Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 June 12 June >

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 Speedy close, article was deleted as a copyvio for the reason below just as it was being nominated for deletion. BencherliteTalk 13:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa munt[edit]

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

This article has been started about Tessa Munt (who is to be a candidate at the next general election for Wells (UK Parliament constituency) but the photo & all content relates to her opponent David Heathcoat-Amory.— Rod talk 12:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC) — Rod talk 12:58, 11 June 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 Cheers, I'mperator 13:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven_A._Vasilev[edit]

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

Notability of subject not established; reads like a vanty resume and not an encylopedic biography Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chief of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center., a major med center; this is equivalent to chairman of department at a major university. Needs check for actual publication and cites, but certainly not the least a vanity resume--the other direction if anything, too sparse to correctly demonstrate the notabilityDGG (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's sparse now becuase I trimmed down the "vanity" and non-notable portions. IMO notability is contingent on being discussed widely by secondary sources. I don't see any secondary sources that establish his notability. I don't believe that every department head at every university in the world is automatically considered notable. Vasilev is also categoried among US OB/GYNs, but if you inspect the people inlcuded in those lists, they have all made significant historical contributions to the field. The bar sems to have been lowered considerably by inluding Vasilev among these other far more notable physicians. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also concerned that the subject himself, Vasilev, penned his own biography, whih runs counter to WP guidelines. The author essentially pasted a resume on WP, which is inappropriate and non-encycopedic, and then the WP entry was linked from various blog sites operated by the author, which are of very dubious quality and reliability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gbooks finds two books by Vasilev, GScholar finds about 30 papers, Ghits several hundreds, mostly relating to his publications, and some relating to websites associated with him. Article was created by User:Svasilev, so WP:COI is quite likely and while an autobiography generally results in a poor article, it is not a valid deletion reason per se. After being trimmed by nom. the article appears reasonably NPOV. Due to the subjective nature of WP:N a pass can be debated, to my standards it's a pass, definitely passes WP:V. The is a clear claim to notability, and I consider it likely that sources can be found. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dat Comics[edit]

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

Non-notable publication. No GHits or GNews entries. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

um im the writer of that and i dont see why it is such a big problem.Why cant we just keep it? -Blaze1177

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1985–86 Washington Capitals season[edit]

1985–86 Washington Capitals season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is merely a sports fan spreadsheet from the eightie. It does not establish notability nor is it encyclopedic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is what WP:NOT#STATS is about; there's no narrative to put any context into the recital of statistics. This doesn't even get over the low threshold set for sports articles. Not beyond improvement, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a carbon copy of other websites. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found a whole template and list with several other articles that are really alike in formats and content. Should they be kept or deleted as well to insure integrity? See: List of Washington Capitals seasons and {{Washington Capital seasons}} --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lack of narrative context can be easily fixed. I have already added infinitely more narrative context to the article in question. I hate to refer to this, but see WP:BEFORE. When nominating for notability or sourcing issues, try to find them first. A quick Google search gives us reliable sources which show that the 1985-86 season was the Washington Capitals record for most points in the regular season, and remained unbroken until the 2008-2009 season. [1] --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- the sources and re-write by Patar knight make this a perfectly acceptable article. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the notability of season articles for major teams has long been established, and per WP:5, almanaic information is valid. As was demonstrated by Patar knight, adding prose to such stubs is easily accomplished. Resolute 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Resolute mentioned notability of season articles for major league teams has long been established. As well this is very much a case of WP:SOFIXIT. -Djsasso (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We've a series of these NHL team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep their are tons of articles like this. Why should only this one go? BUC (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article seems to have improved enough to allay any concerns. matt91486 (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic is notable, consistent with many, many other professional team season articles, for NHL teams and other sports. I do not see any reason to delete this. Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I could be swayed otherwise ... however this is one in a series of 31 articles. Either the entire series logically should be deleted or merged by this logic. Neither seems to make sense. Certainly some of this information is encyclopedic and would belong to the main team article ... and it would make that article huge over so many years. Thus it is broken up by season and likely is obsessed over by folks who are into this sort of thing. What remains is cleaning out false and misleading information and attributing stats to sources. These are clean-up as opposed to deletion issues. -- Banjeboi 02:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've tweaked the lede to point out they are an American hockey team, something I had no idea of (the country or the sport - sorry), all the articles should likely be nuanced in this way. -- Banjeboi 02:10, 18 June 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) 07:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games with female protagonists[edit]

List of video games with female protagonists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails its own criteria as described in the lead of the article. Why is there an article about female protagonists and not about male protagonists, or, say, other races, or people with brown hair? Is it encyclopedic? This was attempted to be made into a category, but failed because it was too specific, so why is there an article like this? I don't think the game's notability matters here - the article doesn't make any effort to state WHY having a female protagonist is notable except for an unsourced statement about being "an exception to the norm". Moreover, differentiating between "lead" protagonists and selectable protagonists seems impossible when they are at times closely interwtined. For example, fighting games might have multiple female protagonists, each with their own story - is this more notable than having a single female protagonist (e.g. Samus Aran) or having a female protagonist with the same plotline but with multiple minor differences and a different voice actress (e.g. Mass Effect)?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, Delete and mostly because it's an indiscriminate list of titles of games, with no information other than that they would fall in the same category if there was one. As nominator notes correctly, there is no effort made to provide any context. There is some significance in the trend, over the last 20 years, for games to have female characters. Besides taking videogaming out of the realm of "boys only", it's not unusual for guys to select a female character in a game, particularly in those that involve fighting. As the list illustrates, it's pretty common now. Mandsford (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A worthy list. Could be a worthy starting point for some interesting research of varying kinds. Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 00:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. This is a slippery slope like the nom stated. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely unsourced list about an arbitrary, non-notable topic. The same thing applies to the corresponding antagonists list, as well. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial and arbitrary. As noted, there is no difference between this and List of video games with protagonists with brown hair. Resolute 16:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Having a female protagonist in a video game is distinguishable from other criteria due to the notability of having a female protagonist as evidenced by sources making note of this such as [2], [3], and [4] as small sample of what is out there. -- Whpq (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unnecessary and a trivial intersection point. The fact that Dora the Explorer and Tomb Raider are both on the same list says it all: They have nothing in common with each other at all besides the fact that Laura Croft and Dora are females. Tavix |  Talk  20:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial intersection point, with inclusion criteria that are aimed less at covering a noteworthy topic and more at gerrymandering a list with only thousands of possible entries instead of tens of thousands. Female video game protagonists or Female video game characters have some encyclopedic potential. This arbitrary and sprawling list does not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subjects surrounding this (the portrayal of women in videogames, the rise of games featuring female protagonists) are certainly worthy of an article or articles, but this is a list and has nothing to do with approaching those topics properly. You don't cover a subject by listing every individual component of it, you do do that by finding the sources and writing an article, the list itself does not aid in that (WP:NOR). So, leaving that aside we have a navigational list pointing at games with nothing in common except they have female leads, which is borderline indiscriminate. Someoneanother 14:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or perhaps categorify – serves as a nice complement to the Portrayal of women in video games article. MuZemike 16:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this should be a category. BUC (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was made into a category and deleted, so that would be impossible.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ostap 05:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Student Association of UC Merced[edit]

Persian Student Association of UC Merced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Newly minted non-notable student club. Deprodded by a spa. Abductive (talk) 22:15, 11 June 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. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Averns[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, with unclear notability and insufficient coverage in reliable sources. I had tagged the article for proposed deletion but it has been contested. snigbrook (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if some of this is added to the article; at the moment none of this is in. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can take care of that if we are developing a sense that the Averns won't fail notability anyway. Enki H. (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find only 700 hits for Avern on Google. I know that is not the be-all and end-all but it gives a good idea of whether or not a person is notable. Setwisohi (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Fails WP:CREATIVE. CCCA database contributes to notability ("Its purpose continues to be to introduce and showcase the careers of Canada's leading professional artists and art writers") but inclusion is too broad to clinch it. The exhibition referred to above is not significant. On the other hand Artspeak and Artmind are legitimate sources, just about enough to meet WP:N, or perhaps not...--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adding to Enki's sources, Averns is also mentioned on the University of Manitoba's School of Art, in the Art School Anatomies project, on University of Calgary's website, he may be involved in University of British Columbia Masters of Fine Art Program in Visual Art here. We don't delete BLPs merely because they are unsourced, we speedy contentious BLP content, or content which could possibly be contentious, but this is not the case here. Paraphrasing nom., there is coverage in reliable sources, the question is whether it is sufficient or insufficient coverage, I would say sufficient. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bones and Biscuits[edit]

Bones and Biscuits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a small pet-food company that wouldn't be notable except that it was started by an 11-year-old, and received a few press mentions as a result. Those sources are cited, and are all from about the same time in 2006 (except for one report on an awards dinner in 2007). I believe this is analogous to WP:BLP1E -- the single event of the company's being founded by a young person doesn't make it worthy of permanent note in a general reference encyclopedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep you are wrong to refer to WP:BLP1E, as that only applies to biographies, and as such has no effect whatsoever in this discussion. What we should be referring to is WP:ORG, which states: "A company (...) is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." This company has been the subject of several such sources, including a report in the UK Guardian, a report on Fox news and report in the time for kids magazine (the reliability of which is questionable). The company founder also has a page on the NFTE site, which is independent of the company. Finally the company has received an award from the NFTE. I'm saying this meets WP:ORG, which is the policy that counts in this discussion SpitfireTally-ho! 07:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm a keep voter too, thought I'd point out that it's not the Guardian newspaper, but a company called Guardian Life Insurance. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out :) SpitfireTally-ho! 08:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For me, the multiple references to the company in independent reliable sources (ABC, Fox, Time (all right, Time for Kids, but it's still an RS)) all show that the company meets the notability guideline. Here's why I don't think BLP1E should be extended to apply here: the spirit of BLP1E, as I understand it, is to prevent the encyclopedia clogging up with bios of persons who briefly enter public prominence in the context of a single news story, then fade from attention. As well as the sheer likely volume of these articles, they would be problematic in light of our undue weight policy: a single event is seldom the sum total of a person's life, but "one event" people only receive coverage for a single incident. Though BLP1E is specific to biographies, I could see the logic of extending to other "single news event" articles. But I don't think that's what this article constitutes. It was not the fact of the company's foundation that newspapers deemed remarkable, but its existence. There are references dating from multiple months and years in the references section. In short, I don't think this is a news story, so I don't think BLP1E should be extended to apply. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - coverage in multiple reliable sources demonstrates notability. Note that the debate bout extending BLP1E is irrelevant as that is covered by WP:NOTNEWS. -- Whpq (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment hmm, actually, the NOTNEWS is about "persons and events" so is unrelated to companies, not that it matters at all since you said keep, but just thought I'd point it out, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 21:30, 13 June 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) 07:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave London[edit]

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

I cannot find any indication that this artist satisfies WP:MUSIC. I can't find a single independent reliable source to justify any of the claims made in this article either. -- Atamachat 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article's creator left the follow on the article's talk page:

  • Comment - Thanks for including that. The reason why I created this AFD was to give the article's creator a chance to argue for its inclusion. There was a proposed deletion that was about to expire, but it was clear that the creator contested the deletion. -- Atamachat 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support deletion, although the 30 fans on his MySpace site might not agree. I can't find anything that supports keeping this. An internet search comes up with a fair bit of promotional material, but nothing that provides third-party verification of anything in the article or his importance in his field. I have not contribued to the article and have vested interest in it whatsoever. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a bit tricky to search because a google news archive search come up with a lot of hits referring to other people by the same name, or juxtapositions "Dave, London", but I did find a few independent sources that verifies some of this. Most are just mentions, but here's a paragraph in a review: [5]. Another mention: [6]. This is not enough to establish notability in my eyes. But I may be missing sources so I'd like to give the author of the article a chance to find sources. In the absence of finding sources, I'd say to delete. Cazort (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced BLP fails WP:MUSICBIO. لennavecia 23:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncanny Amazers[edit]

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

No sources, therefore fails WP:BK. No special reason to consider this encyclopedic. Fleetflame 20:56, 11 June 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 Oology. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeooölogy[edit]

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

Term does not exist; all Google hits are related to the WP article. The references listed in the article do not use the term. The german article is also proposed for deletion. The German article is meanwhile deleted by speedy deletion. Leftfoot69 (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - no harm, appears to be a real word, if a neologism. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "No harm" is not a valid keep rationale, and neologisms are not something we typically keep around. Resolute 16:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What dictionary did you find it it? I haven't found it in any dictionaries, yet. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Protologism not actually in use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and with possible Merge/Redirect into Oology if not enough material remains for a standalone article. With some effort, I found sources establishing that this is a real word. Extremely esoteric? Yes. Verifiable? Yes. [7] shows JW Hedgpeth's 1957 "Treatise on marine ecology and paleoology", which has been cited by [8]. Also, [9] and [10] (chinese text) both use the term. Scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals, and there's a work written in detail about the subject. Also, this source: [11] as well as this one: [12] both establish that the Swedish Museum of Natural History actually has a "Department of Palaeooology". There may not be many sources but they establish without a doubt that it's a real term. The question of whether or not there is enough coverage to justify a standalone article, however, is still open in my mind (without being able to get my hands on that main source). Cazort (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've bad news for you. The purported "Treatise on marine ecology and paleoology" is actually a mis-spelling, in a citation by an author whose first language isn't English, of "Treatise on marine ecology and paleontology". Put that into Google Scholar and you'll find all of the people citing it under its correctly spelled name.

      And those people at the Swedish Musem of Natural History work at its Department of Palaeozoology. Not only is this clearly stated in the abstracts that you pointed to, but here's the Palaeozoology Department's own staff listing, listing them. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing this out. You have definitely convinced me to recommend a Delete or Merge. Cazort (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aside from from Google hits without the word Wikipedia (there are 29, some of which still come from Wikipedia), the older instances might be misreads of the word Palaeozoölogy during the digitization process. Palaeoology with two os might be something else. Fails WP:V Abductive (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cazort's work and my own Google Scholar search show this is a legitimate term that is in use. LadyofShalott 01:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've probably made the same mistake that Cazort has made. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stand corrected for the two instances you list above. While it is not a WP:RS, there is a professional yahoo group: "Palaeoology · The Palaeo-oological Discussion Group"[13]. An actual reliable source that uses the term is [14]. (As it is discussing a Miocene egg, this is not a typo or poor English instance.) I'm changing my vote to merge to oology. LadyofShalott 02:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, it's more than two. It's four out of the six citations. Here's the fifth: Cazort points to an article co-authored by Professor Erik Flügel. Its abstract clearly states, however, that he works at the Institut für Paläontologie der Universität. This is the Palaeontology Institute in the University of Würzburg. And the article itself talks about paleoecology.

