Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 June 23 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Analog Pussy. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho Bitch from Hell[edit]

Psycho Bitch from Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Album is NN, fails WP:MUSIC. Pity, I love AP. roux   19:15, 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, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent or Merge into the parent article. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect With the total lack of RS and the keep of the band this is simple.Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Analog Pussy. No sources to demonstrate independent notability, though it's a reasonable search term and the band's article is a useful target for someone looking up this album. ~ mazca talk 22:23, 26 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:SNOW (non-admin closure) NW (Talk) 23:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Washington Metro subway crash[edit]

2009 Washington Metro subway crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not news, train accidents like this happen everyday around the world, only because CNN goes crazy about this today does not mean there should be a wiki article Isnotnews (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Train accidents where people die happen every day? 173.72.130.93 (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The magnitude of casualties and fatalities make it notable. How many people have to die before it becomes a notable incident? --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 23:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain for now It's certainly news but does have worldwide coverage, including foreign reporting such as the BBC. It's the biggest Metro crash in history. I'd say let's wait and see. In the end, it will probably stay and wouldn't be that bad of a decision. User F203 (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Glendale_train_crash Similar article. Both should be treated equally, whatever the decision.User F203 (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent example for why these types of articles should be deleted with fire. According to the Glendale article this accident was a news item for a few days with no noticeable long-term impact. And there were even 11 deaths. 99.224.247.247 (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me why this does not meet at least WP:GNG:"...sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive".--Msr69er (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Very notable, worst in Washington Metro history. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep According to reports, this is the deadliest train crash in DC Metro history.--The lorax (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Major train accidents do happen a lot, but they are all mostly notable. This involved at least four deaths, and the incident has ties to existing articles on Metro's financial crisis, the expansion of the system, and President Obama's support for Metro specifically and mass transit generally. - Tim1965 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound as if Wikipedia is a newspaper that has to report on recent... recent....recent.... minievents. 99.224.247.247 (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Notable as the deadliest train crash in DC. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP is not news, but all commercial plane accidents with fatalities are considered notable; I would expect roughly the same standard for public transit. Crashes happen "every day" but fatal accidents on US public transit are not that common. Hairhorn (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong (Speedy) Keep This is definitely noteworthy. It's ridiculous to see this article been proposed for deletion. Also, the nominator of this deletion is a newly registered user. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable because this is a major system accident on a heavily traveled line of a heavy rail metro in one of the world's major cities with confirmed fatalities and surely an ongoing investigation will commence as to why it happened.--Msr69er (talk) 23:46, 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASTEROID trial[edit]

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

Individual trials not notable. JFW | T@lk 22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Trials can be notable, but only if there's something particularly newsworthy about them (like deaths), which is not the case here. Hairhorn (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major trial. I see from Scopus that the article reporting it has been cited by 403 papers so far. Some may be mentions, but if we literally followed GNG presumably makes hundreds of valid secondary sources to show notability. Some idea of the importance3 can be judged by seeing some specific papers, which I consider to serve realistically as such sources:
"Evaluating Lipid-Lowering Trials in the Twenty-First Century" by W. C. Roberts, American Journal of Cardiology Volume 103, Issue 9, 1 May 2009, Pages 1325-1328 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.02.008
"ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction).." J. Anderson et al. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 50 (7), pp. e1-e157 (2007)
"Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000-2005" Journal of the American Medical Association 295 (19), pp. 2270-2274 (2006)

etc etc. DGG (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In general single studies are not notable, but this is a widely reported and discussed (and criticized) study.
  • Keep - Trials are notable if they're covered in third party sources. It doesn't need to be "particularly newsworthy", it needs to be covered in third party sources. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Loads and loads of Gscholar hits. Following WP:BEFORE would have been advantageous here. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:43, 24 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 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul King (New Zealand)[edit]

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

page was saved from deletion originally in February 2007, because King had founded a political party, and there being an election in 2008, it might be worth saving. The political party did not register (thus it is fair to suggest that it does not have 500 members); it did not contest any seats nor submit a list at the 2008 election, nor did subject stand for this or any other party at this election. thus, this is the biography of a person who was at odds with his political party and nearly did something about it, but in the end opted not to, and that this is not notable. Google returns multiple pages about Paul King, an architect from Christchurch, but the only political hit is his wikipedia page. The man just isn't notable. plan 8 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —plan 8 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —plan 8 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Not notable per WP:POLITICIAN but has been involved enough to almost justify a page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteAny notability is somewhat transient. If every candidate who was on merely as an (unlikely) list candidate then unsuccessful electorate candidates would also qualify, myself included. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has received enough news coverage to meet WP:N. An article with greater than trivial coverage in the NZ Herald[1], plus several other mentions[2][3][4][5]. Likely would have been greater coverage in The Press, but the stuff.co.nz archive doesn't go back far enough. XLerate (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The NZ Herald article looks like an oddspot article about a run-of-the-mill business dispute, and his unsuccessful actions within the ACT party don't rate a mention on the ACT wiki article. [[User:Efil's god|]] (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-WP is not publicity for potential, but failed political careers, fails WP:N--AssegaiAli (talk) 11:22, 28 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. After a lengthy review of the discussion here I'm afraid this is the only conclusion, and I'll explain why. Before I do though let me state that I've never edited on topics related to the Bosnian War or indeed the Balkans as a whole, and I have no personal stake in these matters.

