Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 14

< 13 June	15 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Student Nurses Association[edit]

State chapters of national organizations may be notable on their own, but this one isn't, at least as far as I could detect by Google Books, News, or Scholar searches. Abductive (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability limited. JFW | T@lk 15:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator is correct, sources don't exist to show notability for this state chapter. Fences&Windows 20:37, 20 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dudes (film)[edit]

This article affixes a new term to a loose group of actors who have worked together in a number of films. Unlike "Brat Pack" from the 1980s or "Rat Pack" from the early 1960s, "The Dudes" has not entered the U.S. pop culture lexicon. Thus, WP:NEO problems. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't even find any sources to indicate that the usual name of this group is "The Dudes". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no (film) "The Dudes". Would be a category at best, if not a hoax. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 04:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total invention. Not a single web page calls them this. Fences&Windows 20:44, 20 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 A9 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apathy Is Worse Than Hatred[edit]

Appears non-notable - no assertion thereof and band does not have an article. There is also a category for their albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 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 Keep, per WP:SNOWBALL. BorgQueen (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egg and chips[edit]

merge or transwiki, This Wiki site is not a cookbook Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AFD is not a grounds for suggesting merges or transwikiing. We have other forums and procedures for that. This is only for suggesting right out deletion. either way (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another article that would be better served as a dictionary entry. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. Cxz111 (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To address the nominator's concern, this article doesn't give instructions for how to cook this dish, so saying that Wikipedia is not a cookbook doesn't apply here. If one of the world's top chefs says, "you can't get much more British a dish than fried egg and chips",[1] then I would have thought that this would be a notable dish. I must, however, disagree with the article writer on one point: it's much better to put the egg(s) on top of the chips and break the yolk to let it flow over them rather than dip the chips in the yolk. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. |Fences&Windows 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know what possessed me, perhaps some misplaced national pride, but I've expanded this article from its initial state as a microstub to what is now hopefully a useful addition to Wikipedia. Egg and chips is a British working class icon. Fences&Windows 20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopaedic, referenced, why not 龗 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable dish (but, Phil, you have to dip them!) and exactly the kind of article people love Wikipedia for. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Topic is notable and encyclopedic. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 19:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has now been rectified by F&A, and topic is notable and encyclopedic. Hell, this might even appear in DYK. Cheers. I'^mperator 21:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, original rationale applies no more. Punkmorten (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good save on the expansion. The picture is making me hungry... Geraldk (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough reliable sources there I think. Just because a meal is simple and humble doesn't mean it isn't notable. Gatoclass (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficiently notable dish, as evidenced by the numerous reliable sources. Food is an under-represented topic on Wikipedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we really want dozens of articles created on random combinations of foods? Sources can easily be found for articles on "beans and chips", "sausages and chips", "peas and chips", "pie and chips", "sausage, beans and chips", "sausage, beans and mash", etc. Where do we draw the line? Cxz111 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We draw the line where we chose to, but mostly by whether we can demonstrate notability. Egg and chips isn't a random combination; as demonstrated in the article using reliable sources it is an iconic British working class meal. Fences&Windows 01:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was enriched by my reading of it and delighted to see that it was all sourced marvellously well. Who would have known such a simple meal would have so much potential... --can dle •wicke 03:42, 19 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 A9 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Things Change EP[edit]

Non-notable EP —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bundled another AFD from the same artist into this AFD. Artist is tagged as A7. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 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 merge to Scott Kildall. Seems to have already been done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Art controversy[edit]

This event was / is insignificant. We don't have an article on Wikipedia Art; there's certainly no reason to have an article on a minor controversy they once had. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge or see belowone of the arguments posited in the previous AfD that there would be more reliable sources forthcoming has not seemed to come true. It is still obvious that if this "controversy" involved anyone other than Wikipedia there would be no contest that its insignificance would have resulted in a speedy delete. The relevant sourced content has, I believe, already been merged into the articles about the creators of Wikipedia art. There is no reason to keep this as a stand alone article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain a little: I realize you nominated the article for merging, but what you say above seems to favor deletion? Another logical conclusion from what you pointed out would be to redirect to Scott Kildall. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: I still submit that this "controversy" is not notable, but with the new coverage including this; does the organization Wikipedia Art itself now reach the notability requirements for organizations?

Keep I agree with you that the art project itself was not notable. However, this article should be mainly about the trademark fair use legal dispute, which was far more significant than the art project itself. There's extensive and varied coverage which indicates this was a particularly notable dispute, including but not limited to coverage by Electronic Frontier Foundation, Guardian, PBS Mediashift, Journal Sentinel -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think about TheRedPenOfDoom's suggestion? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's possible to have a good place to merge it, but the earlier proposal for Wikipedia in culture honestly does not seem to me a place where this fits - that's radio/TV/comics, this is legal/trademarks/fair use. If there were something like "Wikimedia Foundation Legal Controversies (plaintiff)" (to distinguish from "Wikimedia Foundation Legal Controversies (defendant)"), I might support a merge there. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that Wikipedia in culture doesn't fit well. What about adding a section to Wikimedia Foundation? Something like Wikimedia Foundation#Legal disputes? I don't think there's enough material written at the moment to justify a separate article about the Wikimedia Foundation's legal issues. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not against it being in the article Wikimedia Foundation, though I wouldn't have proposed it myself for fear of a backlash. I could definitely sign-on to merging the material there as a solution. Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's not use this one-minute-wonder as a reason to create a coatrack for any other attention seekers. I pointed out to Seth that the EFF's contribution was to post a short blog entry which was one of thirty last April. If they don't think it's worth more, why should we? Naturally news media will gleefully report any fuss they can find, so brief one-off reports by three columnists does not indicate anything more controversial than the dozens of other items mentioned everyday in every news outlet. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the "one of thirty" objection a thoroughly unconvincing argument - any citation to a newspaper could be similarly trivialized by saying oh, that was just one story, out of dozens in the paper that day, hundreds that month. Perhaps a single item alone is not enough, but the range of coverage from different sources should suffice. - Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the issue here is that if these 'bleeps' on the scale are notable. Yeah, they get coverage when it happens, but everyone will forget about it outside a few people. It just seems like this didn't effect enough people for anyone to care NOW, but on the other hand it generated a lot of talking when it did happen. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I think we should be guided by asking "How would we cover this if it concerned something other than Wikipedia/Wikimedia?". The notability is very borderline but there is coverage. If it was any other organisation involved then we would certainly not have an article for it. We might, or might not, mention it, briefly, in the article about the organisation. It seems reasonable to cover it, briefly, in an appropriate other article. A partial merge to Wikimedia Foundation makes sense. A section on legal issues could be expanded to cover various issues including GFDL licensing matters and any other legal disputes over "intellectual property" so it is not like we would be making a new section just to accommodate this one matter. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lead says the article concerns "a domain name ownership dispute". Therefore, standards of notability for a domain name ownership dispute (a trademark dispute) should apply. WP:GNG shows that the article is not notable. For example, here is a much more notable trademark dispute where a product had to be renamed, while the dispute in this article was resolved by the web site displaying "not affiliated with Wikipedia". Per WP:NOTNEWS, the fact that there have been news reports of an incident is not a reason to have an encyclopedic article on the incident, and per WP:DENY, we should not create articles that celebrate disruptions or misuse of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scott Kildall. The episode was a storm in a teacup, and can be adequately covered on Kildall's page. Fences&Windows 20:55, 20 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of experimental screamo bands[edit]

No article defining "experimental screamo bands", questionable notability of the bands listed Click23 (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: No references, arbitrary listing. As noted above, what's an "experimental screamo band"? —C.Fred (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of three bands. No article for seemingly non-existent genre that these bands are supposedly apart of (which means that the term is undefined). The term seems to only exist as a last.fm tag and not a popular or defined one either. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comments above. It seems like a non-notable genre, if it even exists. Tim meh 23:28, 20 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kritika Kamra[edit]

Small article without sources or links. Don't think Kritika is notable. Highest Heights (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's hard to tell much from a stub, but she does have a lot of Ghits. [2] Edward321 (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could only find trivial coverage on Google. Cxz111 (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's only been in the one show, and that started in January of this year. A smattering of minor references in the Indian press. Fences&Windows 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still too new for any notability. Also, this article has been created as part of a set of articles about other actors from the same show. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks supporting references --Triwbe (talk) 22:17, 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 per WP:SNOW. Will gladly provide a copy in user space to any user who wishes to reformulate this list, providing references and explanations for the entries. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of mainstream musicians that have dealt with Christian themes[edit]

Vague list having no encyclopedic purpose that I can see. The criteria for inclusion on the list smacks of POV. What is a "Christian theme?" What, for that matter, is a "mainstream musician?" pablo_hablo. 22:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nom. This list is inherently vague or/and biased and serves to encyclopedic purpose as currently formulated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A good rule of thumb is to never post an article if you are still working on it. That's what userspace is for. This list is remarkably uninformative, being a listing of names of bands with no explanation of how they "dealt with Christian themes" (according to this list, 3 Doors Down dealt with a Christian theme at some point in their discography). I agree with the nominator-- what is a "Christian theme"? It reminds me of the commercial where the lady says that she "had a health issue" (with the unspoken idea of "and it's none of your business"). Even if this is still a work in progress, I don't think it can get past the original research problem. You'd have to find a reliable source, like an interview with Brad Arnold saying, "Most people think 'Kryptonite' refers to Superman, but I was writing about the singer seeking redemption in the love of Jesus." I don't think this can be salvaged. Mandsford (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an article that should be written. It just is not this one. A better article would be Christian References in Songs Recorded by Secular Artists, referring to obvious ones like Spirit in the Sky, by Norman Greenbaum and less obvious ones like Sunday Bloody Sunday by U2. Definitely needs to include explanations, not just a straight list. Eauhomme (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and lacking in content/information. Having an artist appear on this list doesn't tell the reader anything about how the artist dealt with Christian themes, how often, or in what songs, nor is any indication given as to who has identified the themes specifically as being Christian. (Some songs can be interpreted either with a Christian or a secular meaning -- or, perhaps in some cases, a Jewish, Muslim, or Rastafarian meaning.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too vague, no sources, no criteria for inclusion. And they left out "Cain's Blood" by 4 Runner. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague, subject to OR problems. Way too broad a list. If this article exists, why not have lists of artists who have dealt with love themes? or list of artists who have dealt with political themes? Bonewah (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "What is a Christian theme? What is a mainstream musician?", are you serious Pablomismo or whatever your name is? Are those really serious questions, or are you just being sarcastic? Anywho, I created this article becuase a section of the Contemporary Christian music article didn't allow to add anymore mainstream artists to the part where they gave examples on mainstream artists that have used Christian thems in their music but are not considered Contemporary Christian artists. So, I thought it would be a good idea to create a seperate article as a list of mainstream artists who have used Christian themes in their music. But now that i've realized how controversal it is (for some reason, most of the articles i have created are controversal. i'm just a controveral kid), if you really feel it is neccesary to delete, go ahead. --Mr. Comedian (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are serious questions, Mr. so-called "comedian". The criteria for inclusion in a list have to be clear, and these are not. pablo_hablo. 14:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not because the topic is controversial, but because there is no indication that there will ever be a citation to a verifiable and a reliable source. Speaking as a Christian, I can say that we've been providing citations to back up our statements for nearly 400 years. Mandsford (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and none of them have been from primary sources, which is commendable. pablo_hablo. 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: oh, and a reply to Bonewah. I actually think it's a good idea to have a list of artists who have used political themes in their music. In fact, why don't you check out these articles smarty pants. Punk ideologies, and List of political punk songs, Exactly.. --Mr. Comedian (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to keep. WP:OR is a reason to delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete who belongs on this list. should it include Slayer ("Jesus Saves" for one), Machine Head (quotes the bible), Queens of the Stone Age ("Burn the Witch"), The F.U.'s (Kill For Christ). too vague. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - criteria for inclusion are too vague to make a reasonable, useful list, but will make a huge, basically pointless one. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 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. (X! · talk) · @646 · 14:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Affirmations[edit]

Article presents no evidence of notability or context, and doesn't seem likely to be expanded beyond its current state. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 22:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Articles like this, this, and this clearly demonstrate that the affirmations have had an impact for some groups of Christians and that the affirmations pass the GNG. A Google search quickly reveals that a significant number of people are talking about them. The article can easily be expanded to 1) cover the book they came from and 2)talk about the reaction they have generated. (Indeed, I was planning on expanding the article to cover these aspects myself, but haven't gotten around to it yet.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, then, the proper scope for the article would be the book, rather than just this one part of it? In that case, it should simply be moved to the title of the book and expanded there. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should be moved if this is closed as keep... The book is titled "The Phoenix Affirmations" --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has had a fair amount of coverage. Cxz111 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Thaddeus. It passes WP:N. Tim meh 23:31, 20 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 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Dunning-Davies[edit]