          I agree about Blas & Patnaik. All that they do, though, is use the word, and checking the context does hint that it is a nonce coinage on their parts. For example, on page 3 they talk about "Standard palaeooölogical methods suggested by Carpenter (1999)". The actual Carpenter citation, however, is "How to study a fossil egg", chapter 8 of Kenneth Carpenter's Eggs, nests, and baby dinosaurs (ISBN 9780253334978). It doesn't give this name (or, as far as I can tell, any name) to "the study of dinosaur eggs". Uncle G (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 5 books from the 1950's that use the word. Modern search engines might not be too relevant for this topic. (Disclosure: I recently edited the article, and I'm fighting its deletion also on de-wp) --Pgallert (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you have run into the same problem I ran into...that these are scanning errors of the word "Paleozoology"--it's the same Hedgpeth reference. Cazort (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to WP, Joel Hedgpeth was an expert on the marine arthropods known as sea spiders (Pycnogonida), and on the seashore plant and animal life of southern California, not dinosaurs. Leftfoot69 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right with the Hedgpeth book, now only LadyofShalott's examples are left. Changing my vote to merge to oology. --Pgallert (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G's rationale. There seems to be a very legitimate question as to whether this word even exists. Resolute 16:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • … moreover, the people who study the subject don't call it this. To them, this is simply palaeontology. John R. Horner in the foreword to Dinosaur Eggs and Babies (ISBN 9780521567237) calls this field simply vertebrate paleontology. (Karl F. Hirsch, one of the foremost experts in the field, was a geologist, not a "paleaooölogist", by the way.) There's plenty of material for expanding our article on dinosaur eggs threefold. But there's no formal field of study specific to them by this or any similar name. Wikipedia policy tells us to trust the likes of M. Horner to know what their own field of study is. Uncle G (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least some of them do, given the Yahoo group I mentioned above. (This is not something anyone can join either; it specifies that it is for people working in the field.) Of course, it is paleontology - it is a subfield thereof. LadyofShalott 20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTKNOWIT - That's a prime example of arguments to avoid. LadyofShalott 20:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has been amply demonstrated that this word is a protoneologism, any and all earlier instances are scanning errors, and in any case it is assignable to paleontology, not oology. It is not sufficient reason to save this word, nor should it be saved because it has three o's in a row. Abductive (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs to both paleontology and oology - it is the subfield at the intersection of the two disciplines. I never said anything about the three o's - so why are you acting a wiseass about that? (And I had changed my vote to merge and redirect days ago.) LadyofShalott 21:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oology is not an academic discipline; currently only the Smithsonian has a Dept of Oology. The study of eggs while they are alive (or recently dead) uses very different methods than the study of fossil eggs, which uses standard paleontological methods. Abductive (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could have disclosed that you are the sysop on de-wp that has executed the speedy deletion, against some of the CSD rules, and with pretty much the same argument. --Pgallert (talk) 08:52, 17 June 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 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Cirt (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Church Business Administrators Association[edit]

Presbyterian Church Business Administrators Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organisation. Low double digits in the unofficial (but in this case useful) Google test. Deprodded after 7.12 days. Abductive (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Can this be deleted since prod was contested after the 7-day period lapsed? KuyaBriBriTalk 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I would like to see this material kept. I am not finding enough independent sources (here's one, not public: [15]), so in my opinion, this solidly fails to be notable. However, this source: [16], although definitely not independent, is (in my opinion) reliable. This and the organization's site itself seem more than adequate for sourcing text about the PCBAA in a sub-section of some other page. WP:SELFPUB seems to cover this situation--use of self-published sources ON themselves. The PCUSA church is very solidly notable so I see no problem with including a paragraph or two on the PCBAA on the PCUSA's main page, using that source and the PCBAA's website as sources. Cazort (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect from here as per TexasAndrod above. Non-notable in its own right unless sources turn up. Springnuts (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitimorphism[edit]

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

Apparently a neologism: discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics has revealed no evidence of the term at work. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC) PS Contested Prod, see article history. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator: Delete as neologism. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as PRODder. Just a clarification: The prod was placed on grounds of unverifiability, not because it is a neologism. That said, it may very well be a neologism. decltype (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unusually complete lack of any search engine hits whatsoever, and I even tried several misspellings and the obvious translations to several other languages. It's also worth noting that both the user who created this article and the anonymous deprodder are from Canada. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The claim about analytic geometry is a sign of joke. I think so, unless someone explains me, where in analytic geometry I can meet this high level of abstraction. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - It actually is quite a good joke: it is so simple that it seems perfectly plausible at first, until one sees how completely unmotivated it all is. For the benefit of posterity, here is the definition:
In the mathematical field of analytic geometry, a mitimorphism is a morphism from the power set 
of a fibre bundle into another fibre bundle.  The name comes from the Greek mitos, "fibre," and morphe, "form".
— Charles Stewart (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, now I get it! Wow, I'm slow. Some math students must have been having a good laugh. decltype (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also for future reference, this was the brilliant edit comment with which the article was deprodded: "seen it; not sure about the etymology part". --Hans Adler (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wonderful! Do we happen to know if the IP addresses have their home in Montreal[17], by any chance? — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Washington (American football)[edit]

Gerald Washington (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Went undrafted in this years draft, no substanial coverage and was recently released. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Yates[edit]

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

Non-notable; searches for references do not offer any help. The only reference in the article does not support its assertion (although it may be correct; no prejudice).  Frank  |  talk  19:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very brief search yielded a wealth of potential sources: [19]. I'm still open to more discussion though, that was just a first impression. My intuition based on a quick glance, however, suggests that this is a classic example of a page that could be pretty easily sourced and cleaned up. He conducted the BBC Concert Orchestra, see this search: [20], also, he conducted the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra, see search: [21], and also the Royal Scottish National Orchestra. These might not be the best of the best orchestras in the world but they're certainly major ones, and I suspect I would find more material if I searched harder. Cazort (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The quantity of mentions of his name is not in question; what is in question is notability. In general, WP:NOTE calls for significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which I don't see in any of those hits. What I see is that a performance is being given, and he is the conductor. No mention of his contribution to a specific genre, notability for his conducting, or evidence of a long and distinguished career. It may be that WP:MUSICBIO item #5 ([h]as released two or more albums on a major label...) is satisfied; if such can be demonstrated this may be a moot discussion.  Frank  |  talk  14:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I've read through the search results more than you...I have seen acknowledgement of substantial contributions, and in different articles. This article: [22] reads "...Martin Yates, whose premiere recording of Arnell's First and Sixth Symphonies were nominated by Gramophone magazine in March as an Editor's Choice". Also, amazon lists 46 items (maybe some dups?) on which he is the conductor: [23]. Even with dups, that's very substantial--compare to discographies of many solidly notable pop artists. WP:MUSICBIO reads "Has released two or more albums on a major label"; while I realize he's just the conductor, this is far above and beyond. This article: [24] and this book [25] both establish that he also has prepared an edition of a Gilbert & Sullivan score that has been noticed/cited. Some of the references in the news search also refer to him as a pianist and composer. This source: [26] discusses a string quartet of his, establishing that he is indeed a composer and that his music is performed. Here is a very detailed source that is NOT independent: [27] (run by his management company). Cazort (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I found the original article of the editor's pick in Grammophone: [28]. Cazort (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the review cited, and the other work. DGG (talk) 00:56, 14 June 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, the way it is written Tone 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WBlite[edit]

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

Believe that the lack of available resources and sources on software makes this nothing but spam and should be speedy deleted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete advertorial spam. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was AfD'd while it was already prodded. I have removed the prod tag; prod rationale, added by Dank (talk · contribs), was:
A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: 2009 June 11 – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzy Bloody Ozzy[edit]

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

Non-notable bootleg that fails with WP:NALBUMS. Cannibaloki 18:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

The Other Side of Ozzy Osbourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 39 Clues Cards[edit]

The 39 Clues Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Game guide. Far too detailed for an encyclopedia. Belongs in its own wiki. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The cards are a big part of The 39 Clues series. Every 39 clues book has its own article, so why can't the cards have their own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ag97 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep "far too detailed" is not a reason to delete, but it perhaps could be a reason to split the article into even more articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These cards are a big part of The 39 Clues series. So it's either we merge it to the main article (that will make that page VERY big), or keep this article. Even if we move it to the main article, someone will put another tag that it may need to move to another new article. Albertdaniel222 (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article currently is poor and not sourced with RSes. But [29] would seem to indicate that there are RSes out there for this CCG. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any reason to delete this. Ohms law (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing notable about the individual cards and all the minor details about them. This article is to close to being a game guide. All this information could be easily edited of the intense amount of detail and added to the 39 Clues article which also needs massive trimming. Ridernyc (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an argument to keep and copy edit the article(s) rather then to delete it/them, though. Ω (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list of cards might need to go, I agree... Hobit (talk) 17:06, 17 June 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) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arab–Israeli conflict facts, figures, and statistics[edit]

Arab–Israeli conflict facts, figures, and statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Article in deviation of WP:N and WP:CFORK policies, page created out of chutzpah. Izzedine (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The information seems valuable and sourced. I don't really understand the title though. It seems like a data page comparing Middle Eatern countries. And it includes palestinian refugee numbers. Is there a way to include it appropriately? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It lacks any context to identify the purpose of the article. It is non-notable and shouldn't be an article, it's a content fork. The person who created it even included non-Arab countries. We all know why it was created and it's about time we do something about it. Izzedine (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why was it created? I only see one non-Middle Eastern Country and it's indicated that it's inclusion is to provide a kind of baseline for comparison (presumably by providing a European/ western country for comparison). I think it's a very useful and interesting table and it would be a pity to lose it. Perhaps it needs modification and some outside the box thinking on how to make it more encyclopedic and appropriate as far as article titling and content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Culver[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable self-published author. None of the Google News hits for Jonathan Culver appear to refer to this person, who doesn't appear to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:23, 11 June 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 deleted by Anthony Appleyard under WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Morales[edit]

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

Can find no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Apparently a vanity page that has been recreated several times after being speedied or PRODed. L. Pistachio (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Almost seems like a hoax. I can't find anything on this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree on the evidence. I searched extensively, not only did I find no sources, but the supposed record label, "Caribbean Mix Records" turns up almost no google hits and certainly nothing reliable--and it doesn't even have a website. But I say No Salt. I would not support a salt because this is a very common name and it is highly likely that someone by the same name is already notable or will become notable, see: [30]. Also, where is the evidence of previous deletions? I'm not seeing that anywhere in the page history or on the talk page--if it's been deleted before it should be listed there unless someone made a mistake. Cazort (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the logs for the page. It hasn't been AFD'd previously, but it has been deleted several times. --L. Pistachio (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not seeing anything in the revision history. Is there some other place I should be looking? Can you link to it here? Thanks, and sorry for being so dense. I am just not aware of any other place to look. Cazort (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the parentheses next to the article title, where there are a bunch of links. The one that says "logs" leads to the Logs page for the article. This is where you'll find a page's deletion history, if any; it won't be in the revision history. --L. Pistachio (talk) 22:07, 12 June 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 deleted by Jclemens under WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Zantiago[edit]

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

Can find no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Apparently a vanity page. L. Pistachio (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I mistakenly included that part about deletion and re-creation. The other article, which I AFD'd at the same time, has a history of deletions. --L. Pistachio (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Stooges in popular culture[edit]

Three Stooges in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is just trivial listcruft/clutter at best. If there is any important notes, they belong in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wouldn't you say that a topic like "Three Stooges legacy" or any topic documenting their influence on popular culture, would be so important as to belong on the main page? If that page is too long, then a debate could be started there about spinning off a relevant sub-section into a sub-page. But this page doesn't even remotely resemble a sub-page...I think work is needed to turn it into prose and make it encyclopedic. Cazort (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
And the easiest way to work on something is to not delete it. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no meaningful difference in difficulty between in-place editing and a user-space move. That argument is spurious. Mintrick (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to support leaving bad material in the main namespace more often than not, because I think that's how wikipedia works best, but this case seems just too pronounced, because (1) the content is bad (2) the very name of the topic is problematic, and honestly (3) I don't think much would be lost if it were outright deleted: the only value I see to the material being kept is as a list of "things to potentially incorporate into an encyclopedic narrative"--and userspace is the appropriate place for such lists, not wikipedia itself. Cazort (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main article - seems to be very bias towards children's shows but it is still noteworthy (if only as testament to their lasting cultural impact) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no conceivable way to merge any of this. If we keep, we'll just end up back here again. (For a technical reason, it lacks encyclopedic purpose)Mintrick (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ChildofMidnight; obviously notable and worthy of a non-paper tertiary source. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how a complete lack of substantial coverage in secondary sources constitutes obvious notability. Mintrick (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of Stoogeology by Peter Seely, Gail W. Pieper a 272 page book that "provides an in-depth look at their comedy and its impact on twentieth century art, culture and thought" seems to refute the idea that there is a lack of substantial coverage. Have you looked for sources? They exist in a multitude. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As fancruft. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Three Stooges. I personally think that little material is worth merging (it's a list, mostly unencyclopedic) but if anyone feels very strongly about keeping the material I would recommend weaving it into well-written prose on the main page...that's the only way I think it is appropriate to retain the material here. I am firmly in favor of merging or deleting the "X in popular culture" pages in general. Cazort (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another IPC article without any notability. An encyclopedia is not the place to document every time ____ is seen in popular culture Corpx (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just added note of a book covering this subject in particular above. There are also sources like this [31] and this one [32] related to the king of pop. So it's not hard to find very substantial coverage of this highly notable topic. Whether it should be a list article as it is now, or made into a standard coverage of the subject is an editing decision. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The delete votes are puzzling. If there are only 10 IPC articles permitted in Wikipedia, then this would almost certainly be one of them. They've been covered in any number of derivative media, had homages in others. No objection to trimming content that doesn't meet WP:V, but claiming non-notability for these is just inappropriate. WP:IPC supports the article in substantially its current state. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think AfD was the most constructive way to handle this issue, but now that the discussion is open I do think there are multiple issues with keeping this material/page as-is. As it's currently written, it's a list and unencyclopedic. The material would be better written as prose and incorporated into a narrative discussing underlying themes. Wikipedia is not a random repository of knowledge--it's a WEB of knowledge which means, rather than presenting random lists of facts, it should tell a story about each topic and describe how the topics relate to each other, and discuss unifying themes. I see little or no value to pages that are little more than collections of random facts. That's what's behind my "puzzling" vote. Cazort (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also suggested merging as an option, which isn't really a delete !vote. Deletion is only for when WP:ATD has failed, and many others made no attempt to suggest a good alternative as you did. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should clarify that I meant that a merge would be only appropriate in the case that someone had rewritten the material into encyclopedic prose. I think that is a necessary starting point if someone feels very strongly about keeping the material and does not want it deleted--because in its current form I don't think it belongs on wikipedia. I suspect this isn't going to happen overnight, so maybe a merge the way I envision it would be unrealistic, and a delete + userify would be better...then people can work on making it into prose and weaving it into the main article. Cazort (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge eminently notable, though not one of my favourite acts so WP:ILIKEIT does not apply here :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge This subject is clearly notable and there is some worthwhile content here. It should perhaps be merged with the section The_Three_Stooges#In_other_media. I don't deny that there are some non-notable entries in this list, but it needs a cleanup and integration, not deletion. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as reasonable spinout of the 153 kB The Three Stooges, and send to WP:CLEANUP to address style issues. Perhaps rename per Child of Midnight. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I agree, the article requires a lot of work. But the deletion policies are clear. Deletion is supposed to be based on the merits of the topic -- not the merits of the current article. Some stuffy people may disagree, because the stooges seem low brow, but a familiarity with the stooges is part of being well-educated. This is why the current version of the article includes one hundred or so tributes to them. I just did a google scholar search on the three stooges. Scholars study the influence of the three stooges. Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subsequent cultural references to a highly notable group of artists is an appropriate subject for an article. The references that Geo Swan found establish the notability of this as a topic even by the most rigorous of standard criteria. DGG (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geo Swan's search clearly demonstrates the notability of the three stooges. However, I am unconvinced that a page with the topic "Three Stooges in popular culture" needs to exist. ChildOfMidnight's recommendation to rename to "Three Stooges legacy" makes sense. But more importantly, the current form of the content of this page is unencyclopedic. Do you have a strong rationale for keeping the article in the current form? Or a strong objection to deleting and then userifying it, with the intention of weaving it into a narrative? Cazort (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but possibly rename to Three Stooges Legacy, certainly edit. - Vartanza (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, and not "just trivial listcruft/clutter at best". It is troubling that none of the delete !voters seems to have attempted to search for sources, nor does the nom (?). May I add that the article originated as a spilt from The Three Stooges 11 November 2007 as the size approached 70k, so merging back is going in circles. Could be a good solution to rename to Three Stooges Legacy, as the IPC title semms to trigger idiosyncratic reactions. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Culled to verified and cited items leaves three references that, if pertinent, can easily be merged into the Three Stooges article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Tyes[edit]

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

Not notable - no references verify notability. Subject was a hopeful in recent UK Elections for European parliament in which his party polled less than 7,000 votes and came plumb last.

