimentary to lists. In fact, Category:actors who have played animated characters doesn't even exist. You also didn't address the issues of notability, indiscrimination and original research. — Rankiri (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: "straw man": I believe you have made erroneous assumptions as to Benjiboi's meaning and motives. I refer you to "Categorize all actors into Category:Voice actors and Delete per nominator. Matthewedwards : Chat 01:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)" and to WP:AGF, which is not a contest to see whose heart beats the most pure, but a way to look at another editor's argument to see what you actually know about it and what you are only assuming.
Re: "doesn't even exist". Irony. A call for deletion saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Maybe it was deleted? Or perhaps 'Category:actors who have played animated characters' has not been created yet. As for N, IINFO, and OR being addressed, see your comment below, about finding it in all the clutter. They have already been addressed. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are common arguments and a category suggestion is indeed in the above conversations. To address your other concerns; (i) notability? These are notable works and notable actors playing notable characters, I think that ship has sailed; (ii) indiscriminate? Um, hardly the title is rather specific actors who have played animated characters is there something unclear or ambiguous there, then clarify in the lede and possibly tweak the title if it's a real issue; (iii) original research? really? how is listing actor X, who is credited as playing character Y in movie Z, in any way original research? The works themselves can be cited as sources presuming there is a list of which actors played which characters. If I'm missing something here please let me know, maybe there was some problematic content that was deleted before I saw the article, perhaps the wrong standard for what is or isn't original research is being employed to apply that characterization mistakenly. -- Banjeboi 20:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already gave my answers to all these questions in my earlier exchange with Dream Focus. Good luck finding them in this clutter. — Rankiri (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your discussion was actually quite easy to find. I disagree with your assessment however, you seem to be comparing similar things as being equal. Just because a cartoon or comic was made into a live action film doesn't automatically mean every actor would be listed here at all. That would also seem to suggest a list restructuring if there were several hundred rather than several dozen movies to be encompassed. Every list doesn't start as a featured level product. Consensus organically susses out what information benefits the body of human knowledge and how to present it. If the list indeed becomes too large then it can be split between manga vs. other animated characters, etc. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Benjiboi makes some good points here; one I would like to point out one in particular: "Every list doesn't start as a featured level product" AKA WP:DEMOLISH. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I no longer see any point in answering every single objection, so I'll just reiterate my views here and try to get out of this discussion. A topic (in this case, actors who have played cartoon characters) is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines. If we conclude that list topics do not fall under WP:GNG, it will be a direct invitation to fill Wikipedia with indiscriminately chosen cross-categorizations and other meaningless content. Of course, one can say that my argument is a form of WP:ALLORNOTHING, but if you keep List of actors who have played animated characters and delete, say, List of actors who have played fat characters, wouldn't it some a sign of logical inconsistency and hypocrisy on your part?
The arguments made by the opposing side may sound persuasive, but only until you realize that they could just as easily apply to List of actors who have played bold characters, List of actors who have played wigged characters, List of actors who have played moustached characters, List of actors who have played bearded characters, List of actors who have furred characters (e.g. Peter Mayhew), List of actors who have played shaved characters, lists of actors and actresses who played kings, queens, emperors, empresses, princes, princesses, dukes, duchesses, royal bastards, extraterrestrial royalties, and countless millions of similarly purposeless and trivial lists. This should be a consensus building discussion, not a form of lobbying. The opposing side repeatedly dismisses the fact that the list is unsourced, non-notable and encyclopedically unsound. — Rankiri (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other crap exists or doesn't exist or will be created if this survives is rather erroneous, we go by if this list can be encyclopedic and adhere to Wikipedia standards. Just for kicks here are some current list article along the list of actors genre:
  1. List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners
  2. List of actors who played President of the United States
  3. List of actors who have played comic book characters
  4. List of actors who have played Sherlock Holmes
  5. List of actors who have played the Doctor
  6. List of actors who have played animated characters
  7. List of actors considered for the James Bond character
  8. List of actors nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year
  9. List of actors nominated for Academy Awards for foreign language performances
  10. List of actors who have played multiple roles in the same film
  11. List of actors considered for the Batman character
  12. List of actors who appeared on Charmed
  13. List of actors who have played video game characters
  14. List of actors who played Santa Claus
  15. List of actors considered for the part of the Doctor
These would likely all be seen as cumbersome on their respective parent articles and all lists can be better. Some of these are featured lists as well. -- Banjeboi 00:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, other stuff exists is exactly how I would describe the essence of your post. The main idea of my previous comment, however, was that this thoughtless kind of cherry-picking is capricious, subjective and unbecoming for an encyclopedia. I'll prefer to stay consistent in my views, so when List of actors who played angry babysitters comes under AfD I won't have to retract my entire position. — Rankiri (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actors playing live action versions of cartoon characters is a notable phenomenon in and of itself (unlike any of the strawmen examples given above), as documented in reliable sources such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Independent, and the Los Angeles Daily News. This list is thus appropriate for Wikipedia. DHowell (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way out of scope, contains no references or encyclopedic analysis of the subject, nor do I think it is possible with a topic this broad. Many sub-lists might have the proper scope for a list article but this topic is just way too broad to write an encyclopedic article about without using a synthesis of original research to tie it together. None of the sources given so far address the article as a whole, which is needed to ascertain notability of the especially broad subject matter. ThemFromSpace 01:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you clarify what you mean by "address the article as a whole?" The Post-Gazette article alone gives about 20 actors who have played live-action versions of animated characters, in an article about "a long line of cartoon characters to go live action". How does this source in particular not contribute towards the notability of this article's topic? DHowell (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DHowell has well demonstrated that the topic is notable and the other claims made by the nomination just seem to be matters of taste. Lists are not superseded by categories per WP:CLS. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Editors still don't understand that this kind of list is not indiscriminate. It includes notable actors who have played notable animated characters in notable films. And there's news coverage on the topic of live action versions of animations and the actors playing in them, e.g.[25][26]. Ah, I see DHowell beat me to it. Fences&Windows 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We understand just fine that the list itself is not indiscriminate. The problem is that we don't think Wikipedia should be including it, because to include all information indiscriminately is a recipe for disaster. Powers T 14:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Keep. The sources are exactly what I was talking about when I said the topic needed sources showing interest in actors who have played formerly animated characters as a class. It's not a violation of WP:Synthesis. Abductive (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garhwali songs[edit]