The subject is an unnotable academic. He fails WP:PROF although he has some notability as a pseudoscience advocate. Mathsci (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the sort of case I find difficult. He has at least 50 publications in high-quality physics journals and three books (two mainstream, one fringey), which ought to make him notable enough for a Wikipedia article. This is one of those cases of a scientist who is creative in the mainstream for most of his career but then drifts into fringe topics in old age -- Linus Pauling is the prototype of the phenomenon. Looie496 (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Fellow of the RS, author, definitely meets notability. Dunno anything about his relation to fringe science, but there's probably worse out there. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per below (fellow of the RAS, and that is indeed nothing special, my bad).Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ahem, he is not a fellow of the Royal Society, which is quite a high academic distinction in the UK. Anybody, including students or amateur astronomers, can join the Royal Astronomical Society [3]. All members are called fellows. This fact is even recorded in the wikipedia article here. If he were a distinguished academic he would not have remained a mere senior lecturer. In the British university system there are the higher academic ranks of reader and then professor, which he never attained in his career. At present he fails WP:PROF on any kind of academic grounds. Looking at his publication list on mathscinet (29 items, many joint), there are a lot of papers in Santilli's Hadronic Journal, which is not a high quality physics journal; similarly he has published in Progress in Physics. Neither of these journals has a proper peer-review system. Mathsci (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability standards for an academic. Involvement with fringe science, even if it can be established to WP:BLP standards, does not make the case either. A.K.Nole (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Allow me to add a few observations to what Mathsci reported. WoS shows precisely 5 publications, only 2 of which are actually "articles" (the other 3 being "letters to the editor"-type pieces). WoS does not show the numerous other pieces referred to above because they do not appear in peer-reviewed research publications. In my opinion, 2 legitimate research publications over an entire career (art. says he's now retired) comes nowhere near satisfying WP:PROF #1. Other info above shows he does not satisfy any of the other criteria either. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Nothing to add other than the aforementioned 50 publications seems notable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson Verazzano (talk • contribs) 23:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Waffle~~: Keep conditional on expansion of content on his career work and the textbooks he wrote, delete if this remains a single-sentence outline of his career with a note on his participation in fringe science (which, as before noted, seems an end-of-career move, so perhaps undue weight to have this without his real work). Awickert (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:PROF below; thanks to Scog for looking into things. Awickert (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a quick check myself and reading the above shows that whether or not he has fifty or a hundred publications, he doesn't satisfy our criteria for notability (which are not based on the number of publications). Dougweller (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: although he has a number of publications (using ADS, I get 37 publications in refereed journals: [4]), he has very few citations (< 100 total), and so he clearly fails WP:PROF #1. As noted above, membership of the RAS is not a highly selective honour, and so doesn't satisfy WP:PROF #3. Since he doesn't appear to satisfy any of the other WP:PROF criteria either, I think we have to conclude that he's not a notable academic. Scog (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not among those who would anathematise fringe science and those who graze within its realms from the pages of Wikipedia in the interests of ideological purity. The topic of fringe science has fascinating psychological and sociological features. The subject of the article is most unusual in having contributed both to conventional mainstream science and to journals on its fringes. In WoS I find 56 papers in reputable journals-Nature, Physical Review, American Journal of Physics etc. (in 1998 he changed his name from Denningdavies to Denning-Davies and that has confused some of the editors here: both have to be searched for). Citations are not substantial so WP:Prof notability must be borderline. In his publication list on his web site he gives 130 publications, 16 are in electrical engineering journals (not covered by WoS), 9 on education issues and 4 books. The balance over these is in fringe journals and the physics ArXiv (which contains mainstream and some fringe papers). In GS there are 271 hits for "J Dunning-Davies" and in Google News 1,890. Clearly many of these may be eliminated on further examination but that still leaves some to give WP:BLP. In view of his non-conventional research activities it is not surprising that he was not promoted above associate professor level but these activities may give WP:BLP notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment On his home page Jeremy Dunning-Davies lists only 29 papers [5]. Mathscinet lists papers back in the 1960's with the current spelling. Where are the 130 papers that Xxanthippe mentions? There are 30 papers on the arxiv by him, some classified under "general physics". On Spires-HEP, there are 15 entries. In WoS there are 65 papers: many have never been cited; the maximum number of citations is 10 for one paper "What is entropy". WoS includes some electronics papers from early in his career. Mathsci (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here under the CV: http://www.steriwave.com/SteriwaveWeb22-05-09/J_Dunning-Davies.html Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Nice points Xxanthippe. If there is doubt I would err on the side of keeping. Especially when the drive to remove the article seems to stem more from a desire to censor than anything else. I noticed swathes of "unsourced material" that was actually of interest about the man, were deleted rather than tagged for citation requests, leaving the article void of any information actually. Can we not restore the article as it was written, and put up citation requests? Would seem to be more cordial and 'good faith' to me.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci has edited the Afd 26 times since October 2007 and has engaged in an edit dispute over the AfD with A.K.Nole who he threatened with the possibility of blocking. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You mean he edited the article, and editing an article is not a bad thing. He did not threaten Nole, he warned him of the consequences of his actions, which in part appear to be an attempt to make Mathsci change his username. The discussion is at ANI here [6]. This apparent personal attack by you on another editor has nothing to do with the merits of the article or with this AfD. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that link on steriwave, which reproduces the list on JDD's university web page. There are 29 entries. Apart from Xxanthippe's unwarranted personal attack, the statement about "fascinating psychological and sociological features" seems to be pure soapboxing. BTW, 26 edits for me is a very small number of edits. Another article that I watch is Europe. My edit count is a lot higher there (in fact I seem to have the highest number of edits on the article, namely 240). I made 231 edits on Plancherel theorem for spherical functions. I have so far made 81 edits on Château of Vauvenargues in the last two days, and that number is likely to increase significantly. Bruno Ely, Director of the Musée Granet and author of the principal source, kindly dedicated my copy of his fascinating booklet to the English wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack here. Just a record of edit history. It is often useful to know where editors are coming from in these pages in order to decide what weight to give to their views. The number of consecutive edits by Mathsci on the Plancherel theorem for spherical functions article is indeed remarkable. I have pointed out before that it possible to edit in the user's sandbox, and delete when the final version is complete, to avoid overburdening Wikipedia servers with a multitude of versions that increases Wikipedia's costs. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Cumulative edits are the usual rule for editing very long and difficult articles, even from scratch. That is normally what happens in mathematics and for that matter most serious articles Your remarks seem quite unhelpful, uninformed (what on earth do you mean about costs?) and possibly intended to cause offense. Mathsci (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offence was intended. Every byte stored on WP costs money because WP needs to purchase mass storage devices to store that byte. If everybody edited and saved an article many times more than needed to produce a final version then WP's costs would be increased commeasurably. The solution is simple, as I have already explained. Consecutive edits which, as you say, are particularly needed for the complicated mark-up of mathematical topics can be done in the user's sandbox and, after being copied into article space when ready, can be deleted. Alternatively, editing can be done off-line. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

These comments are the opposite of wikipedia policy. If you were to make more unhelpful edits of this kind, I imagine you could be topic banned from mathematics articles. Please stop trolling. Mathsci (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which particular WP:Policies is Mathsci referring to? The edit of mine that he refers to was an (unsuccessful) attempt to encourage the improvement of a poorly written mathematical article, of which there are many. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The subsequent edits on the article reveal that you, Xxanthippe, seem to have no familiarity at all with representation theory, which is what underlies the theory of spherical functions. In this kind of circumstance when you are evidently out of your depth, why even try to edit or express an opinion? Your unhelpful edit was reverted and ignored.
Edits in user space use up just as many kbs as in project space, so your other reasoning is also extremely hard for me to follow. You seem to spend a huge amount of time reverting edits rather than adding significant amounts of sourced namespace content to this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox edits are not retained after deletion. In principle this can reduce the profligate use of WP resources. Mathsci changes the subject so often I find it hard to keep up with him. I missed the response to my question about which particular WP:Policies he was referring to. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

WP:DFTT. Mathsci (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obdurate discourtesy deserves no reply. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

If your edits were better or you had created substantial articles yourself, you might have been taken more seriously. Mathsci (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Mathsci and I actually agree that this article should be deleted. Any comments on my or Mathsci's behaviour are not appropriate here. If worth making at all, take them to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_A.K.Nole. A.K.Nole (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make a personal attack on Mathsci. I noted the verifiable facts of his edit record. If I had referred to him (which I didn't) as "unhelpful", "uninformed", "trolling", "no familiarity at all", "out of your depth" that would indeed have been a personal attack. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I fail to see the difference between a threat and "pointing out the consequences" other than the latter is a euphemism--Benson Verazzano (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how someone can write such an inaccurate BLP as Benson Verazzano tried to do here [7]. Dunning-Davies was born in Barry in Wales where his father was headmaster of a primary school. He attended the local grammar school, then obtained an undergraduate degree in mathematics at Liverpool University, followed by a Ph.D. at the University of Wales in Cardiff, etc, etc. In his unsourced and WP:OR edits, Benson Verazzano described Dunning-Davies as born in England (!!!) and a "full professor" in Santilli's Institute for Basic Research in Science, a non-existent institute. The part on research was pure invention and synthesis on his part - some of the worst writing on wikipedia I have seen to date. Benson Verazzano's worst act however was the unsourced claim that he is "honorary full professor" at the University of Hull. This is a complete fabrication: did the fairies at the bottom of the garden whisper this into his ear? Mathsci (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I didn't write anything. I just reverted the article so it actually said SOMETHING about the guys work. You on the other hand deleted so much that the article says nothing at all. And now you propose to delete the entire thing. Got an axe to grind? --Benson Verazzano (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your unsourced synthesis and WP:OR is completely unacceptable. What you are trying to include in the article makes no sense at all. Why are you attempting to make this kind of summary of humdrum research in mathematical physics without using secondary sources? This would seem to undercut any kind of argument you are trying to make here. This sentence that you invented yourself hits an all time low: "His extensive work produced more than 100 pubblications on Thermodynamics, Electronic Engineering and Mathematical Reports." My only point of view is that inexpert POV-pushers should not edit BLPs like this. You wrote that Dunning-Davies was born in England and an honorary full professor at the Univeristy of Hull. What you wrote was a LIE on your part which I think you would be extremely hard pressed to explain. You could be blocked if you continue adding false facts to this BLP and in general being disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Just to add to what Agricola44 and Scog already said, the subject seems to have around 150 entries on Google Scholar (with maybe a few false positives), an h-index of 5, and the most widely cited paper has only 31 citations. His most widely held book in libraries is Concise thermodynamics, published in 1996 and available in only 144 libraries worldwide (WorldCat’s figure). The Amazon.com sales rank of this book is 5,214,301. Bottom line: The subject is just not notable enough for WP, even though he may have very insightful ideas and a prodigious output. Number of pubs is not a good measure of notability; citations is a much better one.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The truly notable theoretical physicicists tend to have extremely high Google scholar citation counts, compared to other fields. The fact that his are so low is very telling. Therefore, he does not pass WP:PROF #1, and there is no evidence that he passes any of the other criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The truly notable theoretical physicists tend to have extremely high Google scholar citation counts, compared to other fields." Can you source this claim? My own (unsourced) impression is that experimental physicists have higher citation rates. Not that the matter affects the present AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Just a personal impression rather than anything sourceable, but I tried searching Google scholar for a few of the people in Category:Theoretical physicists and in most cases found many several-hundred-citation papers. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The situation may be different for the famous stars (Dirac, Witten, Hawking, Feynman etc.) than for the borderline cases we deal with on these pages. The data is out there somewhere but hard to get at. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

DELETE: Anybody who belongs to a known crackpot organisation (e.g. ones which claim that perpetual motion or anti-gravity are already possible) should be systematically deleted. This is an urgent matter in the case of those people who are still employed, at the expense of taxpayers, to teach accepted conventional science. In the case of dead academics such as Eddington, Laithwaite, etc., their espousal of lunatic ideas should be mentioned - in a very unfavourable and cautionary tone - as a side-effect of 'personal failings'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.83.107 (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you simply don't like the organization itself. Jamie^☆S93 17:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So should we delete any references to Hitler because we hate Nazis? Or should we put as much information on Wikipedia as possible so that people can be educated as to what "crackpot" opinions are out there. Deleting a person because of affiliation seems like serious thought-control/information management rather than the free exchange of information Wikipedia could and should be. If someone happens on a Jeremy Dunning-Davis quote in one of his many publications, shouldn't there be a Wiki article that casts some light onto the mans reputation - however tarnished or respectable it may be - so that the said reader can make up their own mind? --Benson Verazzano (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this soapboxing. The organization of Santilli, the Institute for Basic Research in Science is a web organization, recognized by no mainstream scientific institutions. If you are claiming that wikipedia should somehow recognize such organizations, in this case set up by self-promoting fringe scientists, this is probably not the encyclopedia to edit. Have you tried Encyclopedia Dramatica? Mathsci (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This BLP is not the only place where Benson Verazzano has recently suggested edits contravening core wikipedia policies. [8] Mathsci (talk) 23:48, 21 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. Tan | 39 14:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo De La Salle University[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP. Advertising slant. References do not meet WP:RS, as they are from the site itself. See talk page of this discussion; author also admits to WP:COI. Borderline speedy; wanted community input. Tan | 39 22:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not admitting to COI. I am saying that the article probably or might be considered as falling under it in the sense that it is an article primarily authored by me- a member of the site who has firsthand and personal experience with using it. It was a personal project for me because I did put alot of thought and work into it. IMO, it is still one of the more sensible articles out there that are up for deletion. I absolutely do not wish to stray against the wishes and main goals of Wikipedia since I myself am a strong supporter of Wikipedia. As for NPOV, I admit I have nothing bad to say about the site except for load times, recent and occasional lounge lag though I did not include that since there would be no reference of it and it'd be a personal reference. I am simply being honest since honesty is one of main guidelines when NPOV and COI is in question. I have nothing to hide and I have stated that this is not for personal gain. I do not seek to glorify the site and in the page I recreated the information from scratch based on their main vision and goals in the references. As for notability, I recently did add a new section in the article that contains 3rd party links. Please do revisit it. Thanks. Universitylibrarian (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I nominated this for speedy deletion in its original form. This is much improved, but still does not have reliable sources to support claim to notability. JNW (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 15:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this website is notable. I would like to see at least some sort of article from newspapers or magazines at least. There are plenty of local websites that have tons of memberships and/or traffic so something more substantial than that should be used to assert notability. --seav (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator for the speedy delete of this article as a G3-hoax and as per all above. Also fails all criteria in WP:WEBSITE. If this thing's result was keep, then I'll make an article about Mapua's MapuaOwnage. E Wing (talk)

Delete, not notable, spammy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:29, 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) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Side (2010 film)[edit]

Film which has not begun filming: delete per WP:NFF I42 (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the only sources are imdb and gossip sites. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. The film is still in pre-production. If/when it begins filming and meets WP:NFF allow it back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article violates WP:Notability (films), which says a film that has not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have its own article. This film has not "commenced principal photography" so it should be deleted. TheLeft orium 12:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice since shooting hasn't started yet. Cliff smith ^talk 01:50, 20 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mothman (film)[edit]

Another textbook WP:NFF. Not in production; not even a confirmed cast list. I42 (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delet. Fails WP:NFF with a bullet. Film is still in the rumour/planing stages. Has not even begun casting. This article is waaaay premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article violates WP:Notability (films), which says a film that has not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have its own article. This film has not "commenced principal photography" so it should be deleted. TheLeft orium 12:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice since shooting hasn't started yet. Cliff smith ^talk 01:50, 20 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Outcast (2010 film)[edit]

Textbook WP:NFF. Speedy Delete. I42 (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (a PROD tag would probably have been better, but oh well) – This article violates WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:Notability (films) says a film that has not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have it own article. This film has not "commenced principal photography" so it should be deleted. TheLeft orium 22:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFF. Cast not all signed. Still in pre-pre production and "talks". Nothing firm. Article is premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice since shooting hasn't started yet. Cliff smith ^talk 01:51, 20 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 Bridge to Terabithia (novel). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Hill[edit]