  • Note: Article was previously listed for MfD when in userspace, user moved it to mainspace during the discussion. AfD'd rather than PROD as it seems a little pointy to ask the creator to agree to his own non-notability. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Us2 Championship[edit]

Us2 Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no notability, no reliable sources. D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 11 June 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 Meiji Seika. Cirt (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meiji Almond[edit]

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

non-notable product. Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:37, 11 June 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 Patriarchy. Cirt (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universality of patriarchy[edit]

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

Orphan POV-fork created by an editor that has since been topic-banned from patriarchy-related articles. Contains lots of synthesis and POV-laden apologetics. Any legitimate information in this article can easily be merged into patriarchy, although I think that article already covers this particular topic adequately. Kaldari (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this topic should be mentioned and covered as appropriate in the main article, but I think a separate article on the idea of patriarchy's universality is be good to have and meets our notability standards as a stand alone. If there are arguments discrediting the idea that balance would certainly be good to include. Removing the OR is probably above my pay grade, but if someone wants me to take a whack at the article I'm willing to give it a try... And this is just my opinion on the matter so others may feel differently. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google scholar finds around 75 scholarly journals / publications with the phrase. See http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22universality%20of%20patriarchy%22&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ps .
It is a well used term in academic discussion.Lumos3 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS. There are 630 published works in Google Books with the exact phrase "Universality of love" and 103 with the exact phrase "taste of hate". It doesn't mean we need wikipedia articles for those phrases. Wikipedia articles are for distinct concepts, like love, hate, and patriarchy. Different aspects and ideas concerning patriarchy should be dealt with in the main patriarchy article until such time as they are substantial enough to spin off into sub-articles, per Wikipedia:Summary style. This article has not gone through that process. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"taste of hate" returns a fairly random set of novels , biographies and non fiction with no underlying theme discernible. Whereas "Universality of patriarchy" gives a set focused on gender issues, mostly academic . It is clear that it is a term with some currency in that field. A wiki develops wherever people are moved to put their energy. A developed article here will feed back into an improved patriarchy article. Lumos3 (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article only has one author (who is topic-banned for a year), so I don't think it's very likely this article will be receive much energy. And if it does, it would be a waste, since it would be far more useful to have editors who are interested in the subject working on the main patriarchy article (which is in piss-poor condition). Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you address the numerous sources discussing this issue as noted above? Also, if its creator is topic banned, there should be no trouble removing any OR or altering it for accuracy. So I don't see what the problem is unless you can show that the numerous books and articles covering this subject don't establish its notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer a question with a question: can you first cite any of the "numerous sources discussing this issue as noted above" that contain "significant coverage" of the "universality of patriarchy", as opposed to mere mention in discussing the wider issue of Patriarchy? I would suggest that the WP:MERGE#Criteria of 'Overlap' & 'Context' would suggest that this topic is not separable from its parent topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer your question that answered my question with a question :) an example of the substantial coverage is the 256 page text titled The inevitability of patriarchy‎ by Steven Goldberg. I haven't read it, so I have no opinion on its merits, but the title indicates more than a mention. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but we already have an article on The Inevitability of Patriarchy (until earlier today, we in fact had two articles on it -- one under the title of the revised edition of it, Why Men Rule), which can adequately address the views stated in that book. Between that article & Patriarchy, we would appear to have the field adequately covered. A third article would appear to be entirely superfluous. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue for notability is whether a subject has received substantial coverage. Clearly this one has. That we have an article on one of the books that covers it does not diminish the notability of the subject itself. There are many more sources dealing with this subject such as this one [35] and all of these [36]. This is a very notable subject that has been debated in various academic circles. I can't see why we wouldn't want to include it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do want to include it, within the patriarchy article. If we followed your and Lumos3's criteria, every subsection of every article on Wikipedia would be a separate article. We are simply trying to follow the summary style guideline, which states "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article." Indeed, if you look at the patriarchy article, you'll see there is already a section at the bottom discussing the universality of patriarchy (in a way that is NPOV and free of original research. That section didn't meet the author of this article's liking, so he spun off his own POV-fork even though the section in the main article was still not even fully developed. Kaldari (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather see the article fixed and the POV removed. As the article's creator has been topic banned, I can't see that anyone will be there stop someone from merging it, but showing magnanimity and preserving the article in a form that doesn't contain POV, synth, or OR seems to me to be the best approach. My conclusion based on the information I've seen is that this is a legitimate topic in its own right that has been the focus of very substantial coverage including at least one book focused on this topic in particular as well as numerous sources discussing the ongoing debate. I can't see why we wouldn't want to cover it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful content into Patriarchy, then delete. --Alynna (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a point here, you can merge or delete. If you delete it all goes, no history, no redirect. With a merge the page disappears but anyone who types in "Universality of patriarchy" will be redirected to the patriarchy article. -- Banjeboi 02:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Alynna Kasmira. Merge back to Patriarchy and delete. Subject not sufficiently notable to be broken off from Patriarchy--Cailil talk 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a point here, you can merge or delete. If you delete it all goes, no history, no redirect. With a merge the page disappears but anyone who types in "Universality of patriarchy" will be redirected to the patriarchy article. -- Banjeboi 02:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Universality of patriarchy' is an unlikely search-term, so a redirect serves no real purpose. Anybody searching for information on the subject would surely try 'Patriarchy' first. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Benjiboi. I understand what your saying - but that's precisely my !vote. Copy/paste the info that useful from this article back to Patriarchy and delete Universality of patriarchy. IMO neither a history nor a redirect at Universality of patriarchy would prove useful. (If I had considered them useful I would have !voted 'merge and redirect' rather than merge and delete)--Cailil talk 03:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, frankly this subject itself is plenty notable on it's own but given the parent article is so short is my main reason for supporting a merge. In my book if an article could exist but is being merged more for convenience that's a reason to leave the redirect and even the history. -- Banjeboi 03:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean - but I think that this concept is so intrinsic to the subject of Patriarchy that a separate article is unnecessary - nothing wrong with the notability of the anthropological studies, IMO it's just unintentional content forking really--Cailil talk 17:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The patriarchy article is very short so this can be trimmed of OR and then be sent back to the parent to grow. No need to delete though, quite notable subject. -- Banjeboi 02:58, 14 June 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. Open for 24 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough keep !votes to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filmörnen[edit]

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

Also included in this nomination:

Non-notable local film festival. Google news search brings up zero hits. No evidence of notability outside the area it is held. No secondary sources to verify notability and tagged for lack of them in August of last year. This user created a series of articles on his non-notable film company that won this award but which were deleted last year. I left this article alone to give him chance to prove notability but he hasn't. Therefore, I say it's time to delete it. Redfarmer (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I agree that both the festival and film association have marginal notability. However, the articles do exist uncontested on Swedish Wikipedia (interwiki links in place), and "Filmörnen" does return 2360 Google hits in Swedish, and 8370 hits overall, and I don't see any POV issues. A possibility would be to streamline the coverage by merging the festival into the association's article to have one article instead of two. Tomas e (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the same user wrote the articles on the Sweedish Wikipedia and did have an extremely POV issue at the time--promoting himself and his film company on Wikipedia. Redfarmer (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 16:30, 11 June 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) 06:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inchgarth Community Centre[edit]

Inchgarth Community Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced and orphaned article about a place of uncertain notability. No indication that it meets WP:N. Mosmof (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Aberdeen. The subject of the article is verifiable but it is of local interest only judging by the very limited sources and should not be in a stand-alone article. Drawn Some (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Aberdeen per WP:TOWN. Considering that all Google News results come from two local publications, Aberdeen Press & Journal and the Evening Express, I don't think that the subject passes the notability requirements for a standalone article. — Rankiri (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Aberdeen. This article isn't notable enough to stand on its own. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article can't stand up on its own and I see no evidence that it's a large enough part of Aberdeen's cultural 'ethos' to warrant merging. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My recommendation to merge was mainly based on the following claims:
  1. "Inchgarth Community Centre, on Aboyne Place, Garthdee, currently offers 157 classes to people of all ages and abilities."[37]
  2. "Mr O'Connor is preparing to launch a campaign to save the centre, which boasts a huge array of facilities and a combined annual attendance of around 70,000."[38]
  3. "BEST COMMUNITY CENTRE: INCHGARTH..."[39]
If that's not enough, delete would be my second choice. — Rankiri (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: clearly falls well into the Notability guideline at WP:N. Note that WP:TOWN is a "Proposed guideline": it is Not policy, and its higher reguirement -- that reliable sources must be of more than local interest -- does not reflect concensus. This is why simply slapping an acronym down in these debates is poor form, and discouraged. As it is, this topic is the single focus of several articles in reliable sources (large Newspapers). Is the coverage Significant? WP:N defines this as "sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." I would say by this definition, yes. Therefore the topic is notable. If editors want to merge this in the course of regular editing on the topic, fine, but there is no mandate that they do so in community guidelines. T L Miles (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I point to WP:TOWN and WP:LOCAL to provide a reasonable background for my own view that, generally speaking, local interests with limited insular and no external coverage should not be seen as individually notable as they don't really satisfy the appropriate notability and verifiability requirements for standalone articles. I take your point about WP:TOWN not being a commonly accepted guideline—I should have remembered and mentioned that fact without simply referring you to the page—but as for "simply slapping acronyms", I believe I fully explained my reasoning in the subsequent sentence. The subject's coverage revolves around a couple of lease and renovation related incidents and other trivial announcements that all go back to 2002-2006. All that coverage essentially comes from a single local news source that may or may not be suitably impartial to pass WP:RS. If you cut down the unverified claims like "the centre was an old secondary school that was renovated in the 1980s.." and "...attracted attention of certain celebrities in the past that include: Annie Lennox, Andy Murray and Brian May"[40], the few basic facts offered by the local news coverage are way too limited to help move the page beyond its present two-sentence stub state. — Rankiri (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep but expand the focus or merge to Cults, Aberdeenshire (which appears to be the nearest more notable area of Aberdeen). I'm not certain there is enough that can be said about the community centre for it's own article, but Inchgarth is a historic area of Aberdeen that along with the community centre has a reservoir, reservoir and until ~1981 had a primary school. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, not seeing the notability or sources here. Is it really that big of deal that a community has a centre? It should be shown that the centre itself is notable is some way but this doesn't see to do that. I'm open to a Heymann save or merge if there really is something to merge. -- Banjeboi 08:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is no standard of inclusion on Wikipedia in which a totally non-notable subject for which no sources exist (such as a common person or small business) can be mentioned in the article on the location where it is found. Sebwite (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's no the issue here. There certainly are sources for this but nothing to suggest that this center is notable. That doesn't mean it isn't notable just that presently we don't readily see anything that shows it is. With a single source the issue could sway. Not seeing that happen I'm inclined to delete. -- Banjeboi 05:00, 17 June 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.

===Inchgarth Community Centre===


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

Non-notable center, highly promotional article. Onel5969 TT me 22:09, 9 October 2019 (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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Society for Court Studies[edit]

The Society for Court Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail the significant coverage requirement. A GNews search reveals only a dozen hits; more importantly, these divide between a North American version and a British version, making that coverage even less significant to the extent it exists. A search for "The Society for Court Studies" yielded less than 500 hits, again split between the two groups. Tyrenon (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that if this page is deleted, then the related magazine at The Court Historian should also be considered for deletion. Passportguy (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, but I would say that the magazine seems to be far more notable, and the publishing organization is the comparative footnote here. In some sense, if the Society here is notable, it is because of the magazine, and not the other way around.Tyrenon (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly disagree. The number of hits on Google is not a valid indication of relevance (and God forbid that it ever will be). In its field, The Society for Court Studies is a well-known and respected institution, established by such renowned scholars as David Starkey and Simon Thurley (try Googling them!). Its journal the Court Historian is a scientific and peer-reviewed journal and can be found in academic libraries around the world. Draeymae (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This process is actually very simple : Simply provide reliable references and I'm sure editors will reconsider their deletion request. Passportguy (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If I see a couple of good sources added (other than the organization and its journal), I'll pull the nom.Tyrenon (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have already added one reference and will look for more in weeks to come. Thank you for not deleting the article.Draeymae (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the very least the journal and the society article should be merged. Their combined notability might be enough for a weak keep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep - A Google search doesn't bring up much but a quick look around Lexis Nexis brings up articles about the society's works from a few different law journals and History Today and a whole load of articles in the UK Times and Independant talking about their work. Seems like it would meet notability. (I can link people to the individual articles if they don't have Lexis, just ask!) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm afraid I don't quite see what the problem is. There are a lot of societies listed in the Wikipedia category of learned societies that contain far less information than this article does, and surely fail to yield thousands of hits on Google (such as the Cuvierian Society of Cork, for example). However, this does not necessarily mean that these societies are unimportant or irrelevant. The article on the Society for Court Studies cites reliable sources and is objective. Seems to me this ought to suffice. Draeymae (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The History Today article is sufficient evidence for notability. DGG (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Sessions[edit]

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

I don't think journalists are inherently notable, nor founders of online magazines. I can't rule out third-party coverage but it's hard to search for because of his profession Citius Altius (talk) 15:40, 11 June 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) 06:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

West Valley Volunteer Fire Department[edit]

West Valley Volunteer Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nothing notable or encyclopeadic Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sounds like a nice but, non-notable, organization. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to El Paso County, Texas. Not notable but it is significant within that context. Drawn Some (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not a fan of indexing local level public utilities such as this unless there is an abundance of significant coverage that shows notability outside the local area Corpx (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Drawnsome. There appears to be some useful information in all those lists, as well as two decent cites. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability. Purely of local interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It hasn't gotten national coverage but it has gotten media coverage in El Paso as evidenced by this, this, and this. Although a blog entry this confirms the previous mention of a local on-air reporter being a firefighter for this department. Furthermore, this search of the El Paso Times archive for the last 180 days turns up three stories, but it requires payment to view the archive. I'm usually a deletionist, but this seems to me to be one that can be saved.Wperdue (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
I think that those references make the Dept. notable enough to Merge into the El Paso page at the least. However if there is a fundemental rewrite or any further examples of notability can be found in addition to the above the Dept would definitly warrant having it's own page.
  • merge per Wperdue. to El Paso County, Texas. Not sufficiently notable for a separate article. Sources can be used to add content there. Sources are hardly significant coverage. Dlohcierekim 00:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added information about the WVFD being ISO Class 4 Certified, and about the run stats, and about a big fire that made the news and warranted the responce of a dozen other fire departments. It is a notable department with state certifications for training and responce well above and beyond many other volunteer fire departments, as listed in the article. Information Should Be Free (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Drawn Some, without prejudice to keeping or recreation as an independent article once sufficient coverage is found. We discussed this eventuality here a while ago, and this looks like a great merge candidate. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing notable. I suppose we could call it a redirect, but there would be no need for more than a mention. the only event it was engaged in that even made the local news was a single-building fire. DGG (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fire departments are a government function that, although flashier than the dogcatcher, no more notable unless third party sources say so. Abductive (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity management pantheons[edit]

Diversity management pantheons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google searches [41], [42] do not find any use of this neologism except in connection with the newly-published book cited as the only reference. Fultus Corporation is a print-on-demand self-publisher. Delete as not notable for lack of independent reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Besides not being notable the article is wildly POV. The author would do better adding to existing articles on the issue.Northwestgnome (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Numerous problems, not the least of which is insufficient notability, make this article unsuitable for Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This seems to be coatrack spam promoting one man's book. And the text here is a fine example of material that's so irremediably confused that nobody can reasonably be expected to make sense of it: The concept of the Diversity Management Pantheon is concept where an entity appears dedicated to an initiative based on perspective but is hollow and lacks substance regarding the initiative. In the 1980’s, the foundation of the Diversity Management Pantheons was poured. This fabled beginning was grounded in the belief that organizations could build multicultural teams in the workplace and leverage their differences to add value. En route to this perceived gold rush was an emergent inability for some organizations to understand the impact that demography has on business decision making. That combination led to a new level of textural deficiencies that have been largely unaddressed for years. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Weise[edit]

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

Artist with no assertion of notability ("aspiring actress"), only references to WP:SPS Madcoverboy (talk) 15:26, 11 June 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 redirect to Harley Davidson. Nominator agreed with this, doesn't need to be here 7 days for a re-direct. Content under the merge for whoever wants to perform it. StarM 00:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harley-Davidson FLHTCU[edit]

Harley-Davidson FLHTCU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been tagged as an orphan since September 2008 and as uncited since July 2007. It is a stub, of little use, and should be deleted. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that is a good solution. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:30, 11 June 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) 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addington Symonds[edit]

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

this surname does not exist. People listed have the have been given the surname 'Addington' as a middle name and have the surname 'Symonds' Mayumashu (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if the one namesake is notable, the other is his daughter. Both have their own articles. No need to have a seperate article for the name. Maybe redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Your argument is fallacious. Just because you don't know anyone with this surname, doesn't mean that the surname doesn't exist! THe author's surname is, accordint to Amazon, Addington Symonds: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books-uk&field-author=J.%20Addington%20Symonds . Addington can be a forname, equally it can be a part of a non-hyphenated double-barrelled surname. I'm not using this as an argument - because it's a poor one - but at least 20 people in my extended family have this surname. Come up with a better argument than 'its not a surname', please, because it is, and I have as many sources to prove it as you do to prove it's not! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That said, having a page about uch an obscure name is a bit odd. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:12, 11 June 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 / snow delete as a hoax. BencherliteTalk 16:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hill (soldier)[edit]

Michael Hill (soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Highly implausible biography with no references. The subject gets no Google hits.

To be specific:

  • The subject has an excessive number of honours from three armies;
  • The article claims he served on a mission that ended when he was 13 years old
  • Capture of a Canadian soldier would generate news coverage. There is none.
  • Love of platypus is a bit of a giveaway.

DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable much less notable. If significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources surfaces, please notify me on my talk page to reconsider my opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Article makes some grandiose claims, none of which are substantiated. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. The only google hit about this person is this article on wikipedia. No references for a person who has accomplished so much means the person likely does not exist, or the claims made are false. Delete. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as hoax, so tagged. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Tucker[edit]

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

Person seems to fail WP:BIO. Only stated achievement is the brief publication of a comic strip in a number of non-mainstream publications. Comic is now discontinued and has no article of its own; in light of the stated short run, I feel that the comic also likely lacks notability. Tyrenon (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. His 15 minutes are up. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete All his notability seems to rest on the one comic, which is in itself non-notable and is unlikely to gain notability in the future. I wrote the GA on LGBT comics, and found no mention of this work in general reliable sources on the topic (which doesn't mean no sources exist at all, but if they do, they are not many and are mostly blogs). I don't think the grant confers notability - doesn't nearly every artist and scientist in the world recieve such grants at some point in their career? I went for "weak" as some searching did find sources, but i found them to be either commerical, trivial mentions or blog-like, but others may disagree, [eg http://prismcomics.org/profile.php?id=117 Prism comics] is in blog format, but has an editorial board, so could be a RSYobMod 12:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per insufficient notability and above comments by editors with expertise on this subject area. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 11 June 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) 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astadia[edit]

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

Yet another case of not-quite-unambiguous adverspam. All references are internal to the company as far as I can tell, and the page is just a list of products. The article has been up for a month, and hasn't been touched in over three and a half weeks. Tyrenon (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The company gets mentions in some reliable sources, but one is fleeting, and the other is just placement in a chart. No meaningful notability is apparent. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article uses mostly reliable sources and contains unbiast and factual data. It is data someone researching Astadia would desire and is not advertising. — [[User:anonymous|anonymous] (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.121.168 (talk) {(spa|24.126.121.168}}[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'd be inclined to G12 (spam) this one. Very much corporate promotion and little else. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al Hilali[edit]

Abdullah Al Hilali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

while involved in a top level sporting league, I doubt this referee meets notability requirements. Lacks references RadioFan (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lacks references? You didn't give me 10 seconds to edit this and develop it before bringin this straight here! An international football referee in tournaments such as the World Cup, Champions League and Olympics Games doesn't take a rocket scientist to rrealise that he is a notable football official! Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I'm finding some passing mentions in football articles, I'm not finding the kind of significant coverage that WP:BIO requires, nor am I aware of any Wikipedia policy or consensus that officials enjoy the same notability assumption that competitors or coaches do. If I missed it, please point it out to me.--RadioFan (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems to be missing from WP:Athlete I indeed suggest that one of the experts on here writes it into the guidelines of meets notability requirements for sporting officials. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry but you do seem to revealing a lack of knowledge of what generally meets notability requirements on here. Why for instance would this referee not be notable out of Category:Football (soccer) referees by nationality. What makes this any less notable than Masoud Moradi and the thousands of other articles? This nomination seems to have been spurred by a mistaken belief that football officials are not notable rather than the status of this individual as he is a top international referee and certainly not a criteria for deletion. If you;d waited two minutes for me to edit it time would have been saved. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete While reffing in the world cup is a great achievement, I'm not sure its enough for notability purposes, because of the lack of any coverage from media Corpx (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable = he has acheived something of note (not necessarily received a shedload of media coverage). I would certainly say that refereeing in international tournaments such as the Olympics, AFC Champions League and World Cup qualifiers is definately notable in this field, and referees usually only receive extensive media coverage in controversial circumstances. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ber Bettia; this person has refereed in the Olympics and (potentially) the World Cup - the two highest levels of football! GiantSnowman 11:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quite notable for a referee considering the competitions he's refereed. There could possibly be Arabic sources about him. Spiderone (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles on small national league referees. You;d think this would not even be questionable given that he has officiated for the world's biggest football competitions (and is a World Cup referee candidate). This is elite football we are talking about, this shouldn't have even been nominated. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are references and notability appears to be asserted. It would be nice to have more references, but when the article was prodded within 2 minutes of creation and sent to Afd 2 minutes after that, the lack is understandable. Edward321 (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an impressive array of matches/tournaments officiated, has to be considered notable Eldumpo (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PalaceChat (software)[edit]

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

Comparison for the sake of advertisement for program on sale. Adelare (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see anything notable about it... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Horváth (footballer)[edit]

Péter Horváth (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league. No other claim to fame either. GiantSnowman 13:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was trying to find some non-Hungarian sites which deal with this team so I could offer up an opinion one way or the other - can't find a single one! Do you have any? Might help with consensus. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell from running various Hungarian pages through Google Translate, "Luzer FC" is not actually a Hungarian football club, but rather a reality TV show featuring a bunch of nerds (luzer = loser) being turned into a football team. All of which suggests that the alleged storied career of this guy with the club between 2000 and 2004 is completely made up or some sort of veiled attack. He certainly hasn't played professional football. Oh, and "Kinizsi Klub" appears to be some sort of nightspot and not a football club either Delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N; appears to be attack or hoax per ChrisTheDude. Jogurney (talk) 02:34, 12 June 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) 06:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Target Account Selling[edit]

Target Account Selling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sales process. No reliable sources detail this process in any reasonable detail. Unsourced since feb 2007. Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Also spam, original research, and patent nonsense: TAS was one of the first training programs to treat selling as a prescriptive process that could be applied across a salesforce. It taught 20-questions for qualifying the validity of pursuing one sales opportunity compared to another. Five military strategies were taught to assist making decisions about how to deal with competitors during a sale, based on the writings of Chinese general Sun Tzu in the book The Art of War. The effect of relationship dynamics, politics and personal influence between buyers were also in the curriculum. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Not even an assertion of notability. Author is essentially a SPA. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This is not a non-notable sales process, in fact it is very notable, as found in this book from 1963 and it's a concept covered in most sales and marketing text books from the '60s at least, as far as I know. The article is about a work-shop and not the sales process and is basically riding on the back of the latter. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Isn't that a reason to Keep? Just because the article needs to be rewritten (even if that need is acute) is no reason to delete it. Ohms law (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has to be deleted to be rewritten, the current article has no connection to what could be the real article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm confused. "The article has to be deleted to be rewritten"? What kind of strange, circular reasoning is that? I know that sounds a bit like a borderline personal attack, but it's not really intended to be... OK, the current content totally sucks. I can accept that as a fact, but as a reason for deletion!? What about editing it to change it into a better article (even if that basically entails blanking the page, that would still be more productive then deleting then it). Ω (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I remain sceptical about whether this marketing method (or any other, really) is a proper subject for an encyclopedia article, I am open to being convinced. But this text seems to be spam, intended to farm links to a website. The current text probably ought to be wiped from the history because of that. So any deletion should be without prejudice to re-creaton, but this ought to go. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? When the current article and the possible have no connection, it has to be created anew, to just purge the history. This is one of the cases where WP:TNT is required. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The is an example of a reason not to delete and article, as specified in WP:ATD, which is part of the overal deletion policy. Ω (talk) 14:30, 17 June 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 Japanophile. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wapanese[edit]

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

The article violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not as it is merely a dictionary entry. The proposed deletion template was removed by an editor who at the time thought that the article held content that was better than that of the existing Wiktionary entry and therefore should be transwikied. Because after several weeks the article is still here and because I disagreed with the transwikification in the first place, I am now nominating it for deletion. Goodraise 20:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect both Wapanese and Weeaboo to Japanophile as they are legitimate search terms. Drawn Some (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary, then redirect per Drawn Some. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't agree with a redirect - the word Japanophile has a broader meaning than the one that is mostly adopted nowadays on the internet (i.e., being equal to Wapanese), and redirecting "Wapanese" to "Japanophile" would be a bit like redirecting "hooligan" to "Britain" - sure, some British are hooligans, and there are people who think all British are hooligans, but that doesn't change the fact that not all British are hooligans, not by far. Same thing with Japanophile and Wapanese - I consider myself a Japanophile, but am aeons away from being a Wapanese or a weeaboo. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The terms may not be synonymous but Wapanese is a subset of Japanophile and can rightly be included in that article. Drawn Some (talk)
The terms wapanese and weeaboo aren't ethnic slurs, they refer only to non-Japanese people by definition. Plus disambiguation pages are for ambiguous article titles, that's not the case here. Drawn Some (talk) 15:48, 11 June 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. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of spore games and expansions[edit]

List of spore games and expansions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The content included, to the extent it exists, is better served on the primary page of Spore. Even if a separate page is merited for the expansions, a page for a list of them is completely unnecessary. Tyrenon (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as trivial list. Also agree with Haipa Doragon. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marasmusine. I think that the disambig for Spore is too general and doesn't (and won't) provide enough context about red-linked variations where a list can be improved to do so. Hobit (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't a disambiguation page have redlinks too? Apart from that issue, this list seems to be doing very little that the dab page isn't doing. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the moment the list and the dab page are very simlar (though I don't know a dab page should have redlinks), but one thing a list can do is provide significant detail (say a few sentences) about topics not notable enough to have their own page. A believe a dab page is suppose to have a very short description, just enough to disambiguate. Hobit (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • From WP:DAB: It may contain redlinks to help editors create articles on notable entries However: Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title [...] Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Thus, it is not appropriate to list the expansion packs in the dab page. Marasmusine (talk) 10:47, 15 June 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. Cirt (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Joes[edit]

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

We lack sports criteria, and while I know that major-league and minor-league sports teams qualify for Wikipedia, I cannot find guidance on whether or not amateur teams make the cut. Ergo, this nomination, which I will gladly withdraw if it is found to be within guidelines. Tyrenon (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Why the Hamilton Joes Wikipedia page being kept open is important

The Midwest U.S., especially the Ohio/Indiana/Kentucky area, is baseball minded. Baseball there is what Football is to the entire state of Texas. We love our professional teams, major and minor league, and we love our amateur teams. We also follow our high school standout athletes their entire careers. There is no greater example than the Cincinnati area. (Hamilton sits just outside of Cincinnati). To the people of the Cincinnati area, and people active in Major and Minor league baseball, know and respect who Joe Nuxhall was. He was from Hamilton. He is a legend throughout the entire southwest Ohio area, not to mention around many other circles throughout the world of baseball. The Joes are his namesake, and his family is very involved with the team. The Cincinnati Reds also share those ties with the Joes. Their Executive VP of the Reds Community Fund, Charley Frank, opened up the press conference introducing the team. Former Red, Major Leaguer and possible Hall of Famer Sean Casey, along with Joe Nuxhall's son, Kim, as well as former Cincinnati Bengals Hall of Famer and Cincinnati resident, Anthony Munoz, are all assisting in the Joes opening day, marketing, fundraising, etc. As a matter of fact, Major League partially funds the Great Lakes Summer Collegiate League, of which the Joes are in.

This is a really important tool, Wikipedia, and our fans need places to go to get their information. It is my intention to paste links to the Joes Wikipedia page whenever possible, as it provides a widely-used and trusted source among the population.

Please, instead of deleting the page, just let me know what needs to be fixed. I'm not the best at deciphering guideline jargon, so if you could use plain terms I would greatly appreciate it. --Joshuadmanley (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your fans need places to go to get their information, you need to place the information on your own website. Wikipedia is a place where verifiable information on notable topics is compiled. It's not your webhost. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment- I fixed the format of the page, but did nto change any content, I do not have a vote on this matter.Umbralcorax (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has multiple independent sources (in addition to several non-independet ones) so meets WP:N. Amateur teams (as opposed to most amateur players) are not inherently non-notable. Rlendog (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or merge into the article for the league. I am not convinced that such summer teams are notable. I consider the coverage relatively trivial. If it were important, there would be coverage in the major sports news sources. DGG (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If DGG is satisfied that the article doesn't meet inclusion standards, that is enough for me. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The purported notability seems to come from the fact that they named their team after Joe Nuxhall, but naming the team after somebody famous doesn't make an amateur ball team notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage by bigtime sports news isn't likely for small teams. This has coverage from multiple reliable sources — including the not-so-smalltown-ish Cincinnati Enquirer — so seems to pass the GNG aside from anything else. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only thing that makes me hesitant is that the Cincy Enquirer seems to be a human interest story about the team's namesake. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's significant coverage for this team from newspapers, so I see no reason to delete. Corpx (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The level of coverage here clearly meets WP:GNG. BryanG (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Omega Chi[edit]

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

The external reference links provided are free web host servers, unless valid references are added. --TitanOne (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

André Schneider[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources to document either the article's claims or demonstrate the subject's notability. Disembrangler (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like this article is a fake. Maybe it was created for catching some attention. No evidence for movie appearance, comedy shows etc. can be found. German version was already deleted in 2006 for the same reasons. --Dikanda (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please respect WP:BLP policy even on these pages. That fact that evidence can't be found to support claims doesn't necessarily mean they're not true, or that they were made in bad faith, so please don't speculate. It doesn't actually matter for this AfD whether sources can be found to back up the claims, because the subject almost certainly fails notability, I think. Disembrangler (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the unsourced and potentially hoaxy parts of the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 11 June 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 deleted by Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs) as G3: blatant hoax. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 13:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis Chatzivasiliou[edit]

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

This is a FAKE article and should be deleted ASAP. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Schmitt[edit]

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

Unknown artist, no sources about its exhibitions and awards, poor google hits Nanax (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I'm familiar with (i.e. the one I know is notable) is transmediale, for which he came in second. I would say that's a bit on the trivial side. Problem is, there are so many art awards out there, esp. in new media, that having a list of awards is often meaningless. This is borderline. freshacconci talktalk 16:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Borderline, but some of the claims in the article aren't what they seem. The two most striking are the stated collaboration with Chris Marker, and the exhibition at the Centre Pompidou. He provided technical assistance for Marker's Immemory CD Rom [43] and had an exhibition in the children's gallery of the Centre Pompidou [44], as well as participating in a number of seminars. A working new media artist who features on the seminar/education circuit but not quite notable enough for WP.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:24, 17 June 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 deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) as G12 - blatant copyright violation. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cower[edit]

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

Non-notable game. No sources included in article, most likely because there aren't any to be found. Creating editor removed prod, so now it's at AFD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:31, 11 June 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. Smith[edit]

B. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article was created by a single purpose account as an apparent fluff piece. The article has been tagged as reading like a press release for over two years with no attempt at repairing the issue. Beyond that it is unreferenced and its most recent update made it even worse as it now reads like a bio written by her publicist. Jeremy (blah blah) 07:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly she's notable just through in-depth coverage in newspapers, do a Google news search for ("barbara smith" + "b smith"). The problem is one of tone and verifying the information. What it needs is sourcing and stripping out of unsourced PR babble. Drawn Some (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs better sources, but if the article is true, she'd be more than notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The promotional aspects of this article have already been significantly toned down since this AfD started. Sources are clearly available, and I will try to improve the article in the near future. But not wanting to have an article about B. Smith would be similar to not wanting to have an article about, say, Paula Deen. Smith is clearly notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:41, 12 June 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 redirected to Ryan Avery, as it had been since 2006. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Night Wolf[edit]

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

Neither animal nor folklore, this page is either a joke or vandalism. gnomeselby (talk) 07:06, 11 June 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) 06:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashra Kwesi[edit]

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

Non-notable biography of professor. Sources don't establish any notability. Has been PRODed and de-PRODed already, so AfD raised. Oscarthecat (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed. I don't see much for notability, but if a well respected editor thinks there's cause to keep it I'm inclind to give them the benefit of the doubt. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He seems to have some significant news coverage in many countries Google news. I don't care enough to clean up the article, but I did a search a couple of days ago when I was adding categories. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. After an extensive search using various tools, such as Worldcat, Google and various academic databases, I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline). However, based on the news coverage of the subject’s work (see hits uncovered by SpacemanSpiff), I would argue that the subject either meets or is close to meeting WP:PROF criterion #7 (substantial impact outside academia in academic capacity). Even if the subject was found to not pass WP:PROF, he seems to pass the more general WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I edited the article to give it a fighting chance here. As correctly noted by ChildofMidnight, the previous version read like an ad for the subject’s tour firm.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:FRINGE appears more relevant than WP:PROF for this one. I don't see the extensive referencing in major publications that would be needed to pass WP:FRINGE. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just don't see it. I don't think we should invoke WP:PROF criterion #7 unless it's clear that the subject is a professor and I can't discern that from the sources. WP:FRINGE does appear a better criteria, and with all respect, he's on the fringe of the fringe.... - Vartanza (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Certainly fails WP:Prof and does not appear to have notability otherwise. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AV Multi[edit]

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

It was suggested at MultiAV's discussion that this article also be deleted. It only has two references, one of which comes from the same site as MultiAV's references. Brian Jason Drake 06:30, 11 June 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) 06:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rose MacDonnell of Antrim[edit]