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

Needs a total rewrite to pass as a keep. Right now it's a bunch of opinion, even advertising. It's unsourced. Unless the article is wikified and properly referenced, it needs to go. Airplaneman talk 04:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Garhwali are an ethnic group from Uttarakhand, India. Their folk music is apparently well known in India, and so the topic is likely notable. However, this article has no content, no sources, and reads like an advertisement. It is irretrievably bad. Delete and recreate at a later time when reliable sources become available. LK (talk) 19:15, 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 redirect to Between Friends (comic). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Bell-Lundy[edit]

Sandra Bell-Lundy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no sources beyond self-published or webcrawl copies of this page. Non-notable. Deadchildstar (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Deadchildstar (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadchildstar (talk • contribs) 03:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Between Friends (comic), which is what the subject is known for. However, if this article about the comic strip's creator can be improved during the AfD period, I may change my mind in favor of keeping it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that a redirect to the article about the Between Friends comic strip would be logical because that is her best work. I'm not trying to sound like a sock puppet, but, I don't know her for any other works. GVnayR (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Between Friends (comic), per both, without prejudice to reinstating a proper article in the future. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. Either keep or redirect. She is listed in e.g. Lambiek's Comiclopedia[27], which is a good indicator of at least basic notability, but she seems indeed to be only known for one comic strip, so a redirect is of course acceptable as well. Further notability is also established by Google News hits like an interview in the Montreal Gazette[28] and a French language article / interview in Femmes en santé[29]. Fram (talk) 14:44, 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 Speedy delete spam link farm. Mystery shopping companies are continuously trying to get themselves listed here; we won't be doing it. Andy Walsh (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mystery Shopping Companies and Their Clients[edit]