This article is about Lisa Hill, not the novel or Leslie Burke. There is more information than the novel article. I asked David L. Paterson to improve this article with Lisa's mother and I hope this will occur soon. There is far too many who interested in Lisa. Lisa, and not Leslie. The girl behind the novel. I hope you understand me. Krisztian Kleh 16:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A young girl who died after being struck by lightening. Hardly seems notable, seems a fairly standard case of someone famous for a single event. If the event needs covering at all, it would fit best in the article about the book. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO1E. At worst, re-direct to the page on the author. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bridge to Terabithia (novel). already covered there. no individual notability past one event. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bridge to Terabithia (novel). WP:BIO1E. Cxz111 (talk) 17:14, 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 using state-of-the-art Computing Technology. Pure advertising. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyBidMax[edit]

Advertising and non-notable. No indications of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure advertising (a dozen links to the company website, even). Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP either. If it turns out to be notable, it would be best to just start over. Deli nk (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Deli nk. Highest Heights (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but an ad. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found. Cxz111 (talk) 17:15, 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) 00:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgebuilders[edit]

Article written in a spam mode with no sources or indications as to why this software, program, or service is notable and worthy of inclusion. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 21:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam and non-notable. Shadowjams (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Highest Heights (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could only find trivial coverage. Cxz111 (talk) 17:20, 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) 00:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Nissenbaum[edit]

Previously nominated for deletion in May 2006, rational for keeping (put forward by one editor) would not pass muster now. Three others at that time argued for deletion. He is still an assistant prof, and his h-index looks to be in the single digits. Abductive (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Abductive (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF and the reasons in the last AfD (who he has studied under or worked with) are irrelevant. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Cxz111 (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Assistant professor and minor papers, no outside recognition of any note. DreamGuy (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He has a couple of decently cited papers in Google scholar (164 cites for "Investigations of covert phrase movement", 94 for "Extraposition and scope: A case for overt QR") but not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF #1, and he clearly doesn't pass the other criteria of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 20 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 Heroes Wear Red. Jamie^☆S93 23:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving September[edit]

Non-notable album, PROD removed without addressing notability concerns. Article does not even assert notability. Pontificalibus (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to band. lacks reliable sources. article does assert notability, album by (for now) blue linked band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heroes Wear Red#Discography. Tracklisting can be added there if necessary. Astronaut (talk) 11:07, 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 delete—G12. Ruslik_Zero 18:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positive psychotherapy[edit]

Although the words "positive" and "psychotherapy" appear together often in the scholarly literature and in books, this article is so poorly written, so biased in favor of one definition and trumpeting one person that it should be deleted (and perhaps userfied) until it (possibly) can be brought back. At present, none of the grandiose claims in the article are verified, for those of you who might be inclined to say that AfD is not cleanup--cleaning this up will leave nothing. If anybody can find where this is copied (and copy-vio) from please tell us. Abductive (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment- all forms of psychotherapy try to be positive psychotherapy surely, no types try to be 'evil' psychotherapy.:) The title is inherently a coatrack for a WP:POV, saying that one type is better than others. Sticky Parkin 23:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. no references, no indication of notability. if after 4 years no one, including the creator of the term, can come up with a reference in a peer reviewed journal, etc, then its a nonnotable psych theory. i dont think the name gives it any credibility, nor should it. one sentence on the theorists article should be enough. just checked, the author site has all his books, so he is notable, but the subject is not. and his article needs to be rewritten.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Try searching for his name along with "Positive therapie" or "Positive psychotherapie" and you'll find plenty of news sources in German referring to this. The article needs slashing back to a stub, but it should be kept in some form. Sticky Parkin's coatrack argument is a total red herring, as that's the name of the therapy! Fences&Windows 21:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you/we know if the German "Positive psychotherapie" is the same as the English "Positive psychotherapy"? A reading of the English scientific literature has left me unconvinced that there is a unified definition in English. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we should follow the English usage. The problem here is mostly WP:V, but I don't think it is a notable subdiscipline of psychotherapy either. Abductive (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insofaras this is associated with Dr Peseschkian, searching on his name too helps clarify that sources are related to the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence presented or found of notability, verifiability or encylopaedicity. If anyone does find anything, it will be as easy to just start again than trying to shoehorn this into something remotely like a valuable article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Copyvio on the face of it even if the original source is not immediately Googleable. DreamGuy (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous sources in both English and German for Dr Peseschkian's version, never mind other flavours. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G12 speedy delete The content is copied from these sources: [9], [10], [11], [12]. Timmeh 23:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've checked those sources and agree it's a speedy delete for copyright violation. I've tagged the article as such as having voted delete above I don't think my deleting it would be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I was going to tag it myself, but I figured the closing admin would speedy delete it after closing the AfD early, as is usually done. Tim meh 16:01, 21 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 Speedily deleted as A7. Notability assertions must actually meet a relevent SNG or GNG--an assertion of airplay alone doesn't meet WP:BAND criteria 11. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing Red (Band)[edit]

Fails WP:BAND as the subject hasn't been discussed in any depth by multiple, independant, reliable sources; nor has the band recieved any major awards or charted any hits. Them From Space 20:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete cunder A7, absolutely no assertion of notability. --neon white talk 23:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, the article asserts that they have been featured on many local and online radio stations. Them From Space 23:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you ask me. Any Joe and the Nobodies band (that actually would be a good name for a rock band) can get airplay on a local radio station. My local radio station regularly plays a metric buttload of acts that fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats why I nominated it for deletion. I'm just saying it doesnt fit in with CSD as it makes an assertion of notability. Them From Space 06:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:48, 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. Satisfies WP:CRYSTAL. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance of Socialists and Democrats for Europe[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - the org does not yet exist Chzz ► 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an odd situation. It seems that the Party of European Socialists is changing its name and expanding its membership. The Alliance of Socialists and Democrats for Europe is not a new organisation but an evolution of the existing one so I don't see any need for two articles. The change is already covered in Party of European Socialists so there is nothing here that needs to be merged. If the name change is already effective then this article should be deleted and Party of European Socialists moved to "Alliance of Socialists and Democrats for Europe". If not then this article should be redirected to Party of European Socialists which should be moved over the redirect once the new name is in use. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it thus far, it is just the European parliamentary group which is changing its name, not the European political party. Currently, we have one article (Party of European Socialists) to cover both the Europarl group and Europarty - rather an anomaly on Wikipedia, as there currently is separate articles for groupings and parties, e.g. EPP-ED (group) and EPP (party). I oppose the deletion of the Alliance of Socialists and Democrats for Europe article, as by having a separate article for the europarl grouping, Wikipedia's coverage of the PES/ASDE is kept in line with its coverage of the other EU political families. --Autospark (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. I misread the PES article and didn't pick up on the distinction between PES and PSE. It is even more confusing than I thought! The PES is the PES and stays the same while the PSE is becoming the ASDE. Now I understand that, I can see that it makes sense to have an article about each one. This should be done by splitting the PES article to move the content about the PSE/ASDE to here. Obviously there needs to be a here to move it to so that means keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above, obviously. The organisation may not yet exist, but it's firmly planned to be created, so it's obviously encyclopedic. —Nightstallion 07:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep organization has been formed see here C mon (talk) 16:27, 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) 00:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Butterflies[edit]

Non notable musical recording taken from an album that has no article. Highest chart position it reached was #193. BigDunc^Talk 19:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note that the creator is a sock of a banned former editor Nimbley6. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Adds nothing more than is said in the discography section of the artist's article. Astronaut (talk) 11:24, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of chart hits 1980–1989[edit]

Unsubstantiated, probably redundant of a category (I'm not 100% sure what this is even supposed to be.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too vague. What charts? What's the definition of a hit? Where did all this take place (seems to be hinting at Britain, but that's only a guess). pablo_hablo. 19:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No criteria for inclusion, and I dont think it would be easy to define a criteria, where the article wouldn't be better under a different title (e.g. "List of UK number one singles 1980 - 1989", "Singles selling more than X copies between 1980 and 1989", "List of top ten selling singles for each year during the 1980s" . At the moment appears to be "List of songs the author likes from 1980 - 1989" Pit-yacker (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No context to identify the subject. Europe22 (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place for a list of your favorite 80s hits. Mandsford (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague, inclusive list. Seems to simply be a list of favorite 80's songs of the author. Largely redundant to List of number-one singles from the 1980s (UK) since - from what I can gather - these are UK chart hits. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete Overly vague lists. We already have plenty of lists of notable hits from a certain era, usually #1's and other Top 20 hits. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vauge, unreferenced and ill-defined list that appears to be attempting to catalogue four (1980-1983) or three (1984-1989) hits of each year in Great Britain without specifying any objective criteria for inclusion beyond the year of (presumably) peak success. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queens International Film Festival[edit]

Delete, spamlike advertisment Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google new search shows the subject passes notability, and this AfD qualifies for WP:WTF???. And this began within one minute of the editors first contribution? Contributions from a new editor need to be helped and encouraged, not squashed like a bug. Dekkappai (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just about enough coverage to pass. I agree Dekkappai, nominating an article seconds after nomination is bad practice. Note the guidelines "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." --neon white talk 23:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow this is a bit of a rediculous nomination. Clearly notable. -Djsasso (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as even mimimal WP:BEFORE show numerous sources toward notability and any concerns of the stub's 3 sentences are best addressed through WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:24, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Breakdown World Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour, at least as of now. It contains only a list of performance dates, and the tour hasn't even started. Any available information from reliable sources tells only of the dates and locations of shows on the tour. Other than that, it receives almost no coverage in reliable sources. The article cannot, as of now, be more than just a list of dates and locations. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 18:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really don't see how any concert tour is worthy of an article, unless in exceptional circumstances. As pointed out, the only coverage is related to advertising the tour dates rather than any sort of review of the tour. I'm also amazed that the article was kept after the first AfD, despite only getting two comments, one of which from an IP with only 6 edits. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, tours are almost inherently not notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources presented in the last AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of which gives any more information than tour dates. (Oh, and did I mention that Green Day makes my ears bleed? :-P )Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did, multiple times. We won't hold it against you or your otters though. :) Tim meh !_{(review me)} 23:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or my cluebat, I hope. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...or your cluebat. We can't forget Cheyenne. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 00:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing of note, just a list of advertised dates, totally ~~encyclopedic~~ unencyclopedic. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean unencyclopedic? Tim meh !_{(review me)} 00:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that as well! I am on BST here (UTC +1), it's late..... Trevor Marron (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Green Day are a significant act and the tour is extensive and therefore I think it warrants being kept. Eldumpo (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask on what policy or guideline you're basing your keep rationale? Tim meh !_{(review me)} 19:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General notability, there are lots of Google hits for the tour. Also, re original poster comment, the pre-tour warm ups have all now happened, and the main tour is due to start in only a few weeks. Eldumpo (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those hits are just lists of shows and their dates. No reliable sources are talking about anything other than tour dates and locations because they can't. The tour hasn't even started yet. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 00:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone doubt that the tour will gain notability when it actually starts in less than 1 month? I don't think guidelines have been technically been met, but I am inclined to adopt a keep for now approach since it is highly unlikely that the tour won't become notable and the start date is not very far off. In the unlikely event the tour doesn't generate reliable source reviews it can always be deleted later. Put differently, I just don't see a point in voiding the work put into the article just to have the thing recreated in ~3 weeks when it is nearly certain to gain official notability then. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *^YES! 18:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think its name is "21st Century Breakdown Tour", but I don't know if that gets it any more reliable sources. Abductive (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be userfied? It does seem likely that it may become notable after a while. Abductive (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an agreeable option. I wouldn't object to userfication until the article becomes notable. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 00:46, 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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 flu pandemic table[edit]

An article that displays stats by a day-by-day basis is extremely unnecessary and fails the guideline WP:NOT#STATS and is an "excessive listing of statistics." There are already media such as graphs and templates that present this data in a much better and presentable fashion. The raw data from tables aren't needed. Either the article needs to be deleted, merged, or not provide such excessive detail with the stats. Douglasr007 (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is an almanac according the Wikipedia:Five pillars. This information is important because it shows case progression, peaks, and decline of the epidemic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia incorporates elements of an almanac according the Wikipedia:Five pillars. This information is important because it shows case progression, peaks, and decline of the epidemic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not 'extremely unnecessary'. It provides useful information about the ongoing pandemic and will become a historical record for the future. No other presentation gives the full details that this article does. I have also defended the article on its talk page.Anguswalker (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion at this time but I want to point out that it does NOT say in the five pillars that Wikipedia is an almanac. It says that it is an "encyclopedia incorporating elements of...almanacs...." That can be a crucial difference so we shouldn't misquote it. Drawn Some (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I changed the statement above. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found the table useful and interesting. It shows, for instance, that the U.S. passed Mexico in the number of cases on May 9, and that sometime between June 1 and June 3, the 10,000th American case was diagnosed (and I bet they didn't get a prize). My understanding of Wikipedia style, however, is that we would refer the reader to the links to the World Health Organization website. I'd rather see it kept than deleted, but I have no policy to refer to. Mandsford (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the timeline article. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, merge to 2009 swine flu outbreak timeline. We have too many separate articles on this subject and it's in danger of making information hard for end-users to find.
Whatever happens, don't delete the content outright. This kind of article is exactly what Wikipedia does best: collect the very latest information from the web, put it into context, strip it of the spin, and make it available for free.
Incidentally, the policy that Mandsford was looking for in his remark is WP:PRESERVE.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge This article and 2009 swine flu outbreak timeline are both likely to get quite large over the next few months, and to merge them would make for an extremely long page that would have a considerable effect on readability. With that in mind, I suggest that this page stands alone. Anguswalker (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Merge The information would lcutter the timeliune article and would need to be split out in the near future due to WP:VERYLONG. However in it current table forma tit is very hard to understand, so under that stance i would say Merge or Delete but as other have said the informaiton is useful so should be kept but the big question is how to do it. I would suggest Keep and for the table to be redone in Prose so each date has accurate account of what happen for increases in cses etc. The article will also need to be properlly soruced.--Andy Chat c 21:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the timeline article more it basically is double for this article but in a much more easier format, so i now Suggest Merge and Delete and convert any information on this page to prose that is not already on the timeline page--Andy Chat c 21:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge and delete" is not a possible outcome, because of the GFDL.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Timeline article is already 102k, longer than an article should be. This article presents the data in a useful form which allows insights not readily possible from other articles covering the subject, and presents data which is not readily availabple anywhere else in this form, since WHO just gives daily updates. The graphs do not break the data down adequately by country, and often lag far behind the data, due to the difficulty of editing the graphics. The information is important and is referenced. This is one case where the first of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia applies: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.". It is important to apply WP:PRESERVE. Alternatively, could such data tables, which should be expanded to include deaths, be placed in Wikisource, or is it only for texts? I do not agree that WP:NOT#STATS applies to this article, since that rule applies to long sprawling lists of numbers embedded in an article which make it hard to read. As that rule suggests, this data is neatly organized in tables. Edison (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a suitable sub-article of 2009 flu pandemic. If this article "violates" WP:NOT#STATS, then WP:NOT#STATS is a poor rule which should be ignored in this case. (Oh, and as Edison noted above, this data is in a table like WP:NOT#STATS recommends). We're talking about an ongoing global pandemic here, so I simply do not believe the nominator's claim that day-by-day stats are "extremely unnecessary." If this article bothers the nominator, they can always use the graph and templates they prefer. If you don't like it, don't deprive others of it. --Pixelface (talk) 23:05, 19 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. Ged UK 19:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Folks[edit]