Rose MacDonnell of Antrim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable. Notability is not inherited. The woman is a grandchild of someone, a wife of someone else, a sister-in-law to another, and a mother to two unnamed others. This person is unlikely to have received significant coverage anywhere. Celtus (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. She associates with notable people, but isn't notable on her own. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because notability isnt transitive Corpx (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The person has a full article in the Dictionary of National Biography!. furthermore, it can be found trivially by Google Books, tho you need a subscription to get the actual article). Yes, the most obvious of places, print & online. The Ref is: Jane Ohlmeyer, ‘MacDonnell , Rose, marchioness of Antrim (1631–1695)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 accessed 14 June 2009 (& there are other sources cited there), the GBooks search is [46]. To write an encyclopedia takes looking for sources, not guesswork. It is time we absolutely required WP:BEFORE, because just a check of the googles would have found this. (And of course, firm consensus is that anyone with a DNB article is unquestionably notable, as a utterly reliable secondary/tertiary source of great selectivity; we should not act as if Wikipedia were the first encyclopedia to ever be written. (Incidentally, the reason she has a DNB entry in the first place is that she played a major role in the wars of the period, rescuing her husband's lineage both financially, during his life and politically afterward. The eds. there not surprisingly can judge notability more reliably than the eds. here. ) DGG (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seem that one or more people of this name is notable and so the article should be developed further to clarify the facts of the matter. Deletion is not helpful in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You want to keep a bio on a non-notable person because it seems like there are other people with the same name. Huh?--Celtus (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not have to delete an article completely in order to create a new version and, by keeping earlier versions, we retain an audit trail which respects our contributors in accordance with our licence and enables the easy correction of mistakes. Please see our deletion policy which states, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Colonel Warden (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Celtus with the expectation that DGG will modify his view in light of the comment under his post. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:11, 18 June 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 Power Glove. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Powerglove[edit]

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

Anonymous user removed redection, still fails WP:BAND Cazbahrocker (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Cazbahrocker (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete, then Redirect This article was changed to redirect twice now, both times having the article reconstructed. I'm not seeing anything in the article that has changed since the original AfD that established notability as all references are self-published WP:SPS. The article should be deleted, but the term refers to an unrelated Article, so the redirect should be added after. Presuming that notability can been established and the page is kept, a {{oldafdfull}} should be added to the talk page so we don't have to go through this again. Finally, if the redirect is restored, is there a way to place a link to the AfDs to discourage future creation/deletion cycles. Cazbahrocker (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect - No need for AfD to do that. There was consensus for a redirect, and if that consensus remains, it should be easy enough to retain the redirect going forward. And if consensus has changed, then the article will stand based on no one willing to revert back to redirect. Rlendog (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, except at least twice it was redirecting to the article for old video game controller and the article for the non-notable band was restored. If not for the name of the article, it would be deleted for failing notability as per the previous AfD. A deleted article will refer someone to the AfD when they try to recreate the article. I'm not sure that can be done with a simple redirect. Cazbahrocker (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Lamorte[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography, unsourced, promotional, and lacking claim to notability. This was marked, appropriately, for speedy deletion. JNW (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found one ref referring to Lilith La Morte on Google News -- not enough to establish notability, but enough so I wanted to see if they could come up with any reliable sources in a week.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find anything--maybe you can supply a link to the mention? It would have to be substantial, if it is the only source that can be found. The claims made in the article (Dani is known for his unique, creative, and sometimes shocking live performances; That evening, Dani Lamorte won the title of Miss Pittsburgh Trailer Park Trash 2008) and detailed descriptions of the act don't suffice. JNW (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.pittnews.com/2.2145/drag-show-challenges-gender-identities-dress-1.237294 -- very minor mention. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Notwithstanding the humor of the "Miss Pittsburgh Trailer Park Trash" designation, there's not much there... JNW (talk) 21:08, 11 June 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. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Football in popular culture[edit]

Nuclear Football in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is trivial listcruft at best. Important notes (if there is any) should be in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Nuclear Football. I thought IPC articles/sections/whatever were deprecated unless there was something significant about them? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What happened is that I tried to compromise. I don't think the trivial mentions belong in the main article, but since so many people clearly want a place for such things, I tried to leave a separate place for them to express themselves. Rob disagrees with this idea, and will probably continue to nominate the articles I created. Mintrick (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm seeing nothing in the talk page, but this doesn't mean it didn't happen. Nevertheless, if this really is a dispute in editing, AFD is not the place for it. RobJ, can we get your take on this? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not an editing dispute. It's a philosophical difference, and it's been debated on other articles. Suffice it to say, I've given up on the moderate stance and decided to side with Rob and others. Mintrick (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mintrick rarely discussed things, this so called "compromise" didn't take place. He just moved this pop culture cruft to a new article with NO consensus or discussion. Just because people enjoy this type of information, doesn't mean it's suitable for Wikipedia. I want to point out: I've nominated several of these in the past, some Mintrick has created and some others have created. I'm not just singling out his creations. I would be fine with just merges/redirects for many similar articles, but usually they just get reverted and merge discussions just die out. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't discuss every edit I make. When people had a problem, I discussed it. But in almost every case, there was no conflict. How about this: I'll try and leave a note on your talk page whenever I make any edits. Mintrick (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think that this may have been split out of Nuclear Football, so it shouldn't be merged back there Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This material could've formed an independent article, but it certainly shouldn't be moved back to another. Mintrick (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke! Look at all that listcruft, delete. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't actually have a criterion in Wikipedia:Deletion policy called "listcruft". Please provide a policy-based rationale. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" seems to fit the bill, clearly and obviously. Mintrick (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Total listcruft. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know full well what we mean when we say it and others have already filled in that blank. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless you want to delete thousands of other "X in pop culture" articles. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm yes please. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • People want to delete this article, and that is what is relevant here in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what sources? The closing administrator isn't a magic source-making service. It's up to you to show the sources that can be used to "reference better" the article. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! Another "in popular culture" article lacking any notability. Wikipedia is not the place to come document every time something is shown on TV Corpx (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article is mostly original research, see WP:OR and the topic of Nuclear Football in popular culture is not notable per WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix up or Merge Cultural influences and recognition is often part of a subjects notability and should be included appropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Often, perhaps. But you haven't stated whether it is in this specific case. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case, the pop-cultural role of the "nuclear football" image and concept is itself of such substantial notability and significance that it needs to be included for completeness and accuracy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 19:39: it needs to be kept, because it's important to notability. 02:49: Because it's notable, it's important enough to be kept. Your argument is circular. Mintrick (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge (or Keep) to Nuclear football. The information should not be on a separate article, however the information is valuable enough to be on Wikipedia. Or else lots of "things in pop culture" will be removed. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Uncle G said above, the future implications are irrelevant, and this is not a good argument. Mintrick (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsplit and clean up the main article. This is just a WP:CFORK. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as oft depicted rather prominently as a plot theme. article quality no guide to deletion. I'd merge it myself unless article size precludes it. Completely arbitrary split. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nuclear football. This article does not need to be so verbose, as most of these entries could be summarized in a sentences that goes "The nuclear footbal has been featured in a variety of films, including bla, bla, bla, and bla." Beyond that, this article is not independantly notable, tho the content may be suitable in the parent article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I merged any content I felt worthwhile into a small IPC section. Two short paragraphs, much better than the current state of this article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a separate article, trimming as needed (The merge mentioned above was, properly, not actually performed--a drastic merge during the discussion of an article is inappropriate). If it should close merge, that would be another matter. It is not correct that IPC articles/sections/whatever are not deprecated if there is significant content, and the use of a theme in nptable works with WP articles is significant contnet. There was indeeed a time when many of them were deleted, but consensus has I think very definitely changed from 2 years ago on this. Keep this, and consider restoring many of the others. DGG (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this particular case, I don't think this subject has recieved significant (or any) secondary recognition to indicate it is a notable theme. I agree that concensus has changed, and the long list of deleted IPC articles should be looked back at carefully. But this, this is a poor example of something with little to no cultural impact, and I don't feel bad about jumping the gun and boldly merging content before it gets deleted. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This material is totally unencyclopedic as it lacks a central topic where notability has been shown. Instead each point is a mini-topic in itself which is best presented (with the missing citations to reliable sources) in other articles. We aren't a repository for uncited cruft of this nature. ThemFromSpace 02:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Nuclear Football is that notable central topic unless you're now proposing to delete that. And no, each usage is not a mini-topic (!?!). Each item is immediately sourceable to itself - an example froma movie is citable to that movie, likely a review of the movie would confirm this. WP:Cruft is antagonistic, please avoid using that in AFD or elsewhere, it simply shows a shade of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. -- Banjeboi 05:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the central topic is not nuclear football, but nuclear football in popular culture. Important distinction. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expand and clean-up. The list would be more useful to showing the most notable examples of this being a plot device and variations but that also requires someone (i) having the hundreds of examples of usages already in the article and (ii) actually watching them all to compare which are most significant. Until then let it grow and encourage sourcing. -- Banjeboi 05:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke and Pave — mention in individual pop culture articles if appropriate. Jack Merridew 06:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 06:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with popular culture articles. There is no possible way to merge that with the main article, it ending with just a redirect, and anything that was put over there called trivia and deleted later on. So that isn't an option. Listing every film and whatnot that features this, which is how most people probably know it even exists, is fine for an article on popular culture. Dream Focus 01:51, 18 June 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) 06:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synergology[edit]

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

Original research Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is going to be one of the rare cases where I vote keep. The article seems to be a translations of fr:Synergologie, where quite a few sources are provided. Google turns up a few hits for the concept, so it does exist. Although I personally cannot say if it is notable as a concept, as I have no indication to the contrary I say we should keep it for now. Passportguy (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism and advertising masquerading as science. No hits for this word in Google scholar; ergo it is not a recognized subject of scientific inquiry. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly. One man's non-notable neologism for something akin to body language, the best that I can figure; which would make this a content fork of an already covered subject that seeks to call attention to his newly coined word. Judging from the list of references, they appear to be generally about communication, gesture, or body language generally, which would make this article original research to the extent that it is about one person's trademarked theory: Since (name( wishes that synergology be taught methodically and with firmness, he has established a trade name for his method. French language Google Books search leads to two passing mentions which might support a very short stub, but not this article; the rest are either the inventor's own texts or lists of recently appearing books. The English form yields nothing significant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked at the sources cited in the French article, and having looked for sources myself, I agree with Ihcoyc. M. Turchet's idea has apparently simply not yet escaped its creator and entered the general corpus of human knowledge. I can find no independent documentation of the concept.

    I observe as an aside that the German article was discussed and deleted in 2007. Uncle G (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article itself says: "Since Philippe Turchet wishes that synergology be taught methodically and with firmness, he has established a trade name for his method." All he did really is brand his own version of existing methods. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, the term is a neologism, original research. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remedial action work plan[edit]

Remedial action work plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing but an uncited dictionary definition. This has been tagged for notability and verifiability issues since 2007 without any major change and nothing I can find shows that an encyclopedic article can be built out of the concept in general without the use of original research. Also note that the creator has been indef. blocked for vandalism. ThemFromSpace 04:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XboxNowOnline[edit]

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

I haven't been able to find any WP:RS references for this, listed on many gaming sites along with ads though. Nothing on Gnews either. The article is only self-referenced, so no pointers from there either. It reads like an ad, but that can be fixed by reducing to a stub. Alexa ranking is over 2 million. Also nominating a redirect page (the Founder's name). SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because although it currently is just a redirect, it started off as Bio for the Chief Editor/Founder:

Hamza Dar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment. Please be more attentive. On the Blogger's Choice awards, it was an anonymous nomination and the website only received a single vote in one of the two nominated categories[49][50]. The website also isn't even mentioned in DailyBits' "18 Undiscovered Websites Every Gamer Should Know" feature, unless you see the user response #63 by "mrcoolz" as feature appearance. — Rankiri (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Errr, I seem to have been in too much of a hurry. SharkD (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete, A7 by User:Backslash_Forwardslash. Lenticel (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful Machine[edit]

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

Non-notable web portal. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 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) 06:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arizona Diamondbacks people[edit]

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

I'm nominating several more "List of [MLB team] people" pages after they were brought to my attention in the AfD for List of Boston Red Sox people. Again, these pages are indiscriminate lists of people, radio stations and televisions stations that have been associated with their respective teams in some way at some point. They unhelpfully include groundskeepers, celebrities with no ties to the organization besides wearing their shirts, as well a "Other noteworthy individuals" subsections, which sometimes include no one.

Other pages being condensed in this AfD:

For relevant policies: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:STAND, WP:OR. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are those? These articles are completely overlapping with existing articles. Spanneraol (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overlaps for Diamondbacks: List of Arizona Diamondbacks broadcasters (which also includes radio and TV stations), List of Arizona Diamondbacks managers, and Arizona Diamondbacks all-time roster
For Braves: List of Atlanta Braves broadcasters (which also includes radio and TV stations), List of Arizona Diamondbacks managers and Atlanta Braves all-time roster
For White Sox: List of Chicago White Sox broadcasters (which also includes radio and TV stations), List of Chicago White Sox managers and ownership and Chicago White Sox all-time roster
for Dodgers: List of Los Angeles Dodgers broadcasters (which also includes radio and TV stations), Managers and ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers (redirect from List of Los Angeles Dodgers managers), Los Angeles Dodgers all-time roster and List of Los Angeles Dodgers in the Baseball Hall of Fame
for the Mets: List of New York Mets broadcasters (which also includes radio and TV stations), List of New York Mets managers, and New York Mets all-time roster
I've already listed the Yankees overlap above.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This is listcruft. Nom has it right. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I agree with the nom that such a list is somewhat indiscriminate. List of <team> managers/owners/announcers are definite and serve the purpose sufficiently Corpx (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Overlaps with existing articles. Indiscriminate information. Spanneraol (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all most of the people in these lists have categories and the lists are too long. In addition, the lists are not so useful because they are not complete.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Per policies mentioned above.--Giants27 (t|c) 17:36, 14 June 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) 06:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annual Toronto Transit Commission ridership per year[edit]

Annual Toronto Transit Commission ridership per year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an indiscriminate list of statistics. Radagast (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article about parent organization. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (redirect title) and remove ridership info per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOT#STATS guidelines. If this amount of ridership info were to be provided at all, it would have to, at the very least, be cited from multiple sources. Besides a few lines and the sources, this page is mostly a list of statistics. Sebwite (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are too many dates there. It is simply too exhaustive. All data is official TTC data, from one source. Therefore it is not true that there are too few sources. A similar situation can be found here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_population_census_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina Many different data points, therefore it is not part of but has its separate page as it is in more detail. (LAz17 (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale, and there is no reason why every single year has to be included in the main article. You could do a sidebar table that lists the ridership today, in 2005, 2000, 1995, 1990, 1985, etc, and a link to the stats page that you got the information from if a reader wanted full year-by-year data. Resolute 16:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding many years is very detrimental, as this goes up and down depending on the year. We would be missing the big picture here, as ridership is not increasing nonstop as you would suggest, if one excluded all years. (LAz17 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
  • delete Stats table with no likelihood of expansion into anything more. Information like this would be far more useful as a sidebar table on the main TTC article. Resolute 16:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lies. It will expand, every year. A graph or sidebar is useless if there are no numbers. (LAz17 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Delete convert to a graph and summarise in a section at Toronto Transit Commission. I don't see the need to keep the title as a redirect, but if it is kept it and the pages that currently redirect here should point to the merged section. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above and WP:NOT#STATS. I do not support redirect as an unlikely search time. LibStar (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The redirect may be necessary because this page does have some links. Sebwite (talk) 14:00, 17 June 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. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican football transfers summer 2009[edit]

List of Mexican football transfers summer 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article has no references, besides the links at the bottom. A lot of it is written with slang words and there is a lot of gossip. Black'nRed 04:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete, suggest that the author goes to the Mexican version of football rumours Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, even in this vastly improved form. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - In its current state, this article has no place on Wikipedia. However, if it could be filled up with actual transfers instead of rumours, it could be a decent article. – PeeJay 22:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I know this sounds like an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but is there a reason why this article is not acceptable but List of English football transfers summer 2008 is? I would assume that references do exist out there, and if an article has problems that can be fixed, I see no reason to delete it at the moment. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 11:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have never been that positive about this kind of articles. They are almost unmaintainable even when sources can be reasonably found and dedicated editors are heavily involved with them. Since I do not see any citation to reliable sources for the subject, and I doubt about the existence of dedicated editors who really know how to deal with the subject, then I would say it is better to put it off instead. --Angelo (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article can be improved, the article being unreferenced or being written with slang words are not reason for deletion. Most of its problems can be fixed without deleting the article. --Carioca (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:May I withdraw it, since its improved since the last time I nominated it. Black'nRed 19:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the article was improved and the original reasons for deletion does not apply anymore, you can withdraw the nomination. --Carioca (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, given that people have !voted to delete, the nom cannot be withdrawn but must run its course -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you are correct. I overlooked the delete !votes. --Carioca (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all other List of fooian football transfers. referenced(now) just needs a bit of a tidy--ClubOranjeT 07:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for continued improvement. The topic is notable and there is media coverage, so I see no issue. matt91486 (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dual sport motorcycle rides[edit]

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

Not notable. Dual-sport motorcycling is quite notable, but "Dual Sport Motorcycle Rides" is a particular company that offers dual-sport trips, which is not mentioned in any published sources other than the company's own web site. Dbratland (talk) 03:41, 11 June 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) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarun Mata Temple[edit]