List of Mystery Shopping Companies and Their Clients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, unsourced original research mhking (talk) 03:17, 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. JForget 23:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beulah Baldwin[edit]

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

non-notable, no sources, appears self-pubilshed. Deadchildstar (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Deadchildstar (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I can find nothing. Drmies (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- created by someone whose only edits were the two that created this non-notable article. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found some descriptions of her from commercial sites, but nothing from independent media reviewing her work. Google books turns up one brief mention in The Literary History of Alberta By George Melnyk; google scholar turns up nothing. Appears to not be notable. LK (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 21:17, 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. JForget 23:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessa French[edit]

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

Television actress who has had small roles in various series. But there are no reliable, third-party sources available to build a decent article for now. The article can be recreated once that has changed. See the guideline WP:BIO. Pichpich (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 04:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Nothing but a series of brief appearences in TV shows, never more than 1 appearence in any series. A small role in a yet to be released film. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMDB lists 14 roles, links to several third-party articles. Also appears to have had had a number of commercial roles. It's the articles in not completely advertorial trade press that does it for me. Zachlipton (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When did a lot of insignificant roles Start to become equal to one or two significant ones? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're not insignificant roles and some character actors became famous before getting lead roles. But this is not the case thus far for Mrs French. Pichpich (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not insignificant? 12 of the 14 listed are single episode appearences, playing "ex-girlfriend" and a series of one name characters. Those are not significant. 1 movie role in a small indie that nobody saw. That is not significant. Which roles did you consider to be significant? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that these 14 roles cover a span of 7 years and consist of 12 minor non-recurring roles in television series, one minor role in a 24-minute short film and one secondary role in a self-produced feature film that, as far as I can tell, was never released in theatres. I don't see the links to third-party articles that you mention but I'd be happy to reconsider if they are indeed significant. Google News comes up empty by the way. Note also that the creator's user name matches that of Jessa French's website designer. Pichpich (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She's also had press in ReelStyle and Indie Scene Magazine and several theater roles including No Escape at the Coronet, directed by William Shatner (not that notability by association is appropriate here or anywhere). Zachlipton (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The press is from 4 years ago and as far as I can tell these two magazines either don't exist, don't exist anymore or exist but have no web presence whatsoever which you'll agree is odd for an indie scene magazine. In any case, that hardly qualifies as significant reliable coverage. There's also no indication of the importance of the roles she played in theatrical productions. (In Tartfuffe she played a secondary role) Pichpich (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out though that she apparently did play a lead role in Nature of the Long-Haired Guinea Pig at the Beverly Hills Playhouse as the play in question has only one female role and stars a young couple if this article is to be trusted. There are copies of the press articles in question on her website: [30] [31]. They look like full-page features on her, although I have no way of knowing whether they are truly third-party or mere advertorials. Take it or leave it. Zachlipton (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't noticed they were available on her website. But you'll agree that even if they are truly third-party, both are pretty useless for building an article and can't reasonably be viewed as significant coverage. Delete 12:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subject's notability has not yet been clearly established. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From WP:ENT "1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." Clearly does not meet criteria. LK (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My view is that if subject had established a sustained body of work based on a clearly-defined aesthetic protocol, then an argument could be made for inclusion. But much of what I'm seeing in subject's stage work - IMDB list and IMDB resume - seems to fall under the category of community theatre and/or industry showcases, which have zero cultural importance and cannot be considered "professional." -- Rudybowwow (talk) 22:47, 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 16:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Carver[edit]