Per CSD tagger on the talk page: "No evidence of individual as an umpire. All the references point to unrelated articles. Author has history of hoaxes. See Adam Fitzmaurice. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)" NW (Talk) 18:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax (or possibly just entirely non-notable). As of right now, I get exactly 2 google results for "Connor Folks" umpire. One is the WP article, another is an apparent mirror. As per above, none of the references cited in the article actually mention a "Connor Folks" at all, which makes me lean towards hoax rather than non-notable. Either way, this does satisfy the criteria for inclusion. Cool3 (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Hoax per above. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:51, 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 keep. (X! · talk) · @647 · 14:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres (organization)[edit]

Unreferenced advert; no assertion of notability; could not be sourced Chzz ► 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." (WP:CORP) The article already cites articles from the Washington Post and the New York Times. It may not have inline citations, but AfD is not FAC. It's a bit hard to find more sources (given that Ceres can refer to a lot of things), but if you do a Google News search for Ceres and Mindy Lubber (the organization's leader), you get 459 results, nearly all relevant. If that's not significant coverage in reliable sources, I don't know what is. Cool3 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What do you mean, "could not be sourced"? As Cool3 points out, there are hundreds of news articles at least mentioning Ceres. "No assertion of notability"? Try reading Ceres (organization)#Key accomplishments. This nomination is completely flawed. Fences&Windows 21:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Page was just revised to include more links and impartiality.--Lets go duke (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)lets go duke[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Gran Caribe[edit]

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the one resource available goes to that business website. Does not meet wp:rs for inclusion on grounds of notability, csd shouldn't have been declined. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plenty of directory listings, but no non-trivial discussions found. Scant mention of Centro Gran Caribe being a fixture in the local community, but not enough to meet WP:RS. Note: WP:CSD#A7 would not have applied to a shopping mall. Nominator needs to read carefully the speedy deletion criteria and see that buildings are not covered by this criterion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 04:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* can you explain what you mean above please? I read A7 and it An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on." In this instance they are writting about the business holding the building no? Thats why I fell that A7 was correct. Maybe I;m missing something, Can you please further explain wha you mean and what I did wrong? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:43, 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 speedy delete. Ged UK 20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic websites[edit]

Delete- Not notable Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete preferably speedy. Beach drifter (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Beach drifter. Wikipedia isn't a link farm Pit-yacker (talk) 19:31, 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 merge with Physical examination. Non admin closure. Sk8er5000 (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Executive physicals[edit]

Delete not notable Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article, so far, provides no evidence that "Executive Physicals" are notable in some way, or even that there really is such a thing. A Google search, though, indicates many hits for the topic, and I think a small but legitimate article may be a possibility. Tim Ross (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A merge could be appropriate, into the main page on Physicals if we have one. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Physical examination ttonyb1 (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Physical examination. It's just an expensive form of a regular physical, with a pre-set menu of tests. The "executive" notion appears because (1) it's inappropriately expensive, since most of the tests aren't medically necessary for any given individual, and (2) typically all scheduled efficiently on the same day (or multiple consecutive days, in some of the more extreme forms), so you're only out of the office once, instead of making multiple appointments. They are highly profitable operations, and most US hospitals and larger clinics offer this program. See PMID 18832242 (or here for a peer-reviewed journal article on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 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 delete. I've changed my mind. It is blatant. Sorry for the inconvenience. Ged UK 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Fitzmaurice[edit]

Removed via Prod in July 2008. Cited references fail verification. Personal website/blog belong to someone else. No evidence found to confirm this guitarist is for real. Author appears to have history of creating hoax articles - see Connor Folks ttonyb1 (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Blatant hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:56, 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 keep as per WP:N. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 19:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VLSI Technology[edit]

Unsourced, promotional, would require a complete rewrite Chzz ► 18:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep VLSI is a major company in the history of the electronics industry. 70.29.212.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep VLSI Technology is a notable company. I contest the nominators assertion that a "complete rewrite" is required to "bring" the article to meet the standards. The article makes some bold claims about the company, which I assume is what led the nominator to believe the article to be promotional. I believe that there is a high probability that some of the claims are accurate, given VLSI Technology's role in the industry (VLSI ASIC technology was used in the mid-1990s for high performance applications).
Keep - As mentioned previously, VLSI Technology is a notable company. A Google News and Book search for "VLSI Technology, Inc." (to avoid instances of VLSI technology) returns over 700 news articles, including press releases, from 1980 to 2008 and over 700 mentions in books. Given the number of potential sources, the argument that the article is promotional, unreferenced and would require a complete rewrite to remedy is no excuse for the deletion of an article about a notable subject. Additionally, I must question whether the article is promotional. Yes, there are some bold claims, but if I am not mistaken, VLSI Technology's ASIC technology was used in high performance applications such as microprocessor interfaces and workstation graphics accelerators during the 1990s. Can any company just fabricate such ASICs? I think not. The "promotional" claims might be true in the end. If not, then they should be removed. Its quite simple. There is no need to delete the article. Rilak (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - VLSI Technology was a notable company. I don't know if back issues of Electrical Engineering Times are available, but they would be a good source. Journals related to integrated circuit design automation might also be a good source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes VLSI is a notable company but the article reads like an advertisement. Maybe it should be wiped out to one paragraph and people will improve it. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is notable. Sources are needed and promotion should be avoided, but deletion is a last resort and has been proposed far too readily here.. Fences&Windows 23:09, 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) 06:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casino bingo poker comparison[edit]

Original research/synthesis, possibly promotional. slakr^\ talk / 18:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I smell spiced ham. The title's full of keyword stuffing - "casino bingo poker" isn't a game - and the article doesn't actually compare anything. (Instead, it promotes an organization which performs such comparisons.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam article to promote editors website. Probably original research. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, hey, good catch. I didn't look at the history, so I didn't notice that the author's name is the same as the organization the article's promoting. Yeeesh. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If the terms for the actual types of gambling are removed would this be more in line with the policy?, yes I make references to my own activities but they are the only ones with which I can talk with any authority. The page is intended to be about the actions of the Comparison industry and the way in which it is involved with the Gambling industry in general and where it will go in the future. The number of Online Gamblers using the Comparison sites are higher than the number that are going directly to the casinos etc. There is no regulation for who is being recommended, I for instance receive dozens of "Bonus Emails" every day which seem fantastic offers on the face of it but I know they are from sites and for Casinos that you would not want to either use your credit card at or leave your money there on deposit. I welcome your comments and take on board the spiced ham comment. It is a complicated subject and somebody does really need to put the workings of this industry down for people who want to know. If you think the page can be written without it sounding like a promo I would welcome your thoughts as I being a Fourth generation Bookmaker I do strongly believe in the protection of the player (believe it or not) and a lot of the new media/advertising types running these mail campaigns do not think or operate like this. Thank you for your time and comments. Tim (Author) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calidagaming (talk • contribs) 06:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tim, I'm guessing this is your first Wikipedia article. We need reliable sources, see WP:RS, but I can't find any that discuss gambling comparison sites. Without that we can't write an article. The article is also written as a personal essay rather than as an encyclopedia entry. You should avoid writing about your own organisation. See WP:COI]. Fences&Windows 23:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok Thats fine. I would go with Delete then. Many thanks. Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.231 (talk) 07:06, 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, merge and rename as provided by Metropolitan. ÷seresin 01:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christianophobia in...[edit]

Articles

First 4 articles have no content other than a definition. Given the context, the reference for the article is probably not a reliable source. The article itself is debatedly POV pushing. In the case of Christianophobia in England appears to be POV pushing, for example it ignores the fact that the complaint to the ASA against the Gay Police Officers Association was only upheld in Part. Secondly, the highly partisan Daily Mail is not a reliable source on these issues (if not most political issues). Life-Site News appears to be even more partisan. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started these articles but have not had time to add more to them yet and the one I have put most into is 'Christianophobia in England'. I see a need for all the articles as there are loads of examples available that illustrate anti-christian discrimination. If there are problems with using references from the Daily Mail, I will use others as well - are you happy with stories reported by the BBC? FYI, I also intend to write articles about Islamophobia in the UK. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment partly in reply to your posts here and on my talk page. First of all, I think the suggestions of Metropolitan90 would be a start. However, I think there may be fundamental issue as to whether an article entitled Anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom which basically consists of a list of anecdotes carried in the press could ever be NPOV. The concept that a lot of these stories, even if we do take them at face value are "anti-Christian" is precisely a *point of view*, let alone that taken together they show the existence of an ingrained "anti-Christian" culture in the UK.

The problem with taking them at face value and the reason I particularly question the use of some sources, is that these stories also have a habit of melting away into nothing when you dig a little further. A quick Google of "Havering London Hospital Paintings" reveals [13] and [14] which suggest amongst other things all religious buildings were banned, along with other images (such as babies) in sensitive areas.

Equally, I don't see that a commercial bank refusing to do with business a single Christian group (Christian Voice) can be seen as "anti-Christian". It would be correct to say the move might be seen as Anti-"Christian Voice", but that isn't the title of the article, and if we want to start an "anti-Christian Voice" article we could start with a great deal of criticism of the organisation from the mainstream churches in the UK - including a quite conservative former arch-Bishop of Canterbury who alluded to them bullying various organisations and companies.

Pit-yacker (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all or at least userfy, combine and rename. The anecdotes listed in the England article are only "phobia" like responses when viewed from your POV. Maybe discrimination, but I see no way that the name of the articles can remain as is without being completely POV. That being said I think it will be very very difficult to write balanced articles at all. I suggest working on existing articles. Beach drifter (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Christianophobia in Scotland, Christianophobia in Wales, and Christianophobia in Northern Ireland due to lack of any substantive content whatsoever. Merge Christianophobia in England into Christianophobia in the United Kingdom because there is no indication that there will be enough content to justify separate articles for the constituent countries of the UK. Then rename Christianophobia in the United Kingdom to Anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom to avoid the use of a neologism in the title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename acccording to Metropolitan90; there is not content to justify separate articles. One strong article is better. DGG (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge, & rename per Metropolitan90's suggestion. Anti-Christian_sentiment should be able to handle the material without forks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the one article with content that could be merged, of four examples three are not Christophobia - one is about an extremist homophobic group (described as such in a UK broadsheet) called Christian Voice, one is about complaints against the GPA and was investigated by the CPS, but found insufficent evidence to mount a case, and one was about an allegation by a teacher who did not want to attend compulsory diversity training that would be necessary to work with a range of people and children who fall outside hetersoexuality, and in the report is still under investigation. The leaves one, and from the report it is hard to say what that is about. That leaves about three sources, of which two discuss the neologism - one from an MP and one from outside the UK (Europe). Does one solid quote by an MP expressing his opinion and one example that in itself is tenuous warrant an article here, let alone four or five? Negative reactions to Christianity tend to be for spefic reasons - religious differences, or attitudes towards minorities based on sexual or gender identity, or because of scnadals where Christians have abused positions of power or authority. Because these sorts of phobias (i.e. that are not neuroses, e.g. xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia) are rooted in irrational fear and expressed through discrimination, it is not clear that apart from one, these examples would fall within the scope of the article. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Christianophobia in the United Kingdom article which looks like a disambiguation page but isn't needed as 3 of the articles it links to have no content. That said, I think the issue is worthy of an article, though I think it would be fair to add a section pointing out criticism of the use of the term. 86.165.94.221 (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep would be my preferred choice but maybe Merge would be best for now since some articles have nothing in them. Maybe if they grow they can become separate again. 86.156.2.58 (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Delete and merge as Anti-Christian sentiment in the UK, with questionable content removed (such as Christian Voice), as this is not a well established term. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All It seems apparent that the articles' issues can be dealt with by normal editing - cleanup, merger, rename, etc. Such action is consistent with our editing policy and so deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge as Anti-Christian ... as others suggest. Christianophobia is an awful neologism that isn't even in Wiktionary yet.Polargeo (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see how, at least right now, how any substantial articles could be written, even if the POV is removed. UK is a Christian nation. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 22 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 as per WP:N. Non-admin closure. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egg wash[edit]

Delete, this is not a recipe site Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I believe there is some sort of Wikimedia site that is? If so, and if they don't have an article on this already, then transwiki, otherwise delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is [15], and my search showed they do not currently have an article on this subject, which is odd because it is a fairly common technique... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having worked in a bakery, I can testify that an egg wash is a very important concept, and a valid topic in and of itself. It would be possible to write an extensive, tightly-sourced, highly encyclopedic article on this topic. The current article is a stub but it is certainly not bad or problematic; this is a classic example of a stub that could easily be expanded into a good article. Do a google books search for "Egg Wash" or "Egg Wash is". Google news and google scholar also turns up some relevant sources. Yes, Wikipedia is not a cookbook, but I think cookbooks can be used as valid sources per WP:RS, especially ones by famous chefs, and books that are themselves widely known. In fact, I'd say for culinary topics, cookbooks are often among the BEST sources. Also, there is other relevant material out there, including patents relating to an egg wash: [16], vegan substitutes for egg washes, etc. Cazort (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't that cookbooks can't be used as sources, but rather that Wikipedia itself is not a cookbook, but does have a sister project that is and would welcome this sort of material. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting writing a recipe, I'm saying that an encyclopedic article can be written here. In order to justify deletion you need to argue that the topic is not notable in that there are not enough reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article. But there's a wealth of information out there and I am finding it with little effort. For example, this book: [17] discusses technological issues of applying egg washes in the commercial manufacture of cookies and crackers. Having an article on a culinary topic, even one that discusses how something is typically made, does not necessarily make a page unencyclopedic. Look at the pages (stubs) on Broth, Beurre noisette, or Beurre manié. Would you want to delete all these articles too? I would strongly advocate keeping ALL of them. They are important culinary topics! If you want to see an example of a more extensive article on a topic like this (an intermediate step in the production of some kind of food), look at the article on Roux. Cazort (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sources are already being found, and even as someone with very little experience in baking, I've heard of this. Describing cooking techniques is very different from giving recipes—I find Hell in a Bucket's rationale for deletion (and its endorsement by Beeblebrox) to be mistaken. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above we may not be a recipe site, but this is not a recipe. Just as we have an encyclopedic article on Batter (cooking), we can have one on egg wash, as an important component of many recipes. Cool3 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just edited the article a bit, in an effort to make it more encyclopedic. Cazort (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wash (cooking) so it can include milk washes and other types. The concept of a wash in cooking is certainly notable but we don't need separate articles for each type. Drawn Some (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. Having everything together on one page would certainly seem to make sense, especially since most cookbooks discuss alternatives in the same context. Cazort (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, and consider merging to Wash (cooking) when we have something written about the other washes. WP:NOTHOWTO is mainly concerned about the way information is presented; it doesn't explicitly prohibit any specific topics. Zagalejo^^^ 19:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for same reasons stated above. While we may not be a recipe site, we do need articles about cooking. Postcard Cathy (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep- wikipedia is not a recipe book, but many foods and techniques are presented individually and in an encyclopedic way here, if they're notable and sources are available, as in this case. [18] [19] [20] Sticky Parkin 21:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not move. Notable article subject. If someone wants to write an article more broadly on various types of washes they are welcome to it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a general cooking technique, not a recipe. DGG (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator is correct in saying that Wikipedia is not a recipe site, but this article is not a recipe. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a recipe and is clearly notable being a very common component of cooking/baking. -Djsasso (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't a recipe. The article is short and sweet, but the topic is notable and the nomination is flawed. Deletion nominations need better rationales than this. Fences&Windows 23:17, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SEC Championship Game broadcasters[edit]