Sarun Mata Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While a Google search indicates that the temple does in fact exist (I was suspicious, but I'm convinced of its existence), I cannot find anything relevant on GNews, GBooks, or GScholar. One would expect a mention in at least one of these if the temple were notable, but every single mention was the result of odd word combination throughout the document. Google did return a number of hits, but only 8 came back if you put the temple's name in quotes (and four of these were either from Wikipedia or from other sites' member edit pages). Basically, this seems to be a non-notable local church/temple without even any major press mentions, and therefore seems to fail WP:N. Tyrenon (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • That is one place I would need to beg someone to help me out on the foreign language side. I know no Hindi whatsoever. However, I am also willing to offer the conjecture that the 'Temple' in question may not be the actual temple, but the organization of it; I've seen this claim scattered around in one or two of the pages discussing the temple, but nothing more than passing that's independent.Tyrenon (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Lethbridge book would be a reliable source if it confirmed this, but it doesn't appear to contain the words "Sarun Mata", at least with that spelling.[51] Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I had the same problem, so I tried searching for the supposed founder, but no hits on that either. I'll wait to see if anyone can turn up any Hindi links, I don't have a Hindi keyboard, so I can't type, and Google doesn't let me translate "Sarun" to Hindi for me to search for the entire string in Hindi. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. Notability neither claimed nor established. If reliable sources giving notability can be found then there is nothing in this article that could not be easily recreated from them. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Note I've placed a notice about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board and User talk:Shyam (Shyam is an active user who speaks Hindi). Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I found the temple's website but it contains no pertinent information besides the vague claim that it "is very old temple situated in Kaotputli". All I could make out was that it celebrated seventh year festivities recently and that a dharmashala (approx., guest house) is being constructed (see artistic rendition). Google search in both English and Hindi found no other reliable source. All in all, nothing to suggest notability. Abecedare (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily keep, it's not necessary that you will find good number of online resources for notable temples in India. Tomar Rajputs article mentions one-liner info about the temple. I have left the message on the article's talk page. If anyone does not respond within next 10 days, then I doubt the temple's notability and should be deleted. Shyam (T/C) 03:40, 13 June 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, unsalvageable spam. The early versions that were not overloaded with spam were copied from the Ecotourism Australia website, so there was no usable version to roll back to. —C.Fred (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotourism Australia[edit]

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

This is currently written as an advertisement in multiple colours and no regard for WP:MOS. Grahame (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. A7, presumably. Tone 20:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backdraft (superhero)[edit]

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

Article about an RPG character played by the author of the article. Its not even a published fictional character, its just some DND type charcter this guy created and plays in a role playing game. This may be the least notable article I have ever seen. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:11, 11 June 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 both. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Sugars and ActionCOACH (see below)[edit]

Brad Sugars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
ActionCOACH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Sugars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Underwood, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broncolor, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clement Bowman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Levine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalberg Global Development Advisors, and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dalberg Global Development Advisors/1

Was proposed for deletion yesterday, but the tag was removed and so it is coming to AfD. The reason listed was: "Written like an advert, no credible notability established, mainly relying on primary sources." Orderinchaos 03:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep. It's spammy, but not unrescuably so, and there are a smattering of indepedent sources availible. I would not miss this article terribly so, but it does seem to brush up against the WP:N baseline. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but it is an argument to avoid. For future reference, Aaron. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN guy. No significant coverage in reliable sources unrelated to the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Given the sources listed by Private Musings on the talk page, I think he may meet notability. I'm not happy about how we got to this stage, but at this point we should evaluate at the article's subject based on its potential for an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. This Sydney Morning Herald article certainly makes an excellent case for notability, but that is the only reference/citation in the article that clearly does. (I have no idea whether the Stevie Awards are anything more than vanity things, and no inclination to spend the time puzzling that out.) The undisclosed COI problem with User:Zithan certainly is a source of unhappiness here, since the editor seems to be doing much of this - for example, Ken Underwood, Oil Gone Easy, and Broncolor. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you know there are COI problems on other articles (I was not aware of these cases, and I don't know if what you said was based on evidence or your interpretation of a look through contribution histories), please add the COI template to them. Dekimasuよ! 03:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's nothing more than business PR. Minor business figures generally aren't notable just because some business trade publications have mentioned them. See WP:NOT, several provisions of which this article violates. What would be required to properly keep it would be a more public controversy or other reliable-source coverage cited, e.g. to the general media.
    ..... The way in which this article appears to have gotten started may be seen here, where a solicitation offering compensation to develop a WP article was put out in early May 2009. When was this article started? you guessed it: 19 May 2009. Whether there's a connection or not I have no way of knowing for sure. But either way, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTMYSPACE, etc. are policy, and this article quite plainly violates them. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO and is spammy Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also delete ActionCOACH as there's no indication that it meets WP:ORG and is also spammy. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and conclusion - As a rule, I dislike paid articles like this; they tend to be spammy, "puff" and basically there for PR purposes; they often feel untrustworthy as contributions until carefully checked by neutral editors whether they are of any genuine value. That said we judge articles by their content not their motives, and having checked, the "Stevie" awards do seem genuine enough as serious recognized awards. If some of the other awards are legitimately valuable and not "some magazine's own award scheme that shows little more than that magazine's opinion", then I would say ActionCoach would probably be notable as a business. But the article should be stripped of any "puff". As for the CEO himself, is he notable outside the context of that business? Probably not. A successful businessman and author, ten a penny. Even if he won a single award, I'm not sure that makes him as a person notable - there are not so many awards in the world where winning them automatically makes a person of historical note. I'd want strong evidence and bona fide coverage (not just PR pieces) that indicate he is notable. Conclusion:

  • Move ActionCoach-related content to an article on that business, remove "puff" and PR ruthlessly if any, and redirect the article on its CEO to the business' article. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that's a reasonable way to handle this... Would just take someone with the desire to follow thru... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although ActionCoach itself is not really notable. So if all the business related information were moved to that article it would also fail WP:N and end up being deleted as well. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable self-promotion Murtoa (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article has been mentioned in The Register (yes, again ...): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/12/wikipedia_cash_for_spam/
  • Delete Brad Sugars per FT2 JN466 15:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both A stand on such puff pieces must be taken on WP, and this is a good place to start. WP should not become a repository for everyone who has flacks, or submits his name to vanity "Who's Who"s. "Fast Money Motormouth" to me does not assert notability at all. Collect (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and reads like an ad. Laurent (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Heavy self-promotion. A Google News search turns up many press releases [52] but few stories, although he did get one solid hit in the Irish Times. --John Nagle (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zithan (talk · contribs), who created most of the article in its present form, has been desysopped and blocked by ArbCom for failure to reply to queries about his paid editing. See [53]. --John Nagle (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the reasons stated by the nominator. Everything about the article looks liked a biased advertisement by his P.R. firm—all the way down to that splendid 14.1 megapixel Brad Sugars.jpg portrait of him (you can count the whiskers in his mustache that could have been shaved closer), which was “kindly” released under a Creative Commons license. Be sure to delete the photo along with the article. And ban any articles on this guy for the next three years, even if they are unbiased; he’s simply not notable enough. Greg L (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Or Move to an article titled Brad Sugars - Wikipedia controversy and revise accordingly so that it properly conveys a notable story about a “business coach” running afoul with Wikipedia and its policies about treating an online encyclopedia like it is a personal print shop. Now that would be interesting reading. But a story only about yet another guy who builds trust and bonding amongst managers by having them fall backwards into his peers’ arms, or chant “I’m unique, and—gosh darn it—I add value to my team”, or whatever else this guy does, is not encyclopedic in the least. (Disclaimer) Greg L (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear PR Dy yol (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vanity article, subject not notable. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ActionCOACH[edit]

Based on the original article and comments I made above, there is a chance that ActionCOACH might be notable. I have created an article based on the original at ActionCOACH and tagged it with {{refimprove}} and {{COI}} (due to its origins), and listed it here with Sugars' article, for communal review. I have no personal interest in either article; the sole question is whether if drafted, the company is considered notable. It may be - the Stevie awards appear to be non-trivial and legitimate and it has won other awards too. See my comment above. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Update: To my somewhat surprise, we appear to be discussing a $220m annual revenue business. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep ActionCOACH, and merge Brad Sugars into it. The company appears notable, the CEO not particularly so. And I'm always wary of biographical articles that include the word "entrepreneur" in the first sentence. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
And then delete Brad Sugars? Darrenhusted (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Typically it would be redirected to ActionCOACH. Computerjoe's talk 12:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FT2 His solution sums up my thinking. rootology (C)(T) 14:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ActionCOACH, redirect Brad Sugars to it Changed my !vote from above. Thanks to FT2 for working out a unique solution that is probably the best way to handle this. Dig it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per FT2. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per FT2. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As non notable and self promotion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Nothing but business hype. The "$220m annual revenue" FT2 mentions is from the company's press kit here-- not a reliable source. And it's a franchise operation, so its "estimate" of its own annual revenues is doubtlessly a claim based on what it publicly asserts its franchises gross worldwide. There's no evidence to back up this claim. Somebody show me the reliable 3rd-party sources about this infomercial-driven franchise operation, per WP:PSTS, and maybe I'll change my present position on this. But on the evidence presented thus far, it's a poster child for WP:NOT. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even taking out the PR puff about Sugars all we are left with is PR puff about ActionCoach (what is with the uppercase OACH? does it stand for something?). Most sources stem from the company or are reproductions of the PR material. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's now being reported that the "Stevies" are paid for as well. Suggest that we get rid of this mess entirely, since it is still based on COI reporting. Dekimasuよ! 12:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is basically advertising. I've tried to find some reliable sources about ActionCoach, and I'm just finding hype. They're a big user of PR Newswire and FranchiseWire, and Google News is full of their hype, but they get only a few brief mentions from reliable sources. The article doesn't even mention that ActionCoach is a form of multi-level marketing - there are "Master Licensees" who sign up other franchisees. I've found anonymous complaints that, as with most MLM, most franchisees lose money. But nothing solid, even on the criticism side. Once you ignore all the stuff ActionCoach itself generates, there's not much information available. --John Nagle (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I have in fact heard of this guy as it goes, but I've also heard about a tree in the woods next to my house. notability is dubious at best. Pedro :  Chat  19:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otter (Drinking Game)[edit]

Otter (Drinking Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD, was prodded again, but since we aren't supposed to re-prod, I've brought it here. No evidence that this meets notability guidelines, seems to be something someone made up one day. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:11, 11 June 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 deleted Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sing sing slammer[edit]

Sing sing slammer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

wikipedia is NOT for something made up one day....or one night Wuhwuzdat (talk) 03:03, 11 June 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of winners of the Walt Whitman Award[edit]

List of winners of the Walt Whitman Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Winners of an unnotable award by the Academy of American Poets. Once again, creator has recreated a list that was already redirect to the main article once that was under the name Walt Whitman Award, and despite two other AfDs going on with two other lists of awards from the same organization that he remade, without discussion and against the current consensus. The lists are nothing but a repeat of the list of winners from the official website[54] and the main AAP article has a better description of the award. The two "sources" are a directory listing for the award and a personal website. No notability of the award beyond its tie to AAP and most of the poets who have won it are not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep, there is Significant Coverage in Reliable sources, Independent of the subject, it took me 1 minute to google therefore snowball. flag for notability and third party sources, don't delete. pohick - (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does that make it a snowball keep? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's personal website is not a reliable source, nor is an advertisement for the award significant and independent. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some sad excuses for sources, but the award itself is notable and the list would be too. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so? How is it notable apart from the Academy? How is a list of its winners that just repeats the award's website notable? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are a couple of sources that might help: [55], [56], [57]. The award is listed in a number of articles I reviewed when talking about a poets accomplishments. I'd rather have the list article than seperate articles on every recipient, wouldn't you? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more source: [58]. This article actually talks about how worthless some awards are and uses the Whitman as an example of awards that have value. "But winning a Whitman insures that a poet will be published.

The Walt Whitman Award, established in 1975, comes with $5,000 and hardcover publication of a poet's first book by the Louisiana State University Press. But since the academy also buys 6,000 copies for its members, and the average print run for a poet's first book is 3,000 copies, a Whitman, or a James Laughlin Award ($5,000), and the sale of the 6,000 copies guarantee a best seller in the tiny poetry market."

Niteshift36 (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Academy of American Poets. All of that is already there. And no, I'd rather see a single award page for the Academy, as was done during the merging of the individual awards page, than individual ones just repeating their website over again.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not opposed to putting it all on the Academy page. What I meant was individual articles on each recipient. But the NYT article (and other sources) clearly indicate the award is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Google News:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ltAMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5681,3685106&dq=walt-whitman-award
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7_0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=3576,6421758&dq=walt-whitman-award
http://likethedew.com/2009/05/06/walt-whitman-the-sublime-and-the-bibb-county-dump/
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E15FB3E5513728DDDAD0994DC405B888BF1D3
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/02/theater/as-arts-prizes-multiply-so-do-doubts-on-value.html
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=GYAKAAAAIBAJ&pg=7119,6888054&dq=walt-whitman-award
Google News results for the first four recipients on the list:
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Michael%20Martinez%22%20%22Walt%20Whitman%20Award%22
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Jonathan+Thirkield%22+%22Walt+Whitman+Award%22&cf=all
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Sally+Van+Doren%22+%22Walt+Whitman+Award%22
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Anne+Pierson+Wiese%22+%22Walt+Whitman+Award%22 — Rankiri (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Clearly notable, sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Collectonion that the original Academy and Prize articles were very thin on notability; this is gradually being rectified, due mainly to her prodding. I have just added three more indicators of notability at the Walt Whitman Award section of the Academy article: the Library of Congress, the Poetry Foundation, and the New York times (37 references to the Award). I have also added some facts about the number of manuscripts submitted (1475 in the early 1980s) and the involvement of LSU, which publishes the volume as part of a series with its own webpage. I particularly value the list of winners for the Walt Whitman Award because it is not a recycling of the names of well-known, highly eminent poets. I think that the numerous red links are an invitation to consider articles for some excellent if relatively unknown poets. Easchiff (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do to the reasons others have mentioned above, and I'd like to also add that if an organization is notable, then its awards are notable. They don't just give these things out without a legitimate reason. Dream Focus 22:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't agree with all the reasons above but this certainly is a noatble award which automatically elevates its awardees. This content including the entire list certainly is encyclopedic and likely should be either at an article about the award itself or a list article. Either seems fine for now until the content is so large it needs to be split. -- Banjeboi 03:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it looks like an okay sub-article of Academy of American Poets to me. Surely the official website is a reliable source for the winners, and to complain that an article "repeats" a source is bizarre to me. If the Academy of American Poets article could list the winners, this article shouldn't be deleted anyway. There seem to be plenty of sources related to the Walt Whitman Award, which the nominator would have found if they would have done a cursory search on Google News before rushing to WP:AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, useful, interesting - Vartanza (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Show how deleting improves Wikipedia. Keeping it improves Wikipedia because it informs people, and that's what we are here for. Hiding T 12:16, 16 June 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. Nobody's saying delete but the nominator but nobody's saying "keep" either. We have a suggestion to redirect to Character_(arts), a suggestion to merge to Story within a story and there's a "mergeto" tag on the article itself proposing a merge to Metafiction. Any of these can be done without AFD so I would suggest that the issue be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be WP:BOLD and do one of these things. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional fictional character[edit]

Fictional fictional character (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research, would fail WP:SYNTH if it had any sources Citius Altius (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this thought occurred to me too, but I decided to fight one fight at a time. The rest is an editorial decision at Character (arts), I figure. JJL (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Story within a story. Sceptre (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Story within a story, which is notable. This topic is not. Fictional fictional characters are, in the end, just fictional characters, the only thing different is that they are in a story within a story, or a story within a story within a story, etc. Drawn Some (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of winners of the Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize[edit]