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

This article popped up on a routine sweep I conduct of the pages using the {{blackproject}} template to look for material that seems out of place, suspicious, or otherwise not in compliance with anything we support. The article in question references a hypothesized recon satellite but offers no sources to back up its claims, and I can find nothing of note on google. I suspect the article may be a hoax, and since the black project template requires as a condition of its use reliable sources I am moving to have this article deleted on WP:CRYSTAL grounds. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 02:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 03:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switching to weak keep; the article does apparently have some sourcing for its info, but still needs a lot work to get up to par. A more important question now is why the article was a part of the black project group in the first place; from where I sit, its not black. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 16:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Note, this is an advanced fighter aircraft a la the Lavi or J-10, not a reconsat. With the new info, I'm changing my vote: Merge to Atlas Aircraft. Buckshot06(prof) 08:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete From Googling I found some hints that this was a real project, but nothing that looks remotely like a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Project seems to be better known as the Atlas Cava. Googling finds this from Jane's and this from Flight International. This and this mentions cancellation, while this gives a speculative drawing. Looks like a real project reported in reliable sources, (i.e. Jane's and Flight), although there arn't a great deal of details of the aircraft or how far the project progressed - weak keep - or at worst merge back to Atlas Aircraft Corporation.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The project existed and is interesting in its own right as a serious South African attempt at an advanced jet fighter. Sources have already been provided to prove its existence, and I've been told that one of South Africa's specialist aviation magazines is prepping a major story on the project so a fair bit more information may become available quite soon. The 'Cava' name (alternatively rendered as 'CAVA') is used more frequently in connection with this project, but as the SA Air Force's project naming conventions at the time specified full names it seems likely that 'CAVA' was a transcription mistake caused by a journalist mishearing a verbal source. Some scans from a recent book, featuring more detail on the project and a photo both of a model and the design team, are available here. — Impi (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm changing my vote to keep per the excellent sources found by Nigel Ish, though it does appear that the article should be moved to the correct name. From personal experience, I know that it can be very hard to find reliable internet references on the Apartied-era South African military so these refs are probably the tip of an iceberg of printed material. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — From what I've been able to discover, Carver does appear to be the correct name for the project. It's also the project name referred to by Winston Bren in Cheetah: Guardians of the Nation. The common rendering of 'CAVA' does not appear to follow the same style as the SAAF's other project names from this period, for example comparable SAAF projects have received titles such as Tunny, Winchester, Kambro & Flange and I'm not aware of any project being referred to by an acronym or an all-caps word with no dictionary meaning. Indeed, to my knowledge project names were automatically generated and assigned from a pre-defined list of dictionary words. — Impi (talk) 15:16, 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. choosing delete rather then no-consensus since we actually seem to be guessing here then relying on reliable sourcing. BLP to me suggest we err on the side of caution so choosing to delete. Will be very happy to revisit this if some detailed sources can be found later on Spartaz Humbug! 21:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanoksak Wongrattanawijit[edit]