While one editor suggested a merge, the real debate here is between keeping or deleting. In terms of the numbers, valid delete !votes slightly outnumber valid keep votes (a couple of socks were discounted) 8 to 7, which is worth noting though it did not have much of an effect on the outcome. The essence of the delete rationale is that this article violates our guideline at WP:POVFORK (copyvios were also mentioned, but that does not appear to be a pervasive or unfixable problem). Created by an editor blocked for socking, this article is inherently non-neutral in every way and could never be whipped into shape, say those in the delete camp. Most keep !voters admit that there are major POV problems, but feel that editing and/or a change in title could alleviate those problems. The possibility of merging some of this content back to a parent article (which would necessitate not deleting) is also implicit in certain comments on the keep side.

So the central question is not whether this is currently a POV fork, but whether it is irremediably so, or rather whether there is useful content here which should be retained in some fashion. After reading through all the back and forth below, it is precisely on that issue where consensus seems to be lacking. Valid arguments are posited on both sides, and I'm not going to put my thumb on the scale one way or the other (ultimately in closing this the choice was between "delete" or "no consensus"—there clearly was not consensus to "keep" outright).

Some final thoughts are worth noting for the immediate future. Though the article has been edited by a couple of users since the AfD, the current state is still clearly unacceptable in NPOV terms. The title is likely part of the problem and discussion about that should begin immediately, but there are content issues as well. Non-neutral or poorly sourced material should be removed post-haste. If the article is greatly reduced in length as a result, a merge and/or redirect are still possibilities which can be discussed on the talk page.

The basic logic of the keep commenters is that this article can be improved. As closing admin I feel that there's a definite time limit to that, and a rather short one. The current state of this article is not acceptable, and if significant improvement is not visible within the next couple of months, another trip to AfD would not only be reasonable but indeed advisable. If that time comes, the argument that this remained a POVFORK even after being given a reprieve for work to be done would likely prove rather persuasive. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass rape in the Bosnian War[edit]

Mass rape in the Bosnian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unnecessary and inappropriate POV fork. I had previously redirected the article per WP:BOLD, but it's since been restored. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge + redirect - underlying the POV problems within the article, the title itself is POV. With what the text covers, I see no reason why this could not easily fit into Bosnian War#Mass rape and psychological oppression. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If only the title was just a point of view. If only it was a POV fork. UN court findings, a film on the children of the rape etc etc. plenty of extremely strong evidence with lots of information for a massive article. Yes article is not neutral but that is as far as it gets. It completely meets criteria for inclusion. Having been to Bosnia myself and seen the mass graves excavated there is mass denial. We should not fall in to that trap here. Try and assess this based on Wikipedia criteria. I am just amazed that the editors have managed to keep it as neutral as they have. Yes terrible atrocities carried out on all sides but there was a much more widespread (succesful) persecution of Bosnian Muslims. There was mass rape, and plenty for separate article, any issues of neutrality can be sorted out within the article. Polargeo (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, have you read the article? It is essentially a glorified essay, and not neutral by any means. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Multiple chunks of the text are taken, sometimes word-from-word, from this source (it is listed under References). For example, "While 'Mars na Drinu' was playing, the women were ordered to strip and soldiers entered the homes taking the ones they wanted. The age of women taken ranged from 12 to 60. Frequently the soldiers would seek out mother and daughter combinations. Many of the women were severely beaten during the rapes." is written in the original source, the exact same text is included in the Wikipedia article in question. Not sure what this says for the article. Icy // ♫ 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions.

-- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Text you mention is not excessive and from a UN report, I have now put it in quotes. I have checked through quite a lot of the text and I don't think this is anywhere near a copyvio. Please, if you spot another isolated sentence taken from a UN report, or similar, we can see if that needs to be in quotes but I certainly can't see that the article has been substantially copied from anywhere. I am worried that this is a little mud slinging because it is a good way of deletion. Article is perfectly notable for a full article and just needs cleaning to get it more away from POV. Polargeo (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for putting it in quotes. The text I mentioned is just an example, there may be other examples ... when I get home, I think I'll look for more of these and try to put them in quotes / reword them. iceunshatteredPublic! 17:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are definitely more examples that I've been putting in quotes, and they're not just isolated sentences. Any help with this would be appreciated. Icy // ♫ 16:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Icy. I've been following your good work. I think this whole article needs to be thoroughly rewritten but the vast majority of the info in it can be left in some form. I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with a fresh start or even moved the page to a different name. Polargeo (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Referenced historical events. Cleanup is an editorial duty, and deletion is not a substitute for it. Edison (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a matter of cleanup, really. This is a blatant WP:POVFORK, and to be honest I can't see it ever becoming a legitimate, neutral, encyclopedic article. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Sufficient sources that this is something specific. It's a very bad precedent to remove articles because they are difficult to write properly.DGG (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per copyright violations. Come on people, it was said above; this has to be deleted as a copyvio! Skinny87 (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text you mention can be cleaned up as a quote. Although the citation given is a web reference it is actually from the United Nations 'Seventh Report on War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia' unless you can come up with better copyvios just stick the text in quotes and attribute it correctly. The citation was there, it just needs cleaning up. Polargeo (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Mass rape is for the first time recognized as crime against humanity by the ICTY. I am not talking about rape, but mass rape. Those two are different criminal acts. The sources are all relaible per WP:RS. Emir Arven (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Prodego (talk · contribs) said, "You can have 100% reliable sources and still have a POV". I don't doubt the sources are reliable, or the topic is notable; I just believe that in its current form, this article is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. As such, once we cut down on everything but straight fact, we'd likely have no more content than is current in the Bosnian War article. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh Julian. What about the list of people convicted; the sentences for mass rape; the film link Grabavica; the BBC audio documentary; the external links; the extended reference list; the valuable quote from the UN source about systematic rape and much much more. Plenty would remain here. Would you like to put all this back into the Bosnian War article? This is getting silly. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, Emir Arven (talk · contribs) hasn't edited for over two years and seems to have come back almost solely for this article. Unless it's a massive coincidence, one can't help but be suspicious of possible sockpuppetry or canvassing. Spellcast (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record Emir Arven came back on May 30 and started editing this article. Emir also edited Graz agreement, Doljani massacre and several other articles. It looks like these or other edits by Emir Arven may have drawn the attention of certain editors User:The ed17, User:Prodego and then User:Juliancolton who have decided to tag Mass rape in the Bosnian War for copyed, POV and AfD respectively; since the return of Emir Arven and not the other way around. Maybe if Emir hadn't come back this article would not have been 'team tagged' and AfD'd! Polargeo (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well-documented form of war crime. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The vital distinction from Bosnian War is the depth of reporting on the numerous incidents. Contrast this with the reasons to delete. Copyvio, which has -already- been fixed in many cases, to say nothing of shouldn't have been brought up as a reason for deletion in the first place, as it was a matter for the Discussion page. PoV fork, which has not been shown, only asserted. My assertion to the contrary, at the beginning of my statement, is backed by a reason. And ad nauseum repetition of Fork and PoV, see above. Thank the lucky stars no one is trying for some version of WP:NN. Perhaps you are having trouble with the issue of neutrality, thinking it is supposed to be equal on both sides? If one side commits genocide, say, and the other doesn't, that is impossible to do. Reporting on a terrible thing that someone or group of someones does is not PoV. Within the limits of shared understanding, or consensus, and taking all possible efforts to neutralize the language without whitewashing the subject, referring to the language that reliable sources use to describe atrocities is not PoV either...I really don't know how to address your concerns, as you have not delineated them adequately, with examples, or even fully explained them. Anarchangel (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear delete. Sources are used inappropriately. There is a lot of original research. There are major problems with presentation. There is also stereotyping and unnecessary categorizations. Ethnic groups do not do anything, only individuals do things. This does not meet any standards in any form, separate or included in a regular article. This is the equivalent of a page stating "Thefts by Jews in World War II" or something equally ridiculous. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What original research? I can't find any. Which bit of your argument has anything to do with deletion criteria? Polargeo (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, according to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the above obviously includes such wonderful things as: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". This page not only includes blanket statements of race, the sources are incredibly poorly used. The formatting problems and lack of appropriately quoting in "Mass rape" alone should have tipped you off. If you bothered to look at the page in an objective manner, you could see this. There is nothing encyclopedic about this page. It is thinly veiled racist smears and lumping of a few individuals to claim that there was a larger ethnic conspiracy against another ethnicity. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but your reply still has no specific points outlined. You seem an experienced editor. Mass rape is what it was. UN war crimes convictions 'crime against humanity' should have tipped you off before making silly statements. Polargeo (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Oh and by the way I've checked virtually all of the links and searched them for text matches. I agree this is not neutral but it is not inaccurate. I refer you to sofixit. Polargeo (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to you. The page doesn't operate on raw numbers. It includes synthesis, point of view, racist comments, and the rest. Your response only verifies the disruption that the page originally is and the extent that people would go to keep such completely non-encyclopedic entries. "Sofixit" is not an acceptable response, and it is incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can link you to books claiming that Jews mass rape people too, but such things do not deserve articles. It is easy to find sources propagating racist views. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do people keep mentioning Jews? Sometimes they rape, sometimes they don't, like every other group of people. Have they been convicted by UN tribunal of enslavement of women in the Bosnian War? No? Argue the article in question please. You don't seem to wish to argue specific points for deletion. You could take any biased comments out of this article if you wish. That is what we do on wikipedia. The core of this article is pure fact as evinced by the references. Polargeo (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Come to think of it if we take this Jewish reference to its limit we could argue that some of the objections to this artilcle have a similar psychology to holocaust denial. Polargeo (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am 100% sure that the UN tribunal did not say "Serbians" did anything. They may have named individuals, but this is not about individuals. This article is, at its very premise, racist but linking all people based on an ethnicity and not treating them as individuals. Individuals commit actions, ethnicities do not. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you're wrong. UN tribunal said: "All this was done in full view, in complete knowledge and sometimes with the direct involvement of the Serb local authorities, particularly the police forces." [6] Kruško Mortale (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the enthusiasm KM, quote says 'local authorities' but if you read the context they are the Serb authorities. Anyway the various UN reports are littered with Serbs did this and Serbs did that e.g. as per KM's ref "Rape has been reported to have been committed by all sides to the conflict. However, the largest number of reported victims have been Bosnian Muslims, and the largest number of alleged perpetrators have been Bosnian Serbs. There are few reports of rape and sexual assault between members of the same ethnic group." Polargeo (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a blatant and obvious difference between "local authorities" and "Serbs". Ottava Rima (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There would be if the Serbs hadn't taken control of the town on 8 April 1992. Please read the sources properly. I think I'll go to bed now as debating with someone who refuses to even read the sources before making comments and accuses me of not bothering to be objective is like trying to spit into the wind. Polargeo (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your above statement is completely racist. It does not matter what an individual's ethnicity is as their actions do not apply to the ethnicity as a whole. Once you do so, you are making a racist comment. They are individuals and only individuals. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out)It is not possible to list all the individuals that committed crimes. Thus, "Serb" is used, and whenever possible, distinctions such as "Serb authorities". Ottava Rima has made clear that he finds the article 'racist' because it names a race rather than individuals.