List of winners of the Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Winners list from an unnotable poetry award. Fails WP:N. Same list already removed once when Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize was merged to Academy of American Poets for lacking notability. As with the first article, this list is just a repeat of the official list. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a mirror for the Academy of American Poets. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep flag for notability and third party sources, don't delete. pohick - (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid reason for a snowball keep. Article has already been merged once, after being flagged for notability, and you recreated under a new name. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there is Significant Coverage in Reliable sources, Independent of the subject, it took me 1 minute to google therefore snowball. pohick - (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is not significant coverage. You shoving in a bunch of non-reliable links that simply mention that the award exists does not make its winners notable. The only sourced statement about the award is already in the main article, and none of the "sources" you tried to add note anything else about the award. And again, that does not make it WP:SNOWBALL. I'd suggest reviewing both WP:RS and WP:AFD.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
discussion of the deleted references on the talk page [59] - is Poets & Writers significant? pohick - (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Poets & Writers isn't significant, maybe you should AfD the article about it. It looks significant and notable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and trout Pohick, no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, reviewers are encouraged to examine any sources found in the article, as several continue to be added which are Wikipedia mirrors, non-WP:RS, and press releases, none of which establish notability for the award nor contain any info on the award beyond what is in the lead (copied from Academy of American Poets) and the winner list which is already on the official website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, our positions are clear, reviewers can view the google search results that shows ample third party soures available to establish notability, and the deletion of attempts to improve the article. pohick - (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reconsider deletion subsequently. There is nothing in the Academy article at present that would establish the notability of the prize directly. It appears that very few academics, journalists, and Wikipedia editors find writing about these prizes from the point of view of establishing their notability to be an engaging activity. However, indirect evidence of the Prize's notability is readily available, and should be woven into the article appropriately to respond to this AfD proposal. Here are 3 examples: (i) The Library of Congress includes this Prize as a distinction when it appoints the country's Poet Laureate; this alone should be sufficient evidence of the Prize's notability. See "Poet Laureate Billy Collins Appointed to Serve a Second Term". April 22, 2002. as one of several examples. (ii) The annual award of the Prize has been the subject of thirteen articles in the magazine The Nation since 1985. See Nation articles about Lenore Marshall Prize. The Nation co-sponsors the Prize, but in this case I think that helps establish its notability. (iii) The New York Times often publishes notice when the Prize is given and includes the Prize in its obituaries of poets and in its other articles about poets. There are 83 NY Times articles citing "Lenore Marshall", of which the majority involve this Prize. See NY Times articles noting Lenore Marshall. There is a legitimate secondary issue about the value of the lists of prizewinners. I personally find them useful: the red links become a checklist for editors interesting in creating poetry articles, and I enjoy scanning the lists for unfamiliar names. Easchiff (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How can an organization be notable, as the Academy of American Poets apparently is, and not an award they give out to show who they felt was the was the best American poet each year? Dream Focus 00:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the refs above show the notability. The receipt of this award in turn is sufficient for establishing notability as a poet. DGG (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just like the other sub-articles of Academy of American Poets. I really don't see how the nominator could say this award is "unnotable" when Academy of American Poets#Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize has 11 citations, and there's plenty of coverage available on Google News. Explain to me how this article "fails" WP:N, in light of WP:LIST, WP:CLN, WP:SS, and WP:SIZE. If there's an official list, this information is surely verifiable. Nobody said Wikipedia was a mirror for the Academy of American Poets, and describing information available in a reliable source as a "mirror" is just strange. Along with that DGG said, when any persion recieves this award, it could be considered evidence of notability. --Pixelface (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is deletion for the sake of it, rather than for any real reason. It's not delete because this is flawed information, or delete, because this is a terrible article, it's deletion of the worst kind. It's, and with all due respect, it's deletion based on rules, and that's not what we do, and that's not the point of Wikipedia. This is a content dispute masquerading as a deletion debate. Please lern to find some blinkers which allow you to filter really bad articles from the not so great but pfah, who cares, it doesn't do any haem, it informs, and by gooly, that's the point of WIkipedia. Show how deleting improves Wikipedia. Keeping it improves Wikipedia because it informs people, and that's what we are here for. Hiding T 12:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ginny Dye[edit]

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

Plenty of google hits, but I couldn't find any independent, reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO Citius Altius (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of winners of the Wallace Stevens Award[edit]

List of winners of the Wallace Stevens Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Winners list from an unnotable award that fails WP:N; list already removed once when Wallace Stevens Award was merged to Academy of American Poets. This list is also nothing but a repeat of the list on the official site[60] and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a mirror for the Academy of American Poets. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep flag for notability and third party sources, don't delete. pohick - (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid reason for a snowball keep. Article has already been merged once, after being flagged for notability, and you recreated under a new name. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there is Significant Coverage in Reliable sources, Independent of the subject, it took me 1 minute to google therefore snowball. pohick - (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is not significant coverage. You shoving in a bunch of non-reliable links that simply mention that the award exists does not make its winners notable. The only sourced statement about the award is already in the main article, and none of the "sources" you tried to add note anything else about the award. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the reliable third party sources duplicate the information in the article, why are you deleting material that supports a keep? pohick - (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not reliable sources. You added Wikipedia mirrors, non-RS, and press releases. Nor do they support a keep. As you said, they do nothing but duplicate the award list (official site), and the lead (which you simply copy/pasted from the Academy of American Poets site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
discussion of deleted sources at Talk:List of winners of the Wallace Stevens Award is Poets & Writers, or California College of the Arts reliable? pohick - (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, reviewers are encouraged to examine any sources found in the article, as several continue to be added which are Wikipedia mirrors, non-WP:RS, and press releases, none of which establish notability for the award nor contain any info on the award beyond what is in the lead (copied from Academy of American Poets) and the winner list which is already on the official website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, our positions are clear, reviewers can view the google search results that shows ample third party soures available to establish notability, and the deletion of attempts to improve the article. pohick - (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Tattered Cover Bookstore includes this award with the Bollingen Prize and the Poet Laureate of the United States in their poet newsletter. pohick - (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable organization gives out a notable well known award, and a hundred thousand dollars each year! Reading the introduction of the article as it is now, I can't imagine why anyone would be against the article's continual existence. Dream Focus 08:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just like the other sub-articles of Academy of American Poets. The award looks notable to me. And if any person wins this award, it could be considered evidence of notability. And all of the winners have Wikipedia articles. The list on the official site counts as a reliable source. Nobody said Wikipedia was a mirror for the Academy of American Poets, and describing information available in a reliable source as a "mirror" is bizarre. --Pixelface (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a major award - Vartanza (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Show how deleting improves Wikipedia. Keeping it improves Wikipedia because it informs people, and that's what we are here for. Hiding T 12:18, 16 June 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 . Nom withdrawn, I disagree with "consensus" but it's clear where this is going. StarM 23:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blathur[edit]

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

I know there has been some discussion (although unresolved) about the possible changes in whether place=notable, so I wanted to bring this here again. Worse comes to worse, I withdraw. We have absolutely zero verifiable information about this place. Previous AfD said it's inhabited=it's notable but with no references and no content, what's notable. I'm aware of bias issues but I don't think this possible map-dot, no matter where in the world it is, is notable. Thoughts? StarM 01:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per places are currently held inherently notable. Verifiability from prior Afd: The Hindu, trivia about the village from is available on blacklisted link on Sulekha, seaching for Blathur, don't know if this is reliable but it looks to be, postal code-670593, State Bank of Travancore has a branch there and they even allow people to apply for home loans at this branch, online, so the place likely has internet access, it also happens to be a very normal place as someone was apparently murdered and the body found in a well and I think I now know more about this place than I ever intended to. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just by being a village it is inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SpacemanSpliff's verification of the existence of the village. Drawn Some (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There were two failed proposals regarding the notability of populated places. Though they failed to gain concensus, one of the arguments given was that all named populated places (cities, towns, villages) were notable, since inevitably, multiple, independent reliable sources would be found about them. What this article needs is expansion. Sebwite (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Us (Backstreet Boys album)[edit]

This Is Us (Backstreet Boys album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased future album. Purely unsourced but WP:CRYSTAL. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 01:25, 11 June 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Seri Saujana[edit]

SMK Seri Saujana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In addition to apparently being foreign-language, I this appears to be an article on a local school. At the very least the article needs a massive translation/cleanup, and even then notability and whatnot are almost assuredly in dispute. I would cite WP:ORG for this. Tyrenon (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article is apparently entirely in Indonesian Malay, and from what I could make of it, it's basically a historical of a local school. I don't think it's notable outside that one particular school. JIP | Talk 06:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Secondary/high schools are nearly always found to be notable when people actually start looking for sources, and the standard procedure for articles in foreign languages is to tag for translation and list at WP:PNT (which I will do now) for two weeks to allow this to be done before nominating for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce to stub. The Google translation of this article looks like a blatant violation of WP:SPAM. However, as this is a secondary school, we usually regard those as inherently notable even if there is no stated policy to that effect. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been completely re-written since the nomination for deletion and the little bit still in Malay is not essential. (Gotta love Google Translate, it recognizes Malay and tells you it's not yet able to translate Malay to English). It's a very large secondary school which are generally considered notable. It needs references however. Drawn Some (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - usual story; this is a page on a large high school, that is notable within its community, that requires sourcing and improving not deleting. TerriersFan (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Article in its current state is pure directory level information and far from a encyclopedia entry. I dont think we're losing much if its deleted and then recreated later. Corpx (talk) 17:32, 11 June 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 50 Cent. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddy[edit]

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

"Fiddy" is a dialect way of pronouncing "fifty" and appears in many contexts, such as B-fiddy-two (B-52 Stratofortress) or rapper Fiddy Cent (50 Cent). So it isn't even really a special motorcycling term for 50 cc bikes; some people just think it's cool to say fiddy instead of fifty. And anyhow, WP:NOTDICT--Dbratland (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm getting 39,000 g-hits for "fiddy motorcycle", and a goodly number seem to reference "fiddy" as being a specific niche of motorcycle stuning/competition, as well as being a common term for 50cc bikes. I take issue with Dbratland's objection: the question isn't whether it's a slangy term or no, the question is whether there are reputable publications which employ the term, and enough refernceable info out there on description, history, events, etc. to merit an article. The curent version is weak, and the original editor's version wasn't very encyclopedic in tone, but there's a decent chance the actual topic has merit. However, I don't read stunting publications. Maybe take this up with whatever WP motorbike or automotive project for an expert opinion? MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's over 1M hits for "50cc racing" because there are many popular 50 cc classes, but none of them is actually named "Fiddy." It could be a good topic for an article, beyond the defunct 50 cc grand prix class, but it would include many regions beyond those where they sometimes say Fiddy racing.--Dbratland (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, simple:50 Cent mentions he is also called "fiddy cent" but the en version currently doesn't. It seems like a possible misspelling. tedder (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Python[edit]

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

Does not establish its notability. — FatalError 00:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looks to be a significant contribution to Python. should be linked, or merged.

Cfzeitler (talk) 07:36, 5 June 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) 00:38, 11 June 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) 06:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Williams (musician)[edit]

Phil Williams (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography that hasn't established notability, after being tagged for a month. I'm not seeing anything in the searches I do, but his relatively common name is a hindrance. Gigs (talk) 01:01, 4 June 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) 00:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources. Being a member of a band doesn't guarantee notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Seems reasonable if the other band is notable, otherwise Delete both. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing is sourced. He's not notable. If someone wants to write something into the band article with sources to back it, by all means, but there's nothing to merge at this point. لennavecia 15:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currentland[edit]

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

This appears to be a cable access type show. I don't see any coverage at all. Gigs (talk) 01:40, 4 June 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) 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Trueheart[edit]

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

Did some writing for Invader Zim and almost nothing else. Only two other credits on IMDb, no reliable third party sources found. Unsourced since 1/07. Doesn't seem to warrant a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:40, 4 June 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) 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Hummel[edit]

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

No reliable sources found. Wrote about half of the Invader Zim episodes with Jhonen, wrote for one other show, fell off the map without a single non-trivial source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:42, 4 June 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) 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: With no prejudice to re-create at a later date if appropriate. The current article is crap. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced one sentence claim to notability for a BLP. Fails WP:CREATIVE. لennavecia 15:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Almos[edit]

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

A couple minor roles, but no coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:45, 4 June 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) 00:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources indicating notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wholly unsourced BLP fails to establish notability. لennavecia 15:51, 15 June 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fieldbrook Farms[edit]

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

Non-notable, no significant secondary source mentions. worthawholebean talkcontribs 22:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 68.109.18.69's sources, which are certainly non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:CORP, I added the BusinessWeek profile to the reference section. It went bankrupt in 2001 and has had plenty of non-trivial coverage. It's a private-label frozen dairy product manufacturer which means if you eat a store brand in the Northeast U.S. they probably made it. Drawn Some (talk) 00:52, 11 June 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) 02:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media editor[edit]

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

prod declined without comment. I'll repeat my prod comments here: Synthesis/collection of somewhat unrelated factoids about video editing, audio editing, graphic design and so on. I'm not sure what this article is about. Hairhorn (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry if AfD is a little borked; as far as I can tell this is only a first nomination. Hairhorn (talk) 01:56, 4 June 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) 00:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight (video)[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED This video has about 600k hits on youtube, and the only reason it's here is because Cory Williams is notable. I don't see any independent notability for this video. Gigs (talk) 01:58, 4 June 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) 00:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Right now, this redirects to the article on Midnight, as in the time of night. The author put a re-direct up just after the AfD nom. Might be something an admin needs to deal with. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 11 June 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. I would be willing to restore this as a redirect for the purpose of merging, if someone will volunteer to perform such a merge. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panther Dog[edit]

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

I have tried to verify the existence of the "panther dog," but it is nowhere to be found in the book cited as the article's only source, nor does a Google search linking "panther dog" with "Aaron Hall" (its alleged breeder) turn up any confirmation. At the very least, there are problems with WP:V; at worst, it is a hoax. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a relatively new user to Wikipedia, I may not have mastered the markup language you have used to challenge this article, but I am prepared to defend its authenticity and notability. My quote is from the work cited, and is found on page 51. Should you wish to download the book, you can find a link at www.archive.org/details/extinctpennsylva00shoe. If you make the effort to read significant portions of the book, you ought to be struck by it's clear authenticity as a contemporaneous or near contemporaneous account of the decline and disappearance of a number of species from Pennsylvania about 120 years ago and the men responsible (with a number of photographs of the protagonists). Seen in a modern context, a great many comparisons could be made with similar situations in today's third world. However, my article is not about the wider context of this book, but a specific reference to dogs known as "panther dogs" because they were used to hunt panthers, the colloquial name for cougars. If you had, as I have, spent much of your free time over the last 40 years studying the domestic dog, you would jump with delight at any account of the way that existing breeds had been combined to produce a crossbred dog for a specific purpose. Such accounts are remarkably rare, as dog breeds are frequently developed over a period of time by a number of men who in many case are not literate. An example being the Rhodesian Ridgeback, clearly developed from guarding and hunting breeds crossed with some indigenous breed that sports the eponymous ridge, known otherwise only in a few Asian breeds. Another example is the Bullmastiff, which though indisputably developed significantly from the Mastiff and The Bulldog, can be shown to have an admixture of Bloodhound. If you examine the quotation I provided, you will see that the panther dog had substantially the same elements, with the addition of the Newfoundland. Why the addition of the Newfoundland, a dog primarily associated with water rescue, is by no means clear, but it is of scholarly interest. I could go on a long, long time, with particular reference to the Australian "pig dogs", used for a similar purpose against the introduced wild boar of Australia, and composed of a similar mix of dog varieties, but I think I have made my point that the panther dogs are of historical and sociological interest, apart from their intrinsic zoological interest. I suggest that you check this source again with more care, and in future apply even more care before you bandy about such words as "hoax". Collieuk (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Collieuk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collieuk (talk • contribs) 04:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "panther dog" can be found in a few books relating to American Indian culture. But those dogs were not a specific breed known as "panther dog," which is what this article alludes to. Outside of a fleeting reference in the 1907 book by Shoemaker, I have been unable to find independent confirmation that a man named Aaron Hall created this breed. And, quite frankly, part of the Shoemaker citation seems like an exaggeration (the notion of an adult human riding on a dog's back stretches credibility -- the canine anatomy is not designed to accommodate human passengers). References to hunting breeds in other parts of the world are irrelevant to the debate. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to hunting dog. The topic is significant enough to be included in another article but not notable to be the subject of its own article due to a lack of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Of course there were dogs bred and trained to hunt panthers, there are squirrel dogs and rabbit dogs and rat terriers, etc., people have bred and trained dogs to hunt any animal that has been hunted since dogs were domesticated. I am thankful for having had this opportunity to learn that panther meat looks like chicken but tastes like pork, having never knowingly eaten any kind of felid flesh myself. Drawn Some (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Dawn Bard. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. The author of the source of this article, Henry W. Shoemaker, was a person of some distinction, making this a highly reliable source. It is the common practice on Wikipedia to write articles on individual breeds of dogs without sources, or with sources which would seem to be less reliable. As is emphasized in the current version of this article, this breed of dog has special significance as one of only two to have been bred specifically for hunting large feline species. The existence of this article may attract editors who have access to further sources with additional information. The point of contention about a dog of great size being able to bear an adult human on it's back can be resolved by an awareness of the size of the largest dogs (over 300 lbs). See photograph of the Guinness Book of Records' heaviest dog, the Mastiff Alcama Zorba of La Susa, with his owner Chris Eraclides, http://media.photobucket.com/image/zorba%20mastiff%20OR%20dog/Simba1906/zorba.jpg. See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6LDopZZVzg, a YouTube video of a pitbull of 56 pounds (less than a sixth of Zorba’s maximum weight) pulling 6613 lbs. It is, of course, morally wrong to ride on the back of a dog, which is not constructed for that purpose, but then neither is the back of a human, and one man may ride on the back of another. Collieuk (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Collieuk[reply]
  • Further to Do Not Delete. Further to the question of dogs bearing weight upon their backs, I googled “dog carrying a load” and found two hits of interest:

One at jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/86/1/9.pdf, a research paper “ENERGETIC COST OF GENERATING MUSCULAR FORCE DURING RUNNING A COMPARISON OF LARGE AND SMALL ANIMALS”, C. Richard Taylor, et al. J. exp. Biol. (1980), 86, 9-18 In this paper the energetic cost of carrying loads is studied in a number of animals, including dogs, which were trained to trot and to run on a treadmill carrying a load of up to 25.5 per cent of their body weight at three different speeds.