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

Can't find evidence that he's played for Sriracha therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE. Spiderone (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say that because of his age he MUST have played a game, what a ridiculous suggestion. Ray Stubbs, for example, was on the books of Tranmere Rovers from age 24 to 29, and never made a first team appearance! Provide sources if he has played a match please. GiantSnowman 11:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I'm growing tired of people assuming that people have played matches. Take Stuart Searle, for example who plays for MK Dons, is 30 years old and hasn't played a league match.Spiderone (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm getting tired of people claiming that just because one person can't find sources a subject fails notability guidelines - the statement, "therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE" is not a logical consequence of your failure to find sources. Please have a little humility and say something like "I can't confirm that he passes WP:ATHLETE", as it's quite possible that someone else may be able to find the sources that you can't. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with this response, although maybe for the two deletionists at the top of this discussion, maybe 'can't find' should be replaced by 'not bothering to look for'. 8lgm (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say he "must" have. I said that because he's listed on a small roster, has numerious mentions in newspaper articles (that appear to be match reports), and that he's no spring chicken, that it's pausible that he's played. For most of these AfD's we have clear evidence that there have not been professional appearances; however with the language barrier, that is more difficult here, but I'd say the balance of evidence would suggest he has played. Perhaps someone who Thai is better than mine can review? I'll gladly remove my keep if it's clear he has never left the bench. Nfitz (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V, which is the daddy of them all. --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 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, ~ mazca talk 01:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems English-language verifiability is going to be very difficult at present, as nothing seems to turn up on any Google search (except Wiki mirrors), news source, or official site in English. Sounds like a possible candidate for Thai-language Wikipedia, but for English-language Wikipedia I remain more doubtful, neutral, leaning toward either a weak delete or posting a "rescue" tag on the article. There could be a transliteration problem, however, as the name may be spelled various ways when transliterated from the Thai alphabet into English, causing Google searches to fail under this one spelling, in which case I would then lean more towards weak "keep." I must state for the record that I do not know how important Thai footballers are in the whole scheme of things in Western football/soccer. If quite important, then I would lean more towards a reserved keep. Softlavender (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the whole world, not just the English-speaking or the Western world, so the issue is not how important Thai footballers are in the whole scheme of things in Western football/soccer. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems reasonable he has actually played a game, and we need to be aware of the lack of English-language links and not to perpetuate 'western bias'. Eldumpo (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no verifiable reliable secondary sources in any leanguage, thus failing WP:V and WP:N. --Jimbo[online] 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say 'in any language' though, but can you read Thai script? Eldumpo (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A clubs webpage isn't an independent secondary source as per fourth bullet point @ WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online] 17:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what about the news articles linked above in Nfitz's first edit? And, as I have already written above, the club's website is perfectly sufficient for verifiability. The only issue is with notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the links work on IE or Firefox for me. --Jimbo[online] 20:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of Nifitz's numbered links 2 and 3 are broken but 1 works for me in that it goes to a page with Thai script (i'm using IE). Eldumpo (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One link is hardly significent secondary coverage. Thus still failing GNG. --Jimbo[online] 21:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I never intended to imply a western bias, only that if Thai football is not covered in Latin alphabet text, it is unlikely this article is ever going to grow past the one sentence it now consists of -- at least not verifiably. UPDATE: However, I note that Thai football is only recently making a rise: The Sriracha team that the subject is on was only created in 2005, and Thailand only created its Premier League 5 months ago: [35]. With the continuing rise of Thai football and increased English-language coverage, this article could well be expanded in the future. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:50, 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 G12 Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tukuleur[edit]

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

Not notable Jack Pinchwife (talk) 03:00, 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) 00:05, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Center[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


re Miracle Center[edit]

Hello, Schumin. I noticed your message that you nominated my article, Miracle Center, for deletion. Apparently, it violates some sort of Wikipedia policy for relevance. Although I consider myself very much a novice in the world of Wiki, I remember one day browsing through several Wiki articles hoping to learn about some of the local shopping malls in the area. Several of the articles were interesting, and I noticed Miracle Center was not on the list. I figure a Miami list of shopping malls, existing or otherwise, wouldn't be complete without Miracle Center on the list. Currently, the Miracle Center is being remodeled and has partially reopened. EnriqueH (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Plenty of sources are available (if that is what you ment by failing CORP). Anywhere that was once described as "chronically unsuccessful" and making a turnaround, passed WP:N easily in my mind (if that is what you ment by failing CORP). Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:26, 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) 00:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless we're going to start deleting all shopping malls from Wiki, I don't know we'd single this one out for deletion, especially since it's making a turnaround and has several stores advertised on its signs, such as Petsmart, Nordstrom Rack, Bed, Bath & Beyond and Bally's fitness club, which is the only business there from its original opening.EnriqueH (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Lots of third-party notable sources describing this significant mall in a major metropolitan area. If it was abandoned and getting bulldozed tomorrow, I'd say trash it, but since it's being renovated and new sources continue to mention it, it's a definite keep for me. Zachlipton (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per other editors' opinions. It's not particularly interesting to me in the UK, but I see no harm in it being kept. there are general articles on shopping malls and strip malls, their history etc. It would be SO good if there were a template to mark something as British or US English, since the pronunciation of "mall" is different in the UK from the US (it rhymes with gal, not ball) and of course "center" is spelt differently. That is not a question for AFD of course but I have not found anywhere to discuss it! Please if you know I will grumble there: this is obviously US English and should remain so, but I bet someone one day will put it as "centre". SimonTrew (talk) 11:58, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnie Blend[edit]