SEC Championship Game is only 25kb long and this sublist is only 5kb long. This is in no way too long to be a single article per WP:SIZE. I merged the list to the main article leaving a note at Talk:SEC Championship Game, and a user has repeatedly reverted me without reason. There's simply no need to have two separate articles. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to SEC Championship Game.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merging is not a good idea - Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia and a list of broadcasters is way out of proportion with the attention it deserves. --B (talk) 17:32, 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, Jamie^☆S93 19:44, 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, Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this isn't trivial information... who broadcasted the game determined where the vast majority of viewers saw it, it's a meaningful part of providing encyclopedic coverage of the topic. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It basically says "There has been little or no change in the announcers involved with the SEC games." Isn't that small enough to put on the article? ~ R.T.G 21:24, 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 redirect to WNBA Finals. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wnba champions[edit]

Delete, could be covered on team pages Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of WNBA champions. It is common practice to have a list of champions for a given sports league. See List of World Series champions, List of NBA champions, List of Super Bowl champions, and so on. This is absolutely notable, even if there will only be a dozen entries. Naturally, though, some cleanup is required. Cool3 (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WNBA Finals provides the same info, and more. I suppose we could redirect Wnba champions there. (I already turned List of WNBA champions into a redirect.) Zagalejo^^^ 19:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that's much better. Recommend that we redirect this there. I think this hardly needs AfD now. I'd think any uninvolved party could close this and redirect there. Cool3 (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above—Chris! _ct 20:08, 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) 06:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dermpedia[edit]

Fails WP:WEB - a medical wiki JFW | T@lk 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Chicagomaroon accidentally overwrote the AFD with "This article points to a very useful collaborative project to increase medical knowledge in dermatopathology similar to Medpedia. It should not be deleted." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed most content as it was a copyright violation, subject isn't notable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources to establish notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:03, 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 Nomination withdrawn per changes made. No point in keeping this discussion open, given that I just spelled out the arguments offered to me here in relevant essays. See Wikipedia:Notability (media). Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WCRX-LP[edit]

Contested prod. Low power radio station. Broadcasts only two hours a day, no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding WCRM-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was pointed to me by the article creator, and seems to be just as deserving of deletion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both stations are licensed to the FCC as community LPFM stations. Their programming schedule or signal range should not play any part in arguments as they are both licensed, and one of them is a Pacifica affiliate. Could do with some cleanup, but not deletion. Nate • (chatter) 00:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Both stations are licensed by the FCC, both have the standard notablity for radio stations. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to the specific policy or guideline to that effect? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: We have determined that anything with an FCC license is protected from deletion. We've saved KPDF-CA, KUNP-LP, and KTFL this way (see the KPDF, KUNP, and KTFL AfDs). Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 04:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With nothing that can be consulted with regard to the specific application of WP:N to radio stations, this cannot be a speedy keep, and this will certainly not be the last such AfD. In my home town, a low-power radio station was recently licensed with the sole purpose of advertizing a new condo project. And it was fully licensed by the CRTC too. By the standards of those here who are asking for a speedy keep, the developpers of that condo would get a free pass to circumvent WP:SPAM by writing an article on the radio station instead of one on the condos themselves. Even a rejected guideline proposal would be better than nothing at all. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does the station have a license? (I am not familiar with the CRTC, but they fall under the same notablity regardless) If so, then yes, it would get a page...and probably one day will. If it is a Part 15 or a Pirate, that is up for debate. Give me about 5 minutes and let me dig up the old notablity essay we have. It is old, needs updating, but with the precedent of many AfDs, it holds true no matter what. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - See the old and in need of updating policy about notablity in media. Even though it needs updating, with the precedent set by several AfDs, all closed as keep, it holds true regardless of updating needs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I believe we should try to resurrect the page Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations), or an amended version of it. It is currently tagged as inactive, even obsolete. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as consensus and years of precedent tells us that, like small towns or major highways, all government licensed broadcast radio and television stations are notable. The essay at WP:BROADCAST does a good job of explaining this and the essay you reference is marked inactive and obsolete because it reflects neither consensus nor reality. - Dravecky (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly what I said. If you simply point out that it is inactive and obsolete, then you are just saying you are unwilling to fix the problem. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Reactivating Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations), where you seem to have totally missed the point of my initial post, even after I attempted to set you straight on it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no problem. You want to "reactivate" something that was never active in the first place, had been marked as dead for three years, and in any case has been superseded by a comprehensive essay with current guidance on the notability of radio stations. This essay (part of WP:Notability (media)) is doing the job just fine so there is nothing here on which I feel I need to be set straight. Your assertion that "a massive group AfD" might follow your proposed changes is a clear indication that your intent goes against the current consensus and years of consistent precedent. - Dravecky (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:N—lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. BRMo (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Vote changed to keep based on the new references added by User:Dravecky. BRMo (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Have you read any of this or did you just slap down a vote? An FCC license is the station's notablity. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please, assume good faith. Yes, I read the discussion, and I disagree with you. An FCC license seems like a pretty weak argument for keeping an article that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. BRMo (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those sources are at the bottom of each and every page. One from the FCC, one from Radio Locator, and one from Arbitron. These sources are at the bottom of every radio station page....AM, FM and LP. Yes, we could slap a couple more sources on the page (Dravecky is pretty good at finding them, ask him) but with three already there and the standard notablity that radio stations and television stations have....I think it is more than enough. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE Thanks to a few moments of Googling, I was able to improve and more thoroughly reference this article, including sources like...
- Matuszak, John. "Bexley Public Radio returns airwaves to community". Columbus Messenger. Retrieved June 17, 2009.
- Martineau, Gail (August 6, 2008). "Station finds a home in Whitehall garage". Bexley ThisWeek.
- Hambrick, Jennifer (January 2008). "Columbus Community Radio Takes Off in '08". Short North Gazette.
- Perhaps if more editors observed WP:BEFORE then there would be fewer AfDs. - Dravecky (talk) 06:57, 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 speedily deleted, almost all the content is copyvio. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMDiS[edit]

Non-notable software. [21] gives a few mentions but not significant coverage Pontificalibus (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of bridges and tunnels in Macau[edit]

Delete, bridges and tunnels themselves are not notable. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - informative list that includes significant information over a category. I see no reason for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While this list (as its own article) is a bit too short for my liking, if the list can be expanded with named bridges and tunnels (see Wikipedia:Features of streets, roads, and highways), it should remain. Let's be clear, though, that deleting an article that is a list of features is not the same as deleting an article about a single road feature. Individual road features deserve their own articles if they are named. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - individual items in a list don't have to be notable to make the list as a whole notable, and the concept as a whole (major road features in a sufficiently large area) is, in my opinion, notable in most cases, including this one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But individual items in a list do have to be notable to be on the list. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful navigation list, just like the dozens of others like it —G716 <^T·_C> 19:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate list, and, by the by, most named bridges and tunnels are indeed individually notable as is our consistent practice here .DGG (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for the deletion of this list has been given. Multiple entrys on the list appear to be notable. Many bridges and tunnels are notable. see Sydney Harbour Bridge as an example of a very notable bridge. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep individual entries on a list do not need to be notable in themselves, just verifiable. The the list needs to be encyclopaedic and, like all the other lists of bridges and tunnels by country on Wikipedia, this is. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 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 as per WP:N. Non-admin closure. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 19:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of bridges and tunnels in Dubai[edit]

Why is this notable? Delete, bridges themselves or tunnels are not notable Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The specific bridges and tunnels on this particular list appear to be notable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - informative list that includes significant information over a category. I see no reason for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - individual items in a list don't have to be notable to make the list as a whole notable, and the concept as a whole (major road features in a sufficiently large area) is, in my opinion, notable in most cases, including this one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful navigation list, just like the dozens of others like it —G716 <^T·_C> 19:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as a proper subcat of parent Category:Lists of bridges. Nomination is false in any case: various bridges in the list are WP notable: they have articles. Hmains (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. Tavix | Talk 22:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a well structured encyclopaedic list. Could do with some more references, but that's not an AfD issue. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate list, and, by the by, most named bridges and tunnels are indeed individually notable as is our consistent practice here .DGG (talk) 04:14, 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) 12:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Balint[edit]

AfDs for this article:

does not meet notability guidelines, self-promotional content Blueeyesisr (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC) — Blueeyesisr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is not promotional in tone and has a large number of reliable sources listed. Edward321 (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The large number of reliable sources appear to be articles written by Balint. Not about or independent of Balint. No real claim to notability shown. Just a writer doing his job (the publication list suggests doing it well but that does not make him notable). Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every one of those so-called reliable sources is written by the subject, not about him. I wish people would actually look at claimed sources rather than get dazzled by their quantity. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Duffbeerforme. Offered links are not reliable sources independent of the subject. Notability not established. لenna vecia 15:59, 20 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 A7 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Young (record producer)[edit]

Violates WP:BIO: I only found one real Google hit about this person, and that site only mentions his name in passing. Also, his supposed real name appears to be original research. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted by me a couple of times now as a NN bio. Time to have a chat with the author. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:31, 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 merge to Westmount. Target for merge chosen at random, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Westmount Adjacent[edit]

Westmount Adjacent is indeed a term used in real estate ads, to indicate that a property is adjacent to the upscale city of Westmount, as Google reveals. But it is not true "neighbourhood" with any encyclopedic notability, IMO. The article's description of its "location" simply delineates areas adjacent to Westmount's north, south, east and west borders, nothing more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Westmount or Notre-Dame-de-Grâce - I can find no references to it other than on property websites or collocations of the two words (e.g. "...Westmount, adjacent to..."). Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I do agree that we should add a mention of the Westmount Adjacent term in those articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - most GHits appear to be ads. Sebwite (talk) 04:13, 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) 07:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SupJustin.com[edit]

Blog site with no clear notability. Speedy deletion contested by article creator. Oscarthecat (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Already speedied twice, Alexia ranking of >570,000, percentage of global internet users who have visited the blog is 0.00031% (58% USA, 27% Swiss)So it is does not have particularly strong penetration or a global presence. It has had a few references in other media but when it comes down to it it is still a single person blog with some music gossip. The speedy debate had a whiff of COI. I feel it may eventually be noteworthy enough to have an article but I don't think notability has been established at this stage. delete without prejudice. Porturology (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete....again. Totally non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7 Web. Highest Heights (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The blog doesn't seem notable enough on its own. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This blog has clear notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.155.229 (talk • contribs) ::— 76.200.155.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~save~~ This blog always posts exclusive song streams and is always credited for doing so on AbsolutePunk.net and Alternative Press. Example of exclusive credited on AbsolutePunk.net (which is a highly respectable music news site)^[1] SupJustin.com is also a VIP on Buzznet's FriendsOrEnemies.com^[2] website. -Varsityhero (talk) 10:33 14 June 2009

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

Delete. Pretty clearly non-notable. Whether or not the content of the site is unique isn't really relevant. All blogs have "exclusive content" unless they're plagiarized. eaolson (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated in the Notability (web) requirements "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles", a few of SupJustin's interviews with bands have been published in the magazine Alternative Press. Varsityhero (talk) 1:57 15 June 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Citations? eaolson (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEB. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 22:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - non-notable web site; article is a pure advert... --mhking (talk) 00:21, 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) 00:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Mumford[edit]

Not sufficiently notable Geronimo20 (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable govt. worker Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible claim to notability is unreferenced. لenna vecia 16:00, 20 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artez Interactive[edit]

Page's creator removed PROD and has been blocked under {{spamusernameblock}}. The article, while showing many links, displays nothing reliable, with most links pointing to affiliates of the company. Fails WP:CORP and WP:N. ~fl 09:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom clearly fails WP:N , WP:R and WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, just an advert for this company. Bonewah (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteno clear evidence for notability: 300 customers worldwide is not substantial market share. The most independent 3rd party source, the article in the Toronto Star is not really independent either, being essentially based on PR and simply repeating whatever the President fo the firm told the interviewer.DGG (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like pure spam with a couple of SPA's editing and insufficient WP:RS to establish notability.Paleking (talk) 17:40, 19 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susy Clemens[edit]

The daughter of Mark Twain didn't live long enough to do anything notable enough for a separate article. Notability is not inherited. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Keep Both articles appear well-sourced and the first is also a biographer of Samuel Clemens. Worst case these articles should be merged to Samuel Clemens, not deleted. Edward321 (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this article can't stay. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia, some much worse and less significant that this. It was a touching story. So she didn't live that long, but she lived, and deserves to be remembered. Aggiebean (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course she was notable as the daughter of Mark Twain. A biography she wrote of her father was also published about 15 years ago, as noted in the article. I went out of my way to source it line by line. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both I've always felt that close relatives of major historical figures should get their own articles as long as there is enough to say about them. Those relatives may not have done anything particularly important, but if historians have written about their lives, we might as well include that information. Pretty much all the articles I've seen about the parents/siblings/children of US presidents are kept when they come to AFD, so it's clear that NOTINHERITED is not always followed in practice. These articles seem potentially useful to Twain researchers, and they're both fully sourced, so why not keep them around? Zagalejo^^^ 19:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separately notable as a major role in the life and works of the author. Her early death does not make her the less significant in this respect. I agree that relatives of really major figures given extensive rreatment in works about the figures should have separate treatment. DGG (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO. Notability is clearly established. There are at least 2 reliable independent sources with non-trivial coverage. Age is unimportant. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Highly useful article, maybe she orginally gained notability b/c she's related to MT, but she clearly transcended that during her short life. NOTINHERITED should not be used too broadly with historic figures, in my opinion--while a separate article on the wife or husband of every modern celebrity might not be desirable, the potential for abuse with 19th century figures is far more remote. - Vartanza (talk) 03:36, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henryk Batuta hoax[edit]