Another at www.americanjourneys.org/pdf/AJ-105.pdf is a document of the Wisconsin Historical Society, Digital Library and Archives entitled “Investigations of conditions in New Mexico, 1601”, in which a representative of the Viceroy of New Spain reports that a tribe of Native Americans hunt buffalo and, “they do not bear any burdens because they load their meat, fat, and tents on packs of dogs, each dog carrying a load of fifty pounds”. “The dogs are much smaller than mastiffs.”

These references are consistent with the credibility of a very large dog bearing a man on his back. Collieuk (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Collieuk[reply]

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

The result was delete. All. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Killed the Prom Queen / Parkway Drive[edit]

AfDs for this article:
I Killed the Prom Queen / Parkway Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Don't Close Your Eyes (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable EPs, no reliable sources. Titles seem unlikely redirects as one is a split EP between two artists and the other has a qualifier in the title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 11 June 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 redirect NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Begbrooke[edit]

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

There is already an article for Begbroke. "Begbrooke" is both mis-spelt and redundant. Motacilla (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alpay ulku[edit]

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

I hesitated greatly on this one, but Mr. Ulku does not quite seem to meet WP:BLP. A GNews search turns up very little; what little comes up seems to relate to a lone book published a decade ago. I also can't find much to assert widespread notability, and most of the article's award claims are totally unsourced. At the least this needs far better sourcing to show notability, but the most I can find at the moment is a single publication and a lot of claims. Failing deletion, it definitely needs a major cleanup if notability can be shown, but as per WP:N on artists, I think he falls short. Tyrenon (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: He is a poet and has one book of poems to his credit [61] I don't doubt that he has been published in all those journals from what I've seen. However, I cannot find anything on him, personally. Searches just come up with his works directly. We could just make it into a list of works, like "Ulku, Alpay. 'Cabin'. Ploughshares; Fall2001, Vol. 27 Issue 2/3, p219" --maclean 05:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoppers' hotline[edit]

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

Though not entirely unambiguous, this article feels very much like adverspam. I'm probably too conservative with CSDs and this might be a speedy, but I'm going to (as usual) err on the side of caution and AfD it for failing WP:ORG and lacking verifiable, third-party sources. Tyrenon (talk) 05:59, 4 June 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) 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information Resources Inc., the parent company of this program, is notable, but this Shoppers' Hotline doesn't seem to be. If you do a Google News search for ("Shoppers' Hotline" - cruise) most of the hits are for this company but they are trivial or ads. There are some other Shoppers Hotlines mixed in with the results including a personal shopper service that is only a few years old, this has been around since at least the 1980s. It could be deleted as spam (note the hot external link in the text) but a better solution would be to upmerge to a new article on the parent company since it is significant though not notable. I would be glad to do the move and a couple of introductory sentences and references after the AfD closes if that is the decision. Drawn Some (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability to warrant inclusion per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB (reliable 3rd party source = none). Zzzzz (talk) 23:32, 13 June 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 Boys/Girls State. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mountaineer Boys State[edit]

Mountaineer Boys State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Boys' State as a program is notable, but I do not feel that the individual state programs are themselves notable. In essence they are child organizations involved in the same activity; in a similar vein, the American Legion is notable, but individual AL posts and state organizations are not. Tyrenon (talk) 06:07, 4 June 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) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Boys/Girls State. There is significant in-depth coverage (try looking for West Virginia Boys State) but it is all in-state and even though WP:CLUB specifically says that other criteria such as the age of the organization can be considered only a good paragraph is really specific to this state's organization and it's really an annual event. Interestingly enough in the parent article, students are complaining that something sponsored by the American Legion is "militaristic, superpatriotic, and heavily tilted to God and country." Who would have imagined such a thing? Drawn Some (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that general vein, if information could be assembled about a batch of the states' programs (say, 7-10), I wouldn't be averse to seeing a single dedicated page to the various programs as a sub-page of the general program page. For lack of a better way to put it, while the individual programs aren't quite notable on their own, a paragraph on each program would simply overwhelm the general article. Fair disclosure point on that: I did attend VA's program, and I've been a counselor at VA's as well.Tyrenon (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That midght be appropriate if a number of state programs started to overwhelm the primary article. In this case it is just a few sentences. If there were five sentences on each of 50 states that would be about 250 lines but probably most of them have nothing to distinguish themselves from the other 49. Regardless it should be a natural process of spin-outs from the primary article as notability for a topic is established and the amount of information warrants a separate article. Drawn Some (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. The ones that bear mention in my mind are probably the first one or two of each, the last one or two of each (and why they were the last), and ones with big controversies. Most of the others are somewhat "garden variety".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mrmaggoo13 (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)*Keep This article has been updated to include more information and it doesn't make sense to overload the page chosen to merge the information into.[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 deleted. This was blatant advertising and the AfD had already run its course with no one other than the original author contesting it: a commercial ad serving software developed by Orbitscripts company. Created as a back-end system it provides ad management features that help to convert websites traffic into profit. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SmartPPC EVO[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for some time as having both advertising and notability issues. These have not yet been addressed, and given that it's been nearly a month, deletion is likely in order. Tyrenon (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


What can be done to keep the article alive? Search for 'ad serving software' in Google, and you'll see it on the 1st page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariakovalchuk (talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 June 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) 00:16, 11 June 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 Melody (Sharleen Spiteri album). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Keep Me Waiting[edit]

Don't Keep Me Waiting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Song released only in Switzerland; peaked at 78. Non-notable. Article created by sock puppet of banned editor. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Might be a little potential for expansion. Salon.com lists it as one of their "songs of the summer". [62] Citius Altius (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the album it's from. Citius Altius (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nomination acknowledges that the single charted, and thus it meets WP:N. Notability isn't geographically dependent. If it's notable in Switzerland, it's notable. Rlendog (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where does WP:N say that every charting single is notable? Citius Altius (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:NSONGS, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Rlendog (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I did acknowledge that the single charted; I mentioned that it reached 78, however I'm unconvinced that this necessarily constitutes charting - I can't find a confirmation but I did think the target was 75? Moreover, WP:NSONGS also states "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" - I don't believe an article about a song by a Scottish musician released only in Switzerland and performing poorly in the Swiss market is likely to transcend stub-ery. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that the song "charted at #78", and the nomination says that it "peaked at 78". I am not sure where it would have peaked at 78 other than on a chart. While it is true that "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album," I see no reason to presume that this 2 week old article is necessarily unlikely to ever grow beyond a stub. Rlendog (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a single could reach 78 in the UK, but still fail to be in the Top 40 Singles Chart ;-) Regarding stub-ery - perhaps, but this was released last year and no one's seen fit to create an article before now, and there simply doesn't seem much we could add to the article (with the possible exception of Citius Altius's comments re: Salon). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, you could also go through all the album reviews and extract what they said about this particular track, but the fact that they cover the song in the context of the album seems to suggest that Wikipedia should too. Citius Altius (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the UK, but the main US charts generally go to 100. I'm not sure that an artificial cutoff based on where UK charts may typically end make sense. Citius Altius' point makes sense, but it depends on how much coverage the reviews have for the song. If the album reviews just mention the song in passing, and there isn't enough cumulative information for a full article, then it may make sense to merge, but if reviews address this song in some detail, then the article should remain as is. But even there, most singles will be initially covered in within their album reviews, and only over time will we see whether more significant coverage of the song will emerge.Rlendog (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 11 June 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Håvard Lothe[edit]

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

GNews turns up zilch in English. The cited MySpace account and official website are not enough to establish notability per WP:MUSIC, and his records are with a company which does not have an article on Wikipedia. Tyrenon (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could add those to the article as well as the AfD? — Bdb484 (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already added the chart position which is sufficient to show notability per WP:MUSICBIO. That said, WP:BEFORE states: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." So even if I hadn't, I have shown that the article could be improved and so it shouldn't be deleted whether I've improved it or not. --JD554 (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not contesting that; it's just been my experience that when I can find sources, the nominating editor will usually withdraw the AfD if I add them and bring the article up to standards on my own. Your call. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said above, I already have. --JD554 (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one of them, but whatevs. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:50, 5 June 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) 00:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found, charted album, etc. لennavecia 15:52, 15 June 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 (nom withdrawn). (NAC). JJL (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compensated gross tonnage[edit]

Fails WP:DICDEF. Is a definitional article that has been unaltered for quite some time in spite of tagging shortly after posting. Withdrawn following noticable improvement to get it out of DICDEF territory. Tyrenon (talk) 07:57, 4 June 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) 00:09, 11 June 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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TradeBeam[edit]

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

Though not unambiguous, this appears to be adverspam. The articles provided read like press releases that got incorporated into industry magazines, not actual coverage. Thus I feel that in spite of a few sources, it fails WP:CORP. Tyrenon (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: I definitely got the same feeling that the article sounded more like press releases, and I'm certain that one of them actually is. Just the same, my place isn't to judge the sources' writing, but rather their reliability. I'd say the company just barely meets the notability threshold. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've generally interpreted the notability requirements to exclude the reproduction of press releases. This is definitely the case with films, and I consider it to be the clear intention across the board that simply getting a few news releases picked up isn't quite sufficient.Tyrenon (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an interpretation, the guidelines specifically state that press releases aren't independent sources. Primary source can't be used to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I hadn't noticed it on the specific page, but I had noticed it elsewhere. Will keep in mind in the future.Tyrenon (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See "Primary criteria" at WP:CORP for the specific wording excluding press releases. Drawn Some (talk) 10:17, 4 June 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) 00:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - There's more hits through google news, but I'm not certain if those are press releases or 3rd party coverage Corpx (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like sources have been updated, which helps add to the page's notability. Now it looks like the page is supported with 3rd party coverage instead of press release-type materials. Do you find these sources still not valid? MarieLG (talk) 13:43, 16 June 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. The 2 "delete" !votes challenge the notability of the country, not whether or not this article should exist. Otherwise there's no consensus to delete. Opinions on keeping and merging are both sound so I'm going to choose not to stick a big purple tag on the article. The merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic missions of South Ossetia[edit]

List of diplomatic missions of South Ossetia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable list of diplomatic missions for a widely unrecognized nation. Merge into the South Ossetia article at most, and delete. Tyrenon (talk) 08:09, 4 June 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) 00:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rd to Foreign relations of South Ossetia. JJL (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "country" isn't that notable since the vast majority of the international community doesn't even recognize them. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Foreign relations of South Ossetia per Drawn Some. Also, the first pillar says that WP incorporates elements of Almanacs and Gazetteers, and I believe that lists such as this one--provided the info is verifiable--qualify as includable under this provision. Yilloslime TC 01:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after a fair bit of thought. I disagree with Niteshift36 that South Ossetia "isn't that notable"; I think it's received a positively huge amount of coverage in reliable sources.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 03:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Foreign relations of South Ossetia. Better to have a single, more substantial article than two stubby articles. Majoreditor (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Despite the fact that South Ossetia is not recognized by most countries, it is still the de facto government of that region and is currently recognize by Russia and Nicaragua. The government is not some micronation. It should not be merged since other countries (whether fully recognized or not) have articles in the same format as this. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Just improved the article. It is a shame that politics find its way into Wikipedia deletion debates. We are here to document notable encyclopaedic items. If there are embassies/consulates it is notable. 212.188.108.144 (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC) — 212.188.108.144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge As others said. Expand once (and maybe when) the country gets more international recognition. Corpx (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A standard Wikipedia entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the foreign relations article: tiny list that's not likely to get much bigger any time soon, and (unlike lists such as List of counties in Delaware) doesn't provide in-depth information on its subject that isn't already being provided at another article. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Keep) I oppose to merge the article because if you take a look at Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country (can't put on the link), it is appropriate to stay in this format rather than merge with foreign relations. In addition, look at the List of diplomatic missions in South Ossetia, it is the equivalent of this article. Therefore if this article is merged then shouldn't that article be merged also? --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(About the crossed out keep word) This is a misunderstanding. An AfD discussion is never a vote. Sometimes I and other editors have to put a template to remind people that the AfD discussion is to reach a consensus that are agreed by most or all of the people, not by a majority vote. Furthermore, my purpose of adding a "keep" in a parentheses is just a supplement to my comment. I know that I already expressed my support of keeping the article, but the remark can quickly express what my comment is about and what side am I supporting as I made my comment here. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
whilst it is not a vote, editors are not permitted to say keep or delete more than once. LibStar (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Foreign relations of South Ossetia, these missions do not have official status as most countries do not formally recognise South Ossetia. LibStar (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep routine. We do one of these for every country, because the list is genrally quite long and fits better as a separate article. DGG (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Foreign relations of South Ossetia - given almost no one grants recognition and that is unlikely to change, we may as well fold it in elsewhere. Also, 98.154.26.247, let's not be absurd: just how do you expect this to be "rescued"? - Biruitorul Talk 02:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being absurd. Article Rescue Squadron is a group working to prevent worthwhile, yet sometimes badly written articles from being deleted. I didn't made up the name by myself. Also, see this category page for yourself. Almost every country in the world, despite of their recognition and the number of diplomatic missions, have a similar article there. Why shouldn't this country have the article in same format in order to maintain integrity of that category? --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's room for improvement beyond a mere laundry list and the list as a whole is a notable topic in military history. ThemFromSpace 18:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge. No reason to delete but if an appropriate parent article exists a merge could make sense since there is so little here. -- Banjeboi 08:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Foreign relations of South Ossetia. The list will remain short in foreseeable future, and its contents will fit in one or two lines of the parent article (itself quite laconic). NVO (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (1st preference) or merge to Foreign relations of South Ossetia, there is no reason I can see to delete this. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yakshagana makeup[edit]

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

All of the information in here seems to be covered in the Yakshagana article. More to the point, the article doesn't even have a link from the main Yakshagana article, making its usefulness quite minimal. In all likelihood, it can be deleted with virtually no loss of content. Tyrenon (talk) 10:40, 4 June 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) 00:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there's any extra content merge, but don't redirect. It's an extremely unlikely search string. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Kranendonk[edit]

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

It may be that WECF is notable, but no significant third-party coverage of Marie Kranendonk (who has under 500 Google hits) is forthcoming. Also, unsurprisingly, this is the only contribution of its creator, called (of course) Wecf. - Biruitorul Talk 14:29, 4 June 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, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make It to the Sun[edit]

Make It to the Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Notable. No coverage in secondary sources. A Google search for the title and the producer shows only blogs, MySpace, Wikisites, etc. A Google News search shows nothing. Borock (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell D[edit]

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

Vaguely asserts notability as being one part of Pay as You Go Cartel which had a #13 hit that I can't verify, but no other sources seem to verify any of the material here, and at least one of the refs is a 404. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:00, 4 June 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, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources means notability is not established. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:12, 11 June 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) 06:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Koplowitz Cultural Foundation[edit]

Ernest Koplowitz Cultural Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and apparently now defunct organization; it doesn't make a meaningful assertion of notability. It is a Spanish memorial fund that is not notable enough to have its own entry at Spanish Wikipedia. The fund's own website lists only two small newspaper mentions, google.es had only 4 hits for "Fundación cultural Ernesto Koplowitz", and Spanish language google news had nada. I can read some Spanish, and from what I can tell, this does not meet WP:NOTE, but I decided to list it here instead of "prod"ing because Wikipedians more fluent in Spanish probably have a better chance of seeing it here and letting us know if there is anything salvageable here. With the information I have now, though, my vote is to delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:40, 4 June 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, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Really lousy translation, needing much editing, but apparent the family foundation of a family of billionaires, and therefore almost certainly notable while it was active. DGG (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The family is indeed notable, and Ernesto's daughters Alicia and Esther both have their own entries here and on Wikipedia español. I still don't see how that makes memorial fund in question notable - I couldn't find independent sources for the foundation in either language. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Five Google hits in either language. Abductive (talk) 01:00, 18 June 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. Punkmorten (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cypress Grove (musician)[edit]

Cypress Grove (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
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, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found no evidence that notability guidelines have been met. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can find a few hits on Google to support the assertion that this artist worked with Jeffrey Lee Pierce (an article which is also entirely unsourced); but absolutely nothing to demonstrate any independent notability. A BLP with no available reliable sources and virtually no encylopedic content - we really shouldn't keep this kind of thing around. ~ mazca t|c 17:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, how is this person possibly notable? Myspace really isn't a reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 11 June 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_June_11&oldid=1142644546"