"I am 100% sure that the UN tribunal did not say "Serbians" did anything. They may have named individuals, but this is not about individuals. This article is, at its very premise, racist but linking all people based on an ethnicity and not treating them as individuals. Individuals commit actions, ethnicities do not. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)"
"Your above statement is completely racist. It does not matter what an individual's ethnicity is as their actions do not apply to the ethnicity as a whole. Once you do so, you are making a racist comment. They are individuals and only individuals. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)"
How, then, do we explain the following deletions of individuals names? They were convicted by the ICT; their arrests, convictions, and sentences are a matter of public record. And their listing aids in distinguishing the fact that not all Serbs are guilty of these crimes.
Ottava's deletions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_rape_in_the_Bosnian_War&diff=298196623&oldid=298184050 (all of the names of those listed, removed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_rape_in_the_Bosnian_War&diff=298219365&oldid=298217459 "removing - no evidence from source of conviction or proof" The source, http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/perfil/db/facts/dragoljub_kunarac_379.html , is in fact quite clear about not only conviction, but indictment, sentencing, the house of incarceration. I'd love it to include the evidence provided by the prosecution, but that can only be a regret, not a reason for deletion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_rape_in_the_Bosnian_War&diff=298219730&oldid=298219365 (again, all names removed)
Ottava, your 'contributions' to this page are conflicted at best. Requiring that the article not name Serbs as a people when it takes a mass of people to commit mass crimes is unwise. Removing mentions of individuals after berating others for not mentioning individuals is questionable. Requiring of other editors that they discuss changes, in the description of your changes, while you yourself are not part of the discussion on the talk page, although it is all too common, is most irregular. I suggest you take a little time off to reflect on what exactly it is you want from this page, and why, and if/how you can achieve it through compromise and other WP:EQ. Anarchangel (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus, "Serb" is used" That is utterly racist. Wikipedia makes it clear that racism is not acceptable under WP:CIVIL. You cannot lump any race under one banner. The fact that you do that and then attempt to smear a group of people as "mass rapists" when there isn't even such a term is morally reprehensible. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Ottava is getting at (I think?) is that not all Serbian authorities, not all Serbian soldiers, and not all of the Serbian people took part in these crimes. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Serbian authorities" is equivocal. It can mean all authorities or some specific authorities. Since this, and "soldiers" are accompanied by specific examples, it can be seen in context to be the latter. Although I believe it to be unnecessary, I would not object to wording that was unequivocal, if such can be found. However, this is starting to sound an awful lot like a discussion for improving the article. None of these things are grounds for a deletion, they are the beginning of a Talk page discussion. We should have that discussion, and the article should remain, to be improved. And I am quite convinced, so far, that Ottava is not getting at anything useful, and will not be a helpful contributor to any discussion about the content of the page. Anarchangel (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blanket racism, POV pushing, and the fact that it was created by a sock of a user banned over this are 100% reasons to delete the article. The fact that you are still unable to see the difference between individuals and ethnicity is definitely in violation of WP:CIVIL. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and redirect as a clear POV fork. You do not discuss atrocities as a class outside the context of the war in which they occurred. That is the very essence of the WP:POVFORK rule, and is essential to preserving our neutrality policy. Not all content forks are created equal - we can have split out articles on discrete incidents, but groupings of incidents cannot be cherry-picked specifically to promote a strong point of view. If we're not going to make a mockery of our neutrality policy, this needs to go. RayTalk 22:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • By your argument we would delete The Holocaust, a very very dangerous precedent to set. Polargeo (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To Godwin's Law so soon, eh? The Holocaust was a discrete phenomenon that happened in parallel with, not as part of, the German effort of World War II. The Holocaust started before the German assaults, and quite often the efforts were run independent of the war effort. Show me that mass rape and war crimes were part of a deliberate, organized campaign entirely separate from war brutality and happening behind the lines where the war had little part, and we might have a comparison. RayTalk 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why are you making new wikipedia rules? Also, although I shouldn't need to say this as I am being sucked into your side argument the 'German effort' was not completely separate it was all part of the Nazi plan for a strong Germany, lets not rewrite history. This is a significant article by any standard. A completely new international crime. I would like to see it cleaned up. Polargeo (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Piece of text from the article Godwin's law 'Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.' Please don't mud sling! Polargeo (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point is that the Holocaust is distinct from a war crime, which should be covered in the article on the war. And you're the one who invoked the Holocaust, which is a) not a good example for the case at hand as it was, by your own admission, a major program distinct from the war itself, and b) loaded down with emotional resonance, c) of an entirely different scope than war crimes committed in the Balkans in the 1990s. That seems as perfect an example of Godwin's Law as anything I've yet come across. Anyhow, I'm upgrading my position to strong delete. Thanks for clarifying my thinking - this discussion has been helpful that way. RayTalk 02:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually Ottava Rima first mentioned Jews in this debate, which got me thinking. The mass extermination of Jews (and others) happened during WWII and was driven by elements of one ethnic group (Nazis) trying to exterminate or remove/crush another ethic group. Mass rape and killing of Bosnian muslims (Bosniaks) happened during the Bosnian War and has by very reliable sources been categorized as 'ethnic cleansing' or genocide. It appears to have been sanctioned as a tactic from the very top of the Bosnian Serb military/political machine as it promoted their cause every bit as much as using military means (similar to the Nazis). We are talking mass rape 20,000 to 50,000 people (A figure that is also in the Bosnian War article and UN sources, this is not POV fork now). Ethnic cleansing is also written about in the Bosnian War article and execution of thousands of Bosnian muslims was carried out, see for example Srebrenica_massacre. The men were executed in the thousands (8000+ men and boys from the town of Srebrenica alone, and I mean civilians rounded up and executed not soldiers dying in combat) and women were made sex slaves. You obviously have an issue admitting the truth here, that is not helpful and where I addressed holocaust denial earlier in the debate seems an extremely close psycological analogy. That you have changed to strong delete is meaningless because your arguments remain extremely weak. This is not an article about a war crime alone. Do you think 20,000 to 50,000 people being 'systematically' raped somehow does not deserve its own article when there are so many good sources? The existance of this article is not POV so I urge editors to stop this argument and clean it up. Polargeo (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per above discussion. PRODUCER (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please be a bit more specific? The above discussion includes arguments for deletion as well. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clearly notable plus it has tons of reliable sources, the pov has been dealt with.PRODUCER (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources for this, and it's a clearly notable topic, something that can't be covered appropriately in sufficient detail in a broad article on the war. It needs to be watched for POV, and I'm not sure about the current title, but nonetheless, it should definitely remain. Rebecca (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the reliable sources use the term "mass rape", so there are no reliable sources for the page. This means that your keep vote is invalidated per WP:NEO. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very strange objection, seeing as the first two sources in the article, both clearly reliable sources, not only mention "mass rape", but use it in the title. Have you even read the article? Rebecca (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean pointing out that a term does not exist in an article based around such a term is a strange objection? If so, I am rather confused about what you think in regards to WP:OR, NEO, etc., which make it clear that such things are completely unacceptable. And I take it that you didn't actually read the article where those "convicted of mass rape" were convicted of rape, and that there was no such thing listed as "mass rape". Furthermore, one of those reliable sources is a link to Amazon. But yes, please reread WP:NEO. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The link to Amazon is part of a cite book. It is an academic, edited volume called 'Mass Rape: ...' Actually a very neutral book, please read the Amazon summary. And this article isn't about specifics of court terminology it is about mass rape. What would you call the rape between 20000 and 50000 people and soldiers keeping 'rape camps' many reliable sources call it Mass rape. And as to the UN court case it says in the article Dragoljub Kunarac (28 years in prison) was found guilty of several rapes; inciting his soldiers to commit collective rape and forcing women into slavery. Judged guilty of crimes against humanity (Torture, enslavement and rape) and you are here arguing the semantics of the charge, that is pretty low. Also 28 years may not sound much to a US perspective but most EU nations don't give out 100+ year sentences. Polargeo (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? An "academic book"? You don't say.... because it seems like a story book telling about the future. "Publisher: University of Nebraska Press (April 1, 1994)" Hmm, from all of the other links, the trials were dated from 98 and onwards. That means that it is 100% impossible for them to make any claims about "mass rape" let alone convictions and actual use of the term mass rape in said convictions. Furthermore, the "war" ended in 95, and this book would have been completed just a year and some into it, which makes any information in it completely unreliable for this page and probably introduced under a WP:OR violation. Completely unethical. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems the main difference between this article and the section in Bosnian War is adding incidents of specific atrocities. Looking at the article's history and the user who created it, this was definitely started as a POV fork. The same user also created Serb propaganda in the Yugoslav wars and the delete arguments in that AFD can also be applied here. By all means, mass rape as a whole should be mentioned in the Bosnian War article, but when a separate page is created for various incidents that happened to victims, it starts becoming a POV fork and perhaps a coatrack. Therefore, delete. Spellcast (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since all of the above discussion I have done some significant work on this article. Together with IceUnshattered (Icy) there have been over 40 edits within the last day. I still think the article needs improving but the worst of the POV is now removed. In one form or another this article will remain and so I urge everyone to come together and improve it by constructive edits or suggestions on the talk page. Lets even have a discussion on possibly moving it. This deletion or fitting it back into the Bosnian War article will not work because I will just bring this back much bigger, and clean as a whistle from all POV, so lets just pull together and make it work and save ourselves the hassle. Polargeo (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Obvious POV fork. Using the suffering of thousands of rape victims to further a nationalist POV is frankly disgusting. This case is similar to Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic cleansing in Croatia. No-brainer... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guess we'll never know, Direktor, as it was deleted following the use of red herrings, bandwagon arguments, and other logical fallacies, some of them by yourself. E.g. 'no brainer' is a bandwagon argument. OTHERSTUFFWASDELETED will go nowhere here. i/u Anarchangel (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After removing most of the POV this article looks more like an international account of the facts than nationalist POV to me, it is the non-acceptance or wish to hide these facts which is the POV. This is not a synsthesis as in the case you mention because it doesn't come to a different conclusion than its sources by the combination of them. We should not fall into the trap of basing this discussion on other deletes per Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Polargeo (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "International accounts" don't have sources making claims about people who weren't tried until 4 years after publication. This is a smear and only a smear. A major BLP violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK all claims backed up by second reference from reliable source, US Embassy, ICTY, BBC etc. Look at the speed of my edits to put these in. That is how long it took to google each name and get a reliable reference to the claims. This illustrates without question that your arguments are unconstructive and you have a major POV against this article as do one or two other editors. Stop smearing. I urge the closing admin on this to be completely uninvolved in any of the arguments or previous edit wars and consider this neutraly because this seems to me to not be what is happening with many of the comments. Polargeo (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet I searched in the pages of those listed as convicted under it and the word "mass" doesn't show up at all for "mass rape". Amazing how that happens. You can claim the above as much as you want, but the reality doesn't back you up. The fact that you tried to defend a book as making a claim that was pertinent 4 years before it was even possible to make the claim without actually admitting that the book was a false source only shows that you aren't here impartially nor are looking at the page clearly. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are getting 'mass rape' confused with individual court cases. The section in the Bosnian War article is also called Mass rape so certainly no POV fork. Where does it state in the article that any of the convicted people mentioned, or anyone else, has been found specifically guilty of the crime 'mass rape' I don't see it. Do you want the article to be called Incitement to collective rape, sexual enslavement and the keeping of women in sex camps while lots of them are colectively raped by lots of people, oh well 20000 at least, in the Bosnian War It takes many people for it to be mass rape so as pointed out to you previously it is not a crime that an individual has been charged of, but outside of courtroom semantics many reliable sources have called it exactly what it is and that is mass rape. You are so hung up on legalistics, as your history as an editor shows, you cannot see the reality beyond the end of your nose. And I have never heard anything so ridiculous as accusing me of not looking at the page clearly when you examine many of the ridiculous comments that you have made during this AfD. Polargeo (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK sorted an academic journal article on legal studies Prosecuting Mass Rape: Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic. If you would like some more major sources that say it was mass rape, many of them stating there was a mass rape campaign by Serb forces then try [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Its not worth going past the sixth screen of google hits, I think this is enough to be getting on with. POV! Polargeo (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but your above post is pure bs. The courts didn't use the term mass rape in their ruling and that is proven by the individual court cases. Therefore, the documents you have aren't reliable sources as the primaries directly contradict them. This is a BLP issue and BLP makes it clear that any source that has a possible contradiction when it comes to a living character that is of a negative nature cannot be included. This fails BLP along with OR, NEO, and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the Guardian story cited in the article:
I would in fact prefer to rename the article "Sexual enslavement and rape in the Bosnian War". Not that the acts were not mass rape, but it is better to specify. Anarchangel (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The really sad thing about your post is that you claim the books aren't POV when they are all labeled as feminist studies and other clear markers that they are POV. Do you even bother to read what you post? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feminist does not equal PoV. I am against labelling sources as PoV in any case; the material should be judged on its merits, and calling sources PoV to discredit their works is ad hominem. Oh, and btw, your personal attacks on Polargeo are beginning to become intolerable even to me. I.E. "BS", "Do you even bother to read what you post", etc. As are your violations of WP:AGF: "shows that you aren't here impartially". If you are finding your points alone to be insufficient, perhaps you should concede a few. Anarchangel (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Feminist -does- equal POV. The dictionary makes that 100% clear. And I think you don't understand what "ad hominem" means. It means to attack the person, not the ideas or the matter. This would be calling the person stupid, ugly, etc. It has nothing to do with what you said. Please, if you are going to bother throwing out these claims at least do it with knowledge about what they mean. AGF only exists to the point that you verify that you were here to cause problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin. User:Kruško Mortale and User:Emir Arven are confirmed socks (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar). The CU data is too stale to see if they're socks of the article's creator User:The Dragon of Bosnia, but given the behavioural similarities and interests, it's highly likely. Spellcast (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not let this color your view of the arguments. It appears that this sock puppet war is what drew the attention of various editors to this article. It should remain separate from the substance of the AfD argument. Thankyou. Polargeo (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock puppets don't have the right to vote, so they were struck accordingly. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's standard practice to discount the input of blocked socks regardless of the argument. Again, the main difference I see between this article and Bosnian War is the incidents of specific atrocities. When you shift the focus from mass rape to tragic stories of individuals to highlight negative facts, you have fundamental violations of WP:NPOV#POV forks. If you exclude individual accounts, there's nothing here that can't be mentioned in Bosnian War. Spellcast (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The material is factual. The presentation is now free of PoV. The material presents evidence that is not available in 'Bosnian War'. The facts are unpleasant; this is not to be confused with a motivation by the creator or contributors, to show the unpleasant side of facts. Please elucidate your conditional "If you exclude individual accounts,". Anarchangel (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was proven wrong when it was revealed that the ICTY did not convict anyone of "mass rape", thus all other sources fail WP:BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By individudal accounts, I mean incidents that happened to various victims (under "Particulars of Sexual Slavery"). Spellcast (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was 'mass rape' according to
The President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in an address to the United Nations, 1997
US Senate hearing 2000 [17]
The US Senate 2008
CNN News 2006
The BBC 2002