Non-notable navel-gazing. A hoax article on the Polish Wikipedia that led to brief blurbs in the Observer and a couple Polish sources. Haven't read the Polish sources, but the Observer "article" is basically a three paragraph space-filler, hardly what I would consider significant coverage. The first few words of the "Batuta as an example of using Wikis as references" section ("In academic discussions . . .") sounds promising, but it turns out that those, er, "academic" discussions were held on Second Life. The article itself states "[a]s the meeting took place in the Virtual World of SecondLife, there is no record immediately available to investigators outside of SecondLife except for this Wikipedia entry that the Henryk Batuta story has been used as a tool for debate". Sigh... Badger Drink (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable hoaxers trying to generate publicity for themselves. People vandalise Wikipedia every day. Newspapers use it as a source of information. Where's the surprise in yet another article. Perhaps it has a place on Polish Wikipedia but it really doesn't here. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this has coverage in most of the major Polish papers: Rzeczpospolita, Gość Niedzielny, Gazeta Wyborcza, Dziennik, and the Wiadomości24.pl information service. A couple of Scholar hits, too: the case is mentioned here in the Bulletin of the Polish Librarians' Association, and here in the online journal of the Warsaw School of Economics. That all looks to me like significant coverage in reliable sources, or notablity. I'd be inclined to see the Observer piece as significant coverage, too, since the story is the sole focus of that article. I count five paragraphs, which is more than an "And finally..." fluff piece. I agree the Second Life stuff should go, though. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are interesting but dozens of hoaxes are deleted weekly if not daily, this one is slightly more involved but not at all worthy of an article. Beach drifter (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree (god knows I've CSD'd some garbage), if this particular hoax hadn't received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is the bottom line for notability. The dozens we delete daily don't. Gonzonoir (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case that having significant coverage cannot be viewed as the only criteria for inclusion. We have many many policies and guidelines and I feel having an article about a wikipedia hoax is contrary to many of them and definitely is contrary to the spirit of this encyclopedia. Beach drifter (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which policies and guidelines specifically do you think this article would contravene? I'm willing to be convinced on this, I just want some firm reasons. I sort of feel as though if these articles were from six major US or British newspapers, we wouldn't be having the debate. Nine other-language Wikipedias have versions of the article (it survived an AfD in the French Wikipedia), and I'm concerned that we retain a global perspective. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing a strong indication that this is significant enough to warrant its own article. If deletion is not an option, my second choice is to merge this into a broader article on the topic (or a section of Wikipedia article). Could probably put the Siegenthaler thing in there too. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was a notable event in Poland, and is quite a notable event in the history of Polish Wikipedia. There is plenty of reliable Polish sources discussing this. Let's avoid WP:BIAS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate not being accused of cultural bias for my views as to the notability, or lack thereof, of this bad Polish article. The Badger Drink's Mom's Cookie Jar Controversy of the 1980s was a pretty notable event in my household, doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. Same with the Steel Plates Placed Haphazardly Along a Certain Street in Montgomery County, Maryland, Causing Traffic Snarls and Ruined Suspensions Controversy of 2009 - it's of note for those living and commuting in this particular city, but it's certainly not of encyclopedic merit! For the purposes of Wikipedia, events are either notable or they're not. There's no such thing as "only notable along these certain geographical coordinates", and to propose that there are such things is ridiculous. Badger Drink (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, to argue that "<x> is notable in <y-land>" seems to undermine its very notability. If it were truly notable, it would also be mentioned in <z-land>, <q-ville>, and <m-town>. The fact that it's not mentioned in <q-ville> or <m-town>, and only mentioned briefly in <z-land>, raises the question, "is the subject covered in <y-land> due to its being a truly notable event, or more due to it being <y-land - ish>?". Badger Drink (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the weakness of the "other stuff exists" argument, but we must have tens of thousands of articles - probably hundreds - that only cite (and probably only could cite) coverage from a single country. There are scores of local politicians and sports players, for example, who are perfectly notable but unlikely covered outside their country of origin, even in other English-speaking countries. The notability guideline says nothing about international breadth of coverage, and if we extend this logic we render reams of content in Wikipedia open to the same objection. (In any case, the UK Observer articles shows that this one has merited attention outside Poland.) Gonzonoir (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its a completely irrelevant event, good enough for your avarage early afternoon 15 minute TV shows about which celebrities broke up with another, but for an online encyclopedia, it a storm in a glass of water. Kurfürst (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't know this story but it is most certainly interesting and i don't see any reasons to delete it. Loosmark (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WP namespace. In line with the point I tried to make about three and half years ago, this definitely is a notable internet phenomenon. However, although Wikipedia is part of the "real world", we should be careful not to become too self-referential. I think moving this to the Wikipedia namespace, while keeping a redirect in the article namespace, is a reasonable compromise. This leaves us with the problem of all the other language versions of this article, but you've got to start somewhere, and .en is probably to the second-best place to start this move. @Badger Drink: "to argue that "<x> is notable in <y-land>" seems to undermine its very notability". Uh, sorry, but no. Being an international project, notability in one country establishes notability across Wikipedia. "I would appreciate not being accused of cultural bias for my views as to the notability, or lack thereof, of this bad Polish article. The Badger Drink's Mom's Cookie Jar Controversy of the 1980s was a pretty notable event in my household, doesn't mean it's encyclopedic." Unlike your household, Poland is a notable place, so the comparison is slightly flawed. If you can't see the difference, there must be some sort of bias in your cognition, although calling it "cultural" might be overstating it. ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Wikipedia is notable, so is Polish Wikipedia. Perhaps we could create history of Polish Wikipedia article and integrate the hoax there - but I still think it is notable as a standalone event. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that History of Polish Wikipedia deserves a bluelink. If this incident can be shown to have lasting impact on that project, then it would be appropriate to mention - as long as said lasting impact is demonstrated and the event placed into its proper context (whatever that may be). Badger Drink (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsten, feel free to explain to me how Montgomery County, Maryland is somehow un-notable. If it is notable, then surely that traffic snarl, covered in both the Rockville Gazette and Montgomery Journal (reputable, albiet local and red-linked, newspapers), should, by this astoudingly daft notion you promote, be notable? Of course it isn't, and neither is this very localized, very brief and fleeting incident, of no lasting repercussion (SecondLife chat be damned). I'm not quite sure why this would belong in WP namespace - maybe the erstwhile Polish Wikipedia does things a bit differently, but here, something like that would probably be placed on meta or meatball. Badger Drink (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wheater reports are even more covered, but they are not encyclopedic. Neither is local traffic report, nor your kitchen mishap. This Wikipedia hoax, however, is encyclopedic. That's the difference. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Badger Drink: "feel free to explain to me how Montgomery County, Maryland is somehow un-notable." Badger, feel free to read more carefully and discover that there is a slight but decisive difference in spelling between country and county. Or are you promoting the "astoudingly daft notion" that as a place, Montgomery County, Maryland is of equal or similar importance as Poland? en.wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the world, not about the U.S. or things of particular interest to the U.S. (or any other English-speaking country). The Batuta hoax made nationwide headline news in Poland, on the same level as the Seigenthaler hoax in the U.S. By your logic, Seigenthaler should have to be purged from .pl, too. --Thorsten1 (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: nominator admits to not having read the main sources. Seems a clear case of cultural bias. Thorsten1 sets it out very clearly.--Kotniski (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He who does not known his history is doomed to repeat it. Pustelnik (talk) 14:43, 21 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Reddick[edit]

Non-notable real estate empire. Oscarthecat (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 08:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article starts out as being about the person, then goes off on tangent about the business. No notability about the person listed in the article.--Dmol (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:21, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Foreman III[edit]

Fails general standard in WP:NSPORT (not participated in a major or international competition), has not received any major/notable award. Just by winning a professional debut (anyone can do it) and as a son of a notable athlete does not mean that this person is also notable. E Wing (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - deserves a sentence at most at his father's article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: It says "pro". Was this sanctioned by any of the recognized boxing federations? If so, he'd qualify under WP:ATHLETE. If not, then I'd say non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick look at net reports of the fight gives the impression that 1. the only point of notability is that it he is his father's son - and Wikipedia notability is not inherited 2. it was a total mis-match the opponent has been called "a human tomato". Some malicious tongues in the cyber world have suggested that the mis-match was a set up to give GFIII's nascent fighting career some publicity - of which this article is a small part. If his career continues he will eventually have his own notability Porturology (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, his coverage is due in no small part to his father. Not many pro's with one fight get a lot of coverage. But the coverage has been from some pretty notable sources. ESPN and AP [22], Fox Sports [23], NY Times [24], Sports Illustrated [25], USA Today [26], Washington Post/Reuters [27] . These are pretty notable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: should the human tomato Clyde Weaver also have an article? He was in the same fight and has the same coverage but lacks a famous father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porturology (talk • contribs)

Does he have the same coverage? Do you see any mention of Weaver's childhood, educational background, training methods etc? Is being merely mentioned in an article about someone else "coverage"? In the articles about the fight itself, yes, he has the same coverage, but in the bio articles, he doesn't. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - That is true but it comes back to the point that his coverage is due to his father's fame rather than any innate skills. I have had a look at a lot of websites including the press-releases of the casino where the fight was held. There is no indication of what "professional" means except that the fight was not sanctioned by an amateur body. There is no mention of a purse or the TV/Radio/Cable coverage. I would expect the casino press release would say if the fight was sanctioned by a recognized boxing federation but it is silent. If we take it on face value that this was "professional" then we have two "professional athletes" (one of whom had had 1 previous fight, for a KO loss) who both deserve an article. Personally I think the PR possibilities of the fight were more important than the actual contest and I would delete this article and await to see if GFIII develops a significant career. Porturology (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying and as I said from the start, a lot of the coverage is due to his father. However, if his name were John Doe and he fought a professional bout with the same amount of coverage we see here (and these are some pretty notable sources), this discussion would be totally different. You could argue he wouldn't have gotten that coverage without dad, but the fact remains that he did get the coverage. Is the standard why he got the non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources? Or is it that he did get that coverage? It is almost that we are going to penalize him for having a famous father. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Until he has and wins more fights, might this not be a case of wp:1E ? Porturology (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this the fight was staged by "Real Fights Inc" an organisation that was established 2 months ago with a capital of 10K. The only presence of this company on the net is a note from the State of Nevada saying that the company registration fees are still owing. Porturology (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep - Agree with Niteshift36. If the bout was sanctioned by a recognized body, then keep per WP:ATHLETE. Otherwise, probably delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep based on added significant sources. Also, if I recall correctly, George Foreman III apppeared in some TV commercials years back, although that is not currently mentioned in the article. Rlendog (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of the reason, there is some non-trivial coverage of subject by multiple reliable sources. Thus, meets WP:BIO#Basic criteria. — Satori Son 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've thought about it long enough. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep me and nightshift don't always agree, but he is a notable boxer being that he is a professional. he is also on many notable websites including ESPN, [28] CashRules (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage has been identified to meet general notability guideline and probably meets the sportsman specific guideline as well. Davewild (talk) 18:12, 21 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bradden Inman[edit]

Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played first-team club football and his international appearances are at U-19 level only. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This submission is opposed on the following basis...

"People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis" ...This definition does not explicity require 'first team football'. He has and continues to play in the reserve team (also recently featured on the bench for the senior squad) as a fully professional football player at a fully rofessional level with a fully professional Newcastle Utd.

"People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." ...He has competed in international friendlies for the Scotland under 19 national football team a total of 3 times so far, surely this should be regarded as the 'highest amateur level of a sport'.

(Fußballspielen (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Football isn't an amateur sport, and an U19 friendly certianly isn't the highest level he can play at. Soccerbase confirms that he has yet to make an appearance in a professional league. Because of this, he fails WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player. Giant Snowman 11:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails notability at WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Recreate if and when he plays a pro game. --Jimbo^[online] 18:05, 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 Speedily deleted. TN X Man 15:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redsocks (band)[edit]

This band may not meet notability guidelines. It appears to have very limited coverage in third-party sources. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 07:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The article has no evidence this band meets any of the notability criteria. Google and Google news have a lot of references to the baseball teams music but apparently nothing other than social network references to the band. Porturology (talk) 08:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Wagner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Peter J. Wagner

not a notable scientist. Does not meet WP:PROF Northfox (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are you picking these? Could you please expand on how he fails WP:PROF? Although his citations are hard to sort out from a chemist with the same initials, he's got quite a few of them. Also, he won an award that has its own Wikipedia article. News organizations quote him. And he is curator. Abductive (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, he is just an average successful scientist. He won one award for young scientists a while ago. That's all. He is not heavily quoted. If you delete the entries for the chemist with the name of Peter J. Wagner [29], the list gets even shorter. Quotes from news organizations are not in his article. There is nothing written about him. It is not clear what outstanding contribution he made that allows for a wikiarticle that is meant for the general public. Northfox (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The award was in 2004, and it's not some sort of made up award within one school or something. It is the young researcher award from the Paleontological Society, the 101 year old international society for his field. They only have two other awards, the one for amateurs and the medal for someone whose "eminence is based on advancement of knowledge in paleontology."