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

Topic fails WP:MUSIC and lacks significant, reliable outside sources. TM 18:54, 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) 00:03, 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. JForget 23:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up Project[edit]

Wake Up Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. None of the "references" are reliable sources; there is no indication that the content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Tan | 39 16:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user how are you doing? I hope well. I fixed my references but I'm not sure of what you mean by " there is no indication that the content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."?

could you please explain, Thank you. --Marie SM (talk) 17:19, 25 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, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see any notability. 1 hit on gnews about this project. First 50 ghits didn't turn up any reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Zero reliable sources. Unlikely to show any notability whatsoever.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 21:12, 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. JForget 23:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Famous KanyaKubj[edit]

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

This page is a list of Kanyakubja Brahmins, a subsect of Brahmins. There are sufficient categories for Brahmins and a list doesn't serve a purpose. Also, "famous" in the title is subject to interpretation; In addition, the list is unsourced, and I tried verifying a couple of them but wasn't able to find RS refs. Fails WP:SALAT and there are possible BLP concerns on who belongs and doesn't, but I don't know if that's very significant. PROD was contested, so it's here. Delete. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 20:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page which is a copy of the above:

List of Famous Kanyakubja Brahmins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 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. JForget 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emeon technologies[edit]

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

Evidently created by one of its 'key people', I can find no evidence it meets our notability criteria at WP:ORG. I have also taken thrice created Legend of Empires to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 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) 00:03, 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. JForget 23:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Survivor Park[edit]

Cancer Survivor Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a park in Omaha that is really not notable, per the general notability guideline. From several searches of both Google and Google News, I can find no independent, reliable (or even unreliable) source that can satisfy the notability or verification policies. NW (Talk) 21:15, 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) 00:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The history section indicates that the park is notable. -- 科学高爾夫迷 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think that you could explain, please? All I see in the history section is essentially that a man dying of cancer established the park, that there are sculptures in the parks, and that there are multiple such parks across the United States. I don't see how that establishes notability. NW (Talk) 22:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason to me that it just seems notable is because it began with a man battling cancer, and additionally, it has a lot of sculptures. -- 科学高爾夫迷 01:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no number of sculptures or status of founder can make it notable if there's no coverage. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 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. Well it could be more like keep since the article had greatly improved since the AFD started, note the nominator said keep at the end JForget 23:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Spring Coffee Co.[edit]

Salt Spring Coffee Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about coffee shop, flagged as an orphan since 2007, fails WP:CORP notability, lacks secondary sources. KenWalker | Talk 06:51, 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) 00:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some local coverage in Georgia Straight and one piece in Vancouver Sun, but nothing significant to show notability. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 02:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the sources come close to proving notability beyond the local town. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will try to save this article. It is my preferred brand of coffee but I didn't know they operated cafés, too. Is there something wrong with the Georgia Straight? --maclean 20:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added sources and I'm continuing work on it. --maclean 06:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With updated references that more than meet notability guides, this article is worth saving
  • Keep I originally posted the AfD but having reviewed the added sources I agree that article now meets WP:CORP. Good job maclean! --KenWalker | Talk 02:20, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ritz Carlton Jakarta[edit]