If it is called this by these sources then why are we changing the description for Wikipedia or trying to delete an article over some sock puppet edit war and some easy POV edits that should be sorted outside of an AfD. Polargeo (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my preference of a namechange for the article. Anarchangel (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term only comes up once ("Assistance must be given to requests from the Tribunal. People must know that genocide, mass rape and other egregious abuses are regarded as the pinnacle of human criminality and that their own States will arrest them if they are indicted by the Tribunal. "). That does not claim that it happened, nor is it proof. Polargeo, why do you keep manipulating sources to say exactly what they don't say? You can be blocked for that if you keep it up. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps the title to use is a question for the talk page of the article, presumably followed by some form of dispute resolution. "Organized rape..." perhaps. The actions took place; the motivations for them as a group were proven., so there can reasonably be an article, under whatever title. DGG (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, please take a moment to look at a few specific sources from the ICTY, which is the judicial authority that determines what crimes were committed. VII A describes the sentences. These are the ones who have been charged with some of the more egregious crimes. There is no charge of organized rape, institutional rape, or anything that can be generalized. The court was clear that these are individuals that committed standard crimes during a time of war. There is no "mass" anything, nor is there an organized "Serbian" action. The fundamental problem of the page is that it removes the individualization of the actions and also attributes the actions to a side and a race. These are both egregious BLP violations and the sources used to justify fail because they contradict the findings of the court, as per BLP requiring sources to not have any fundamental flaws or contradictions. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - It is obvious in my view from reading this article that it is a clear POV fork and highly imbalanced in both its scope and the synthesis done when creating this article. This topic is adequately covered in the Bosnian War#Mass rape; if specific article is to be recreated because it needs to be split off from the main article in the future, it ought to be done from a clean slate. NW (Talk) 00:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious is an oxymoron with 'in my view', as it would be obvious to all, no? Your use of the word synthesis is fundamentally flawed. Two facts existing simultaneously do not equal synthesis. See WP:SYNTH Your assertions are thankfully out of the lower three tiers of the debate pyramid but they fail to reach the top three tiers, for lack of supporting evidence. Anarchangel (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Obvious POV fork. As noted by NW, this topic is adequately covered in the main article. There is no reason for this page to exist, and as it is in no way neutral, the history should be wiped. Not to mention, the article's creator is a sockmaster with a clear agenda. لennavecia 01:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Obvious", see above. Obvious to you it may be, obvious to everyone it most certainly is not, and it is not helpful to say so, as merely asserting as such without reasoning, let alone supporting evidence, is unlikely to build consensus.
The majority of the material does not exist at 'Bosnian War', in particular the involvement of and quotations from the United Nations Commission on Breaches of Geneva Law in Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which argues against your assertions that the topic is adequately covered at 'BW' and that there is no reason for it to edist. Your opinion that it is not neutral is noted. The creation of the article is long passed; perhaps you should take a look at the state of the page at creation and compare it with the work that has been done to remove the PoV. "Clear agenda" is a perfect example of the reason for WP:AGF. The PoV was evident in the article and has been removed; in short, and intended as constructive criticism of your methods, you 'don't know what you're talking about'. Anarchangel (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sourced info can easily replace the largely unsourced section of the main article (again, if you exclude the individual stories). Spellcast (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I urge you to read 'Bosnian War' again. There are individual stories in that section. I don't see anyone adding that info to the main article. I doubt it would survive there. All this ignores the potential scope of 'MritBW', that goes well beyond what is in the article so far. It was high time for BW to be split, 'MritBW' is the article to do it with. Anarchangel (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchangel, your assertion is completely wrong. The ICTY did not convict anyone of "mass rape", therefore, you cannot say the lack of discussion of the ICTY at any other page is covered by this page, as this page does not reflect the ICTY correctly. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, that is gobbledegook. Even if the ICTY material was covered wrongly, which is all about your conflation that the article must be deleted if the title is wrong, that material still does not exist at 'BW'. As to your assertion that the 'page does not reflect the ICTY correctly': the ICTY mentioned mass rape, and the incidents are referred to in the -secondary sources- as mass rape, so although I concede that the charges use another wording, and previously preferred to change the name, I have retracted that. And of course none of this is relevant to AfD; it is a matter for the talk page discussion. That is the last word I have on that subject; can we move on now? We answer all your assertions, and are now repeating answers. Time for you to concede some points, I think, so the discussion can reach a conclusion. Anarchangel (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Ottava outlined... POV fork and not possible to make a reasonable article out of just this topic ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we'll mark you down as 'ditto', then. 05:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DGG (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shkodran Mustafi[edit]