His research did make the lay news, where he is called the "lead scientist" on an important result. The question is, what else could he do to be notable? Abductive (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has won a notable award. Appears to be heavily cited [30] as well. Edward321 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF, though the key papers and citations should be added. The title of "Curator" is approximately equivalent to the title of Full Professor, and this is one of the most important museums in the world, of similar significance as the highest ranking research university. The influence on the field is through the citations, per established precedent in this rule. DGG (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WoS for the paleontologist gives h = 16; top three cites are 146, 68, 63. Looks O.K. to me. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:57, 20 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben van Bergen[edit]

This a BLP which fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. IMDb listing shows he's only had bit parts and wrote one 25 minute video. Only other claim offered is as a losing candidate for a regional vice-president seat at SAG. His own MySpace page asserts no particular notability. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only not notable per guidelines, no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability (I can read Dutch). "The doctor is in" was selfpublished according to (in English) medialab (scroll down in the "details" iframe). Is an extra. Kwiki (talk) 11:38, 19 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lofty Storm Records[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, although it would be nice to have a more specific guideline under WP:MUSIC about record labels. Speedy declined with rationale "there are albums released on this label on the English, German and Italian Wikipedias". I see no such articles, although a split EP half-contributed to by the notable Cock and Ball Torture is mentioned in the discography sections of the band's article. The label appears to have no website (which creates WP:V problems) and Discogs.com lists a solitary album on its Lofty Storm page, with no other contact details. As you might expect from a Brazilian grindcore label, Google Books, News and Scholar turn up nothing, and even a basic Google search revealed nothing but a scant few releases in band discography pages. WP:MUSIC describes an important indie as one that's been around more than a few years, with a roster, many of which bands are notable. Lofty Storm, as far as I can see on that front have released a split EP, one have of which was contributed to by a notable band. No where near good enough, even if we assume label notability is WP:INHERITED. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Do this search: [31]. The results are not pleasant enough to paste in here! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, I see one further article on the Polish WP for a four-way split involving Exhumed; the rest are category pages. Still no coverage whatsoever, and number of interwiki pages is not a sign of notability at any rate. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found an interview with the founder of the label, see [32]. Lechatjaune (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article needs independent sources/third-party sources per WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. Algébrico (talk) 16:00, 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, ~fl 05:48, 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) 00:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhinder Vohra[edit]

Likely autobiographical. Most of the 24 Gnews hits cover home sales in the DC area. One PR piece about his group organizing a Sikh Inaugral Ball, a few with "quotes from local residents" about the terrorist attacks in India in late 2008 and a few in the socialite pages about the Party Digest magazine. Doesn't pass WP:BIO SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not-notable per guidelines due to lack of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable mess of a BLP. لenna vecia 15:30, 19 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 00:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass cremations in India[edit]

There is no notability shown for this long-closed case by neutral third-party reliable sources. All the sources for the article are from partisan groups and websites, and primary sources. While groups such as Amnesty International and others are notable, the article shows no coverage by third-party sources to assert notability. If any are found, article needs to be rewritten, re-titled based on those sources, or merged into another article. Priyanath ^talk 03:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Priyanath ^talk 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep There seems to be something there, but at least the article needs to be retitled. Northwestgnome (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Improve Sources The online Tribune and Ensaaf links give secondary sourcing, although I'll agree not strong ones. As long as the article keeps a grip on it's interpretation of the primary sources, this passes by WP:OR issues of relying on primary sources. To be honest, there are so many AfDs for articles that never even bother to reference primary sources that this kind of issue is refreshing. I agree with the above editor's suggestion of a retitle. -Markeer 13:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ensaaf is not a reliable source for creating an article, and arguably shouldn't even be allowed. The Tribune is only printing a public notice/legal copy of the case and would be a primary source in that sense. I'm not opposed to a merge or a drastic reduction to secondary sources + rename. Any suggestions for reliable sources and the rename? Priyanath ^talk 17:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is titled mass cremations in India but only talks about Punjab; a clear case of POV pushing. The only statistics come from one single organization and no other source to back it up. Not to mention that the major ref is actually a "brochure" by a social organization involved rather than an academic ref. Tow refs are court cases agian hosted on the same organizations website. Neutrality of the references is questionable. --Deepak D'Souza 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it ends up being kept, any reliably sourced material should be merged into Human rights in Punjab, India, and this title redirected there. Priyanath ^talk 20:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed per UncleG's comment below. Priyanath ^talk

Delete and Merge per Priyanath. The scope is not consistent with the title and the content sourcing is too narrow and makes it POV. Hekerui (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and Merge per Priyanath~~. The title should not be a redirect as it isn't a direct connection to the subject. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updating per Uncle G below. Any well sourced content can be added to Human rights in Punjab, India by whoever is interested. The article as it stands today is almost entirely POV sourced and has an incorrect title. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sourced material to Human rights in Punjab, India pablo_hablo. 08:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)edited for clarity pablo_hablo. 19:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge into Human rights in Punjab, India. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such outcome as delete and merge. The two actions are incompatible. If you want the content kept, in any form (including merged into another article), then our copyright licences require that edit history be retained. Conversely, if you want the content deleted, you don't get to have it retained in another article. Having your cake or eating it: I advise all four of the above editors to pick one. Uncle G (talk) 19:01, 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) 00:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mewthree[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 03:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above -- Patchy1^(talk) 03:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are fan-made creations in crappy hacks notable? I'd agree with delete, but don't want to see this page created again in the future. How about a redirect to WP:PCP? MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no third party coverage, completely fan made and completely unnotable.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a redirect is needed. It's on my watchlist, so if it is recreated after it's inevitable deletion, I'll catch it and nominate it again. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 05:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as everyone knows, it's fake. So why bother writing about it? Nate • (chatter) 07:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unofficial Pokémon, exists only in fan-based hack, therefore not notable. JIP | Talk 09:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect to Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen, the game that the rom was hacked from. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 12:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't redirect, hacks aren't notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fan hacks are Wp:NN, and it (literally) fails Wp:NFT. (It's also incorrect - This has been around since at least 2001: I recall seeing information about it (which also called it fake) in a guide to Pokémon Gold and Silver.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. No need for a redirect, either, considering none of the other Pokémon articles cover this subject. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, article infact admits itself that Mewthree as a Pokemon is a hoax. No need for a redirect. --Taelus (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, who in their right mind would contest a PROD to 'this' of all things? ^blurred_peace ☮ 17:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it was never prodded. It should have been. Oh, Delete BTW. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mewtwo and protect.--Otterathome (talk) 10:31, 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) 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Thanh Nam[edit]

His employer is notable, but there are no citations to multiple, independent, reliable sources indicating this particular executive's own individual notability. This is a no-prejudice nomination, on behalf of whoever tagged the article with {{Notability}} two months ago (for all I know, Nam is huge in Vietnam). If the article is kept, it should be moved to Nguyen Thanh Nam (businessman) or whatever, and Nguyen Thanh Nam made into a disambiguation page with that entry and Nguyen Thanh Nam (pool player), who is definitely notable and will have an article eventually when the cue sports project gets around to him in creating articles on top pro players. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is basically a résumé with no indication of notability. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the lone contribution to Wikipedia by an SPA [33]. No coverage by independent sources (i.e., other than the corporation he works for). Mandsford (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable resume. لenna vecia 15:40, 19 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. Fram (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway Plaza (Birmingham)[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable entertainment complex. Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to indicate why it is notable. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep About as notable as The_Great_Northern_Warehouse and The_Printworks. I strongly believe deletion at this early stage is very unreasonable considering the article has had limited time to develop. 78.109.182.8 (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Great Northern Warehouse and The Printworks are both historic buildings and the history is a significant part of the articles, indeed the former is a Grade II* listed building. It is their history and status as prominent buildings in their city that make them notable for inclusion, not their current use. In contrast Broadway Plaza (Birmingham) gives no indication of anything that makes it any different from countless other similar entertainment complexes up and down the country. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another entertainment complex, no evidence of notability. FWIW I would support deletion of The_Printworks for the same reason. Paulbrock (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the reasons given above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete- seems a bit spam like and I live in Brum, it's nothing major, just a few rarely frequented shops. Sticky Parkin 21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge summary to Five Ways, Birmingham where it lies. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Five Ways, Birmingham. Good to include. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly not notable. But also seems to be little more than a way of using Wikipedia to advertise a shopping mall/cinema complex. Mention of the place is already in Five Ways, Birmingham and if anyone thinks it important to list that it has a Frankie & Benny's they can do it there. Polargeo (talk) 08:35, 22 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. The subject does not meet the inclusion guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Erickson[edit]

Low level minor leaguer, non notable. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 18:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players per standard procedure. Spanneraol (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players. DRV restored as "no consensus".--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Contrary to what was said in the other AfD, the Miracle is not a professional team . They are a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions of people who say "The Miracle is not a professional team" should not count. He clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion counts as much as yours, whether you like it or not. They're not professional in the sense of WP:ATHLETE as I see it. It states "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Class A baseball isn't even the top level of minor league baseball, let alone professional baseball. Now you can dispute if they are "professional" or not. Yes, they get paid, so technically they are professional. But many of the players have outside jobs because they don't get paid very much, so I'd dispute the claim of being "fully professional" I happen to like the Miracle and attend several games a year, but I don't believe that a player that has not played in the major league passes WP:ATHLETE. I'd also ask that you be more civil and discuss the issue and not your opinion of my intelligence. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While there certainly is debate about the notability of low-level minor league players, the Miracle most certainly are professional. All of Minor League Baseball is. Reso lute 04:04, 14 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 01:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've understood "fully-professional", in the context of WP:ATHLETE, to refer to major league. Whether that be NBA, NFL, NHL, MBL, whatever. Perhaps there needs to be some clarification added to the guideline. Regardless, from the article with it's current sourcing, I don't believe sufficient notability has been established. لenna vecia 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although minor leagues are fully professional, the baseball guidelines have generally required minor leaguers to have played a full season of AAA or a minor league all star appearance or award. Although those guidelines may have evolved some, they always made sense to me. Rlendog (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. BRMo (talk) 21:08, 19 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eDition[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A publishing platform which converts PDFs to a digital format! No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Question. Where is the diffrence in notability between this digital publishing platform entry and entries for ZMag, NXTBook Media, Zinio, Pressmart Media and Issuu. It is simply one of many platforms available for emerging digital publishing platforms market. --Goranmp (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. All this digital publishing platforms are presented together here www.fipp09london.comon PPA's website for FIPP congres exibition "list of exibitors". And this is the most credible source for digital edition publishing: http://magdesigner.co.uk. This should be in this article references... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levyrock (talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the most credible source for digital publishing is really a wordpress blog, then I can't see how any reliable sources can be produced. Paulbrock (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should defintely stay... Google is full of their hits (search: project site:public.edition-on.net). ... or other digital platforms should be erased as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levyrock (talk • contribs) 08:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC) — Levyrock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goranmp (talk • contribs) 15:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC) — Goranmp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note I have indented and struck out duplicate votes by the same person, see the sockpuppet investigation. Tim meh 22:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a multimedia magazine trendsetter. --Sbrain7 (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC) — Sbrain7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. We seem to have been swarmed by SPAs, even before anyone's weighed in their view. I'm fairly neutral, as I've had a fiddle with the article. But the !votes so far are pretty amusing. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 11:22, 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 01:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to meet WP:CORP. No independent sources. Reso lute 04:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of independent sources - the 'references' in the article are all examples on EDition's website of what the site/service offers. Admittedly not the easiest name in the world to google for, but I can't find anything approaching WP:N. Paulbrock (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independet resources greater than zero.--Goramp (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Double-!vote by an SPA striked through. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)~~ Sorry, not a duplicate !vote. Just a very similar name to above. However, still an SPA. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have indented and struck out duplicate votes by the same person, see the sockpuppet investigation. Tim meh 22:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Goramp and Goranmp? Really? I hear quacking... Livewireo (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Livewireo maybe if you stop quacking for a moment you will actualy see the difference --Goramp (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question what is that? looking for conspiracy? why would anybody lied about technology like that? isn't http://magdesigner.co.uk independent source? what about FIPP congres... a lie? comon guys - there are many other digitital publishing platforms on Wikipedia allready: NXTbook, Zinio, Pressmart, Isuu... do you need a stamp from authority? isn't it what's wikipedia is all about: to gather informations from various sources and present them to do public.
~~Keep~~ The references in the article are also references on eDition's site, for eDition ... I understand it like they published independent sources, Paulbrock! Rather check sources ... Try search for this on google: project site:public.edition-on.net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levyrock (talk • contribs) 08:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking through duplicate !vote. This one I'm sure of! Though still horribly perturbed by. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Bravo!!! Why not be a judge & jury. Accuse me of conspiracy too. Where this is going to? On which ground is this accusation - similar thinking? You are really something ... What do you guys even know about digital publishing? Let's play birocracy! This is not a spirit of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Levyrock (talk • contribs) 11:17, 16 June 2009
Reply to Levyrock - The issue is that Wikipedia has certain standards for determining notability. The basic one is that a subject should have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Searching on Edition's website will not provide sources independent of the subject. Blogs are not regarded as being reliable, as anyone can write one with any information (see WP:SPS). And the FIPP site, whilst confirming EDition does exist and exhibits at trade fairs, falls far short of offering significant coverage, and would not be considered independent as presumably EDition paid for a spot at the congress. The sort of things we are looking for is a newspaper or trade magazine articles. Something that says independent sources think that EDition is important enough to write about. Please also note that Wikipedia also has a policy that you should be WP:CIVIL to other editors, which I suggest you are in danger of breaching. Paulbrock (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. for other companies mentioned in this discussion, this CNet article on Issuu, or this article from EContent magazine on Pressmart. Paulbrock (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd reply to Levyrock. Apologies if you feel I'm playing judge and jury, I wasn't intending to. I haven't accused you of conspiracy, but have voiced my suspicion that your account may be related to those above as none of you have edited much, if at all, outside this article and its deletion discussion, which I see as being unusual activity. I may be wrong. Either way, it would be great if you made a statement explaining whether or not these accounts are linked. I'm not saying that you knowingly tried to undermine Wikipedia, and I totally understand if you aren't clear with our policies - there are lots of them! Anyhow which way, please assume good faith in my edits - I'm only trying to make sure Wikipedia runs smoothly. If you have any more queries about such matters outside of this deletion discussion, please feel free to talk to me. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. | No one is safe, or is it?! --Goramp (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, as I asked before, assume good faith. If there's nothing untoward happening and the community agrees with this then no action will be taken and you have nothing to worry about. Aggravating the situation isn't helping anybody. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but after finding myself under socketpuppet investigation, that comment of mine seemed appropriate to me. Nothing personal. As you already pointed out - assume good faith. --Goramp (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. Goramp, Goranmp, Levyrock and Sbrain7 have all been blocked as sock puppets. You can see the investigation here. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 07:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the general notability guideline. There is a lack of coverage in reliable sources. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 16:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to avoid any mistake - it is I: Levyrock! and this is my last note. What you just did is called censorship. You accused every different (stay!) opinion of conspiracy (at least!) and than block me from writing here (or anywhere in wikipedia). You denied my basic right to defend myself from those rediculous accusations. I would like to know one thing: was my writings so disturbing to you guys that you just had to eliminate me? Did I wrote malicius artiles around? No. Just wrote here, where disscusion is supose to be ... about some trivial article, for which btw. I found this: http://www.monitor.si/clanek/citadela-edition/ (Google it for translation). And also see bureaucracy - that's probably your excuse for your doings here. Inquisition is .. too sharp term. Many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosenseatall (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Unfortunately Google's translation of the page from the original Serbian isn't much more comprehensible; from what I can gather the Serbian magazine also publishes using EDition software, though they do seem to go into a lot of detail about the service. It might constitute significant coverage, but probably not independent coverage, as has been explained on here. Paulbrock (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC) See below.[reply]