Ritz Carlton Jakarta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No need for a separate article, WP:NOTNEWS Davidelit (talk) 14:05, 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) 00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We have articles for Ritz-Carlton and other hotels that are far less notable than this one. Not a good article as of yet, but it needs editing, not deletion. Zachlipton (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be notable for a single-event 2009 Jakarta bombings so the little content could just be mentioned in the bombing article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even before the bombing, it was the subject of independent reliable sources, like The Jakarta Post [36][37] and Bisnis Indonesia [38], the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. A hotel of this stature opening during a time of tremendous economic growth demonstrates a historic economic turning point of this nation.--Oakshade (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "a historic economic turning point of this nation" - a bit over the top wouldn't you say. There have been a large number of hotels opening in recent years in Jakarta. Either there's lots of history being made or they aren't any more notable than this one ;-) Davidelit (talk) 12:37, 1 August 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Mile Creek Entertainment[edit]

Ten Mile Creek Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company lacking GHITS or GNEWS. Fails WP:COMPANY. CSD removed by COI editor. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:31, 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) 00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. The article barely even mentions the company and doesn't really assert any notability at all - all the content seems to cover the company's founder. ~ mazca talk 17:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTE, possibly WP:HOAX. No GHITS, most of the hits when the article's title is put in Google relate to a town in Victoria, Australia. Sk8er5000 (talk) 20:13, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Sprite Cougar 15[edit]

Sea Sprite Cougar 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, orphaned, and no significance besides 'its a boat made by x company in y loacation'. Delete. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:30, 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) 00:00, 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 speedy close. Merge and delete is not allowed per GFDL. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theme Time Radio Hour: Second Countdown[edit]

Theme Time Radio Hour: Second Countdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete and merge. Just a not notable episode of a radio show. Xatanix death metal (talk) 10:48, 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) 00:00, 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 merge to List of dog hybrids. ~ mazca talk 17:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chug[edit]

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

Much better as delete deleted or merged into the dog article Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:02, 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) 00:00, 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 keep Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Cage[edit]

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

This article is a word-for-word replication of a large portion of Alexander Scotland, containing no new text Stetsonharry (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nomination. This page was originally created as a redirect to MI19, and was changed to a redirect to Alexander Scotland when that article was created. It was recently turned into an independent article that is a word-for-word clone a large portion of Alexander Scotland. It has no differentiating detail except the title. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that it's a copy of another Wikipedia article and such, but deletion isn't the answer here, this is an editing issue. THe article should stay and the other article should link to this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:06, 20 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) 23:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable apart from the commander. The material needs to be edited to separate the two & reduce duplication DGG (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with DGG. This isn't exactly the right way to start a new article, but now that it's done we should edit and improve from here, not delete. Zachlipton (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I could not see much duplication but the edit history is very vague i.e. no useful edit summaries, but I scanned both articles, London Cage has much more info in ot than Alexander Scotland. Yes the articles need some cleaning up, but as of now, I think both stand on their own feet and are usefully separated (e.g. I can imagine other members of MI19 might be usefully linked to London Cage but not to Alexander Scotland directly). SimonTrew (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. Google news search turns up many mentions in newspaper articles. Google scholar search also turns up mentions in various books and articles. LK (talk) 18:54, 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 Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Bennett[edit]

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

Not notable: most significant role was in an non-notble production. No independent sources, only source is site for non-notable web series. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 14:02, 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) 23:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. JJL (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Starring role in a film which, however liitle viewed, has a high IMDB rating. Creator, star, writer, producer of web series which appears popular and decent for the genre: [39]. Although web series may be in their infancy, I'm not convinced they should be dismissed out of hand. For me this subject meets notability. Softlavender (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For me it does not meet notability, and doesn't meet WP:N. I can also create, star, write and produce a web series that nobody watches, that does not make it notable. I think take WP:CRYSTAL here. SimonTrew (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A high IMDB rating can suggest a person or production may be notable, but in this case there seems to be absolutely no substantial reliable-source coverage to back that suggestion up and comply with WP:N. ~ mazca talk 17:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 19:34, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_26&oldid=1142644694"