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

Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing notability for footballers. Dancarney (talk) 22:11, 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 keep nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Polargeo (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Noye[edit]

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

There are thousands of criminals out there, what makes this one notable enough for an article? Hardly a great start to a BLP "He is a criminal..." There are some brief mentions of him, as there would be, on some news articles around the time of his conviction, but no significant coverage to suggest why this person needs an article of their own. This was a PROD, removed as "appears to be referenced" (though if inclusion criteria was "appears to be referenced" there could be an article on me). Majorly talk 22:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is on more than just his murder conviction (though that is mainly what he is known for), and the sources look pretty in depth to me. Not only was he convicted of murder, he was also involved in a major gold robbery, and killed a policeman. There are lots more sources out there beyond what's in the article. Quantpole (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very well known criminal in the UK. And appropriate as an article because he is known for more than a single event. Polargeo (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only is he definitely a criminal, as Polargeo says, he's a highly notorious one in Great Britain. His antics were huge stories in the UK over a long period of time, raising many questions over the effectiveness of the judicial system. Nick mallory (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An incredible nomination. Nick Mallory made an understatement by saying "highly notorious" - Noye is probably the most notorious member of his profession in Britain in the last few decades, as evidenced by the book title Public enemy number 1 : the life and crimes of Kenneth Noye. If one book about him isn't enough for you then here's another one. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nom then. Majorly talk 15:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Raphael Bender[edit]