Comment We do not speak Serbian in Slovenia. Sorry to interupt such a interesting debate but article is in Slovenian language and it is clearly a test. Monitor magazine is the most prominent computer/software magazine in Slovenia and as far as I know they do not use edition software. It is very amuzing to read quesing statements from above without any background or checking. Greetings from Slovenia.--Dolenjska (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. How silly of me. Correct translation from original Slovenian can be seen here Paulbrock (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are quite some sources mentioning edition solution in Slovenia. For example magazine "Moj mikro", the oldest computer magazine in former Yugoslavia: here, article Monitor magazine from 2007 here and there is some short news, articles and interviews about the edition solution. I'm glad if it will help. --Dolenjska (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dolenjska's sourcing of articles in Slovenian. Fences&Windows 21:39, 20 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. No coverage in reliable secondary sources could be found. ~ mazca ^t/c 17:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NorthStarUK[edit]

Could not locate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Gigs (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find evidence that NorthStarUK exists as described in the article. I can find only one reliable source (the charity commission) that has any coverage of it, and this is not independent (a report by the trustees) - indeed I cannot find any coverage that is both significant and independent. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of reliable secondary sources. Additionally, the article itself claims the service has just 110 students last year, and as such is unlikely to have coverage; and given the tone of the article and the name and history of the user that created it, there may be COI issues. Paulbrock (talk) 16:26, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optical modulators using semiconductor nano-structures[edit]

Procedural AfD. Was prodded under "Fork of multiple article". I'm neutral, but prodding would remove a lot of potential mergable material. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 11:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed: No argument is found here or on the article talk page for why this article should be deleted. The connection to nanostructures is not well presented, but otherwise the article seems OK. Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: The author removed the AfD notice a day or so ago, I've now restored it.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 12:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Headbomb, removing the AfD notice may cast a bad light on this article or the user that created the article, but he (or she) may be new. In any case, I would need more information concerning the deletion, or keep, of this article. I don't see content forking, or POV forking, at first glance and this appears to be a very good article. I asked you some questions on the article's talk page, if you don't mind. Danke schön! спасибо! Ti-30X (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, when I wrote my "inquiry" in the article talk page I didn't save the page before I closed the window. Well, I can address my concerns here. I am wondering if the the same user created three different artiles with three different ID's. ? Where or what is the content fork, or POV fork related to this article? Danke schön! спасибо! Thanks! Ti-30X (talk) 18:30, 13 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 01:20, 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 keep. Flowerparty^☀ 01:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChiRunning[edit]

Some time ago I nominated this page for G11. Someone offered to fix it and so the db tag was removed. Despite some work, it never stopped looking like a press release. However, the true issue is that no one who has worked in this page has been able to find any neutral third-party references. A quick Google search did not turn up anything beyond press releases, advertisements, and product reviews. None of those can establish notability. Therefore I have come to the conclusion that no amount of work can save this article without reliable sources to back the claims and statements. That is why I am calling for this article to be deleted. Ipatrol (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At this pint, the "sport" appears non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:03, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable and there are numerous sources - here's just one, for example. Nomination seems impatient but AFD is not cleanup and Wikipedia has no deadline. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a quick Google search didn't turn up reliable sources, the nominator needs to learn how to do a proper search! Within seconds on a Google News search I found articles in the Irish Times,[34] Washington Post,[35] CanWest,[36] USNews,[37] Christian Science Monitor,[38] etc. etc. Fences&Windows 21:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Ipatrol, here's 163 news references for you to improve the article with:[39]. Fences&Windows 21:51, 20 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FastPak for Java[edit]

This article is about a software product that has not received any significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. As search for sourcing turns up very little. The most substantial was this announcement for version 3 of the product. However, it is essentially a press release and not independent of the subject. Whpq (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A representative of the creator of this software has contacted OTRS at OTRS:3102837 to request this article be deleted. I see no reason not to grant the request. Delete. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 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 00:37, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stifle. Reso lute 04:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WeDigTV[edit]

No available outside references beyond (paid?) media links. No recent references at all (the site appears to have been dead for the past two years and so doesn't even advertise). Inappropriate content for Wikipedia, and the article's tone would need serious improvement if it were to stay. Wlwwybrn (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 1 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 00:20, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:31, 20 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 as copyright-violation (non-admin closure). ThaddeusB (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What to do before an earthquake.[edit]

Reason: How to guide. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.; just an essay on how to do something. JJL (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Jafeluv (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of textbook, confirmed via Googlebooks; have tagged as such. Maralia (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this nomination was unnecessary, as the only reason the article still existed is that it was waiting for transfer to Wikibooks. However, I guess it proved useful since the copyvio was uncovered in the process. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:19, 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 per WP:BLP1E. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Kirsch and Edward Anderton[edit]

Per WP:BLP1E and lack of other notable activities. MBisanz ^talk 20:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sadly, theft of $120K isn't all that notable anymore. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 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) 00:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. لenna vecia 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe rename & merge to the event. This was a major news story in parts of the United States....The sinking of the Titanic was also one event, but the event is surely notable. - Vartanza (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
You're comparing a $120k identity theft scheme to the sinking of the Titanic? There's something we refer to as "historical significance". They're not comparable. That said, "rename and merge"? There's no article to merge into. It's sort of a non-event. It could merely be renamed, but that brings us 'round full-circle. Not a notable event. لenna vecia 15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It might be one event - or series of events - but the crime spree was unusual, and they obviously figured largely in it. Lots and lots of coverage. Fences&Windows 22:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article but rename to focus on the crime itself rather than as a biography. The crime was covered internationally such as here and there is plenty of coverage for well over a year establishing the notability of the event. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything extraordinary about this crime, and looking through the refs I see little to establish this as a notable crime(s). Slow news week? WP:NOTNEWS etc. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, References show that this has no real temporal coverage, except reporting of 5 year sentence. So not notable and Wikipedia is not the news. Polargeo (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, at least I got to read the Rolling Stone article before this got deleted. Fences&Windows 22:38, 22 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Don't Dance[edit]

Fails notability per WP:SONG. Withdrawn single release only. Never available to the public, no chart performance, no awards Paul75 (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No chart action, insufficient sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:09, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons Ten Pound Hammer gives. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 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) 06:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blestenation[edit]

Has two notable nembers but notability isn't inherited. Sources don't cut it. I removed a false claim that they are signed to Geffen. And for God's sake, how hard is it to fill out the "background" field properly?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even have any notable members. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:15, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Apparently they are on the soundtrack (ASIN B00006BCA5) of the film Blue Crush; does that count for anything? Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In and of itself, that would not establish notability, but the fact that multiple reviewers have commented on the song (those sources I added just now, including Billboard) does help, per the general notability guideline. Weak keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Band with one song to their name, and only passing references in a handful of articles. Resurrect if and when they become known. Fences&Windows 22:27, 20 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Stefanianna Christopherson[edit]

May fail WP:N in that the actress only played (or, more properly, voice-acted) a single notable role in a single series for a single season. What other roles she played seem to have been exceedingly minor (one show lasted 13 performances, one ~~may have only been a one-shot~~ of the others had a limited run from all appearances, and the third (and final one I could find) was an improv show run in the basement of a theatre (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/02/theater/where-audiences-participate-in-improvisional-comedy.html?scp=1&sq=where%20audiences%20participate%20in%20improvisational%20comedy&st=cse). Though the factual nature of the article is not in question, the ability to expand beyond a stub is questionable. While I am willing to give this one some time, the inability to dig up substantial source material beyond this one notable factoid from any place but the subject's personal website also suggest that qualification under WP:BLP may be questionable as well. I do not doubt that she had this one role, but I can't confirm anything else about her (even a DoB). Tyrenon (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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) 00:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. One unreferenced sentence fails to establish notability. Only other sentence is irrelevant. لenna vecia 19:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an appropriate section somewhere or delete. Don't know how likely of a search term this person's name is. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All info is already in the Scooby Doo article. Fences&Windows 22:29, 20 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. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding (professional sports)[edit]

This is more like a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia. I suggest Wiktionary is more suitable for this type of thing. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that this is the first article written by a relatively new editor. Most of us never heard of "Articles for deletion" until we got the invitation on our talk page. Bear in mind that any article should have sources so that a statement can be backed up (for example, Ken Griffey Jr's page has 39 footnotes). There is no such thing in Wikipedia as "everybody knows that". Even so, I don't think that this is a good topic for an article -- the topic is too narrow and too broad at the same time. Rebuilding can occur in any organization, and pro sports teams aren't the only entities that clean house and do a wholesale replacement of personnel -- it happens after elections all over the world. At the same time, it's difficult to find a notable example of a sports franchise that did rebuilding, since the story is always the same -- they were losing, they rebuilt and started winning (or they were still losing, so they kept rebuilding). If people start saying "delete", don't take the comments personally. We've all been booed before. Mandsford (talk) 14:07, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not an encyclopedic topic. There's not much to do but define the term and give examples... the definition is for a dictionary, and Encyclopedia articles should be more than just repositories of examples. --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mandsford's clear analysis above touches all points I would have raised. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, time, generalise and merge into wikt:rebuild. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 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 as failing WP:N. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Yongchuan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Liu Yongchuan

Articles for deletion/Liu Yong-chuan

This was prodded as "non-notable". This might be true, but as he was the leader of a US student organisation of pro-democracy Chinese students who got widely quoted in the media, I prefer a discussion at AfD. Fences and windows (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No evidence that he passes WP:Prof. "RM Institute" does not appear to be a recognised scholarly body. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep His notability however appears to be political, not academic. DGG (talk) 02:16, 13 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) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable per WP:BIO and related guidelines. DGG, please share the in-depth coverage in reliable sources that you found to justify your "week keep" opinion so I can change my opinion, I couldn't find it under his name as stated or as Liu Yong Chuan. Drawn Some (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF and, for DGG, WP:POLITICIAN. لenna vecia 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars per earlier AfD. 11 gnews hits for him, so keep if one of them has substantial coverage.John Z (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars and allow a merge of any sourceable relevant information as per John Z above. Cannot find enough coverage to establish notability for himself but a redirect to the organisation makes sense. Davewild (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whichever choice of notability criteria you make, he doesn't seem to meet them. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 22 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 G12: as indicated correctly in the last keep (!), this is a copyvio from a published article. Articles where the whole history contains the copyvio should be speedy deleted, not cleaned up. Fram (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Energy transfer between semiconductor nanostructure[edit]

Procedural AfD. Was prodded under "OR/Potential copyvio". I'm neutral, but prodding would remove a lot of potential mergable material. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 11:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely a word-for-word copy of the review article by Rogach and others. We already have a fine article about fluorescence resonance energy transfer. Energy transfer between semiconductor nanostructure could mean anything, so don't redirect. Narayanese (talk) 22:43, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't an encyclopedic topic as the title is phrased--it's an explanation that's more akin to an essay. Suspect the WP:OR concern is accurate too. JJL (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the three first provided references are reliable Rirunmot (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Largely a copyvio from here. The article needs to be cleaned up, but there is no need to delete it. -Atmoz (talk) 21:00, 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 delete. Insufficient coverage could be found to back up the claims made in the article and comply with WP:N. ~ mazca ^t/c 17:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus (band)[edit]

Declined speedy (A7). The performance credits move this out of the speedy deletion zone, but the broad search term makes this less easy to prove notability or lack thereof. No opinion, just bringing the article here for discussion. Jamie^☆S93 20:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No idea why speedy was declined. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 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) 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete they appear to be notable in Worcester, Massachusetts but not anywhere wider than that. I agree with JamieS93 that this is not a speedy deletion candidate as there are several claims to notability in the article, although none that are actually relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Highest Heights (talk) 13:41, 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) 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les Fleur[edit]

I can't find any reliable G-hits on this. Article doesn't claim it charted, can't find any evidence it charted... fails WP:MUSIC. [flaming lawyer] 02:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:59, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No evidence of notability. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 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 merge to Pequannock Township High School. Consensus seems to be that there's insufficient coverage to warrant a separate article, but that there may be some useful information to incorporate into the high school's article. ~ mazca ^t/c 17:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pequannock Township Marching Band[edit]

An IP tried to nominate this but didn't finish, and nobody cared. Seems borderline notable, so I'm taking to AFD for consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 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) 23:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge (selectively merge) to Pequannock Township High School, since a marching band is well worth mentioning in the article about the high school, but this one lacks the multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage needed to satisfy notability. If the entire article were stuck into the high school article, it would overwhelm it. Edison (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge per Edison. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:20, 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) 11:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ActionTrip[edit]

Just some website with no independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage demonstrating any notability. Tagged as needing sources since Feb. 2008. DreamGuy (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 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) 23:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unreferenced. Show me a footnote and I'll consider degree of notability, multiple non-trivial references and then this would start being an article. -Markeer 00:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (and not in any sense a !vote): this isn't an open-and-shut case. Take a look at the Alexa rank here and the site analytics here: it's a very popular website. And yes, I know Alexa rank's an argument to avoid, but I do not intend to disregard an obvious indicator of notability just because of an essay that I don't agree with.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a site could be shown reliably to be high traffic that alone would not demonstrate any actual notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. A whole lot of people doing something not particularly noteworthy together and not getting noticed for it is still nothing of any note. DreamGuy (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Alexa rank is a reasonable indicator of potential notability, but I simply can't find any useful coverage in independent sources to back that notability indication up, and produce a verifiable article. ~ mazca ^t/c 17:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The tone is dreadful at times and the lack of sourcing doesn't help. However gaming industry is notorious for having wonky sources - most are online and bloglike so have to be weeded through and this is a Eastern-Europe website as well? This would suggest a double layer of systematic bias that I'm reluctant to delete anything over. I would feel more confident if we had someone fluent in both sourcing gaming articles who also is fluent in the languages the potential sources are actually in. At this point I'm more inclines to weak keep based on these issues and the Alexa rankings which remain a good indication of web traffic. I suggest a stay of execution here, a clean-up to wikify, add website infobox and seek translation help although sourcing a gaming website article may not eseem like the most pressing concern. -- Banjeboi 09:35, 20 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.

[1] "Clip of new All Time Low song".

[2] "FriendsOrEnemies VIP Profile".

[1]

[2]