Kate Raphael Bender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet notability criteria. Appears to be WP:BLP1E. Disembrangler (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not even 1e - BLP0E. Not notable. Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to something but definitely not delete. I would only support a keep if more independent sources were found. This seems like a bit of an example of WP:ONEEVENT. This source: [18], which is already on the article, has detailed coverage. There are other sources that cover her in detail too. However, they seem to be recycled press-releases from the International Solidarity Movement so I think there is some question of whether such sources are independent or not. I'm not sure whether these sources should be counted in establishing notability--if they are counted I would say she is solidly notable. Otherwise (and I am leaning this way) I would say she probably isn't, and the content should be merged somewhere...merged, not deleted, because that sfgate article makes the core event--her getting deported for her protests--verifiable. I think the event belongs somewhere on wikipedia. Cazort (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable person. However, if the article does stay, I will insist that WP:CENSOR rules be strictly enforced. --GHcool (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has been covered by the news media for two, not just one, incidents related to her claimed notability as an activist. Not the greatest article or the most important person but notable enough to keep. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Covered by reliable sources for events spanning more than several years apart so ONEEVENT doesn't apply. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sufficiently important for either event, and the two together do not make her any the more notable. DGG (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is still essentially WP:BLP1E. The second "notable" act isn't all that notable. It was a boycott (big deal) carried in a small paper. But that article was more about the org than her. Being the spokesperson/organizer for the org gets your name mentioned, but the boycott isn't yours, it's the orgs boycott. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see any notability here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor spokesperson for a tiny organisation. No independent notability here. Nick mallory (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definitely fails WP:BIO or WP:N--AssegaiAli (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are any of the people arguing to delete opposed to the idea of a merge? The event itself seems something that ought to be included somewhere on wikipedia...it's verifiable in multiple reliable sources. I think it is an interesting and notable as an example of Israel deporting a Jew who was protesting its security barrier. Cazort (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep added a book reference from International Press Institute to the article Power.corrupts (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good source, and I think solidly establishes that the material should not be deleted. But does it contain any biographical info? I still am leaning towards merging. (into what, I don't know) But I would prefer a keep to a delete. Cazort (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the reference actually say about the subject? It doesn't appear to be online. Disembrangler (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange you cant see it. Snippet view here [19] - The mention seems more to be of her deportion case, than of her person. This is why I believe BLP1E is irrelevant, all events are per def isolated, but this event has broader interest and concerns democratic principles etc. Strictly, I would say the case is more important than the person, but in practice the two become intertwined, the person synonymous with the case. A pragmatic solution is a keep as a bio. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK thanks. I see two mentions in one paragraph. It's possible that the incident merits a brief mention somewhere else on Wikipedia, but I'm not persuaded of that either. (Wikinews, sure.) In any case, for me, it is absolutely insufficient for a bio on the person. WP:BLP1E is very relevant here (I discount the Trader Joes thing - it's so non-notable). Disembrangler (talk) 16:06, 25 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. Cool3 (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corizon[edit]

Corizon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Queried speedy delete as "not notable". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No speedy delete but probably Delete. A quick google news archive search found many hits: [20]. However, most of these seem to be recycled press-releases. This is hardly a clear-cut case, however. I just cleaned up the page, removing a huge amount of material that was only sourced on the company's website, and that read as highly promotional. There is little left. But I'd like to see some thought put into whether this page is salvageable or whether it should be scrapped altogether. Cazort (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going with delete. Only press releases seem to exist, not much else. Want to say speedy on account of no content. All it says is what they do in not so many terms. Spam, maybe? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, borderline. [21], [22] are a couple of reasonableish sources, though it would be nice if the sources were a bit more mainstream. The author works for the company, so spam may be an issue, but in its present form I don't think it's necessarily a problem. Overall though, I think Delete. Quantpole (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, appreciate I work for the company, certainly not try to add any spam here. Have a look here [23] for a white paper from Oracle on the importance of UI, Composite Applications etc. and also here from Cisco, [24] - certified partner. Certifications and Specializations to add. The same true for Avaya - [25] - people writing applications using our approach. Also independent Butler Group review - [26]. You also have independent research that this market should hit $700m by 2013, that means more companies, more innovation in this space - [27] Is this not notable? Thanks. Nigelwalsh (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's generally frowned upon to edit pages that you have an interest in (as employee, owner, etc.). I appreciate your effort to provide sources, however. I tend to avoid using whitepapers as sources. The article you gave in Information Age provides detailed coverage, but it isn't exactly independent because just about all the content in that article is from the CEO's comments. The last source is a blog which is not really acceptable as a reliable source because it's self-published. This seems a tricky case to me, because there is so much detailed coverage--but in my opinion there is virtually no independent coverage, which is very important in notability. I.e. sources that are written in detail, but are not simply recycled press releases or interviews with people interested in promoting the company. Cazort (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree to delete but in my opinion, there are too many google news hits, and they have too extensive of coverage to have this one speedily deleted. Yes, I think they are mostly recycled press releases, but this is a subtle point that cannot be assessed at a glance, you need to actually read them, compare, and think a bit. Cazort (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Cazort . Its new to me, so I'm just learning the etiquette. I was disappointed to see people so quick to delete without seeing or reading into the facts as you note above. As with any tech company, much of this is generated to create awareness of what the start-up is about, early success stories etc. Not everyone has the Conusmer Brand & Awareness of Oracle Corporation, Google, Microsoft etc. Wikipedia, Microsoft, Google - all start out small. Look at the history and pain Jimmy Wales went through in the early days before the platform was opened up from peer review to public review that sees Wikipedia as it is today. The original offer to Larry & Serge from Yahoo that they turned down. These are all milestones in the journey to become great organizations. I believe Corizon is on that journey, it compliments and challenges well the SOA, Enterprise Mashup and Composite application stories and much more. I doubt Oracle Corporation or Cisco would associate with companies for the sake of it, this is our path in the making and therefore I believe notable and if nothing more fact as you would expect to read. Finally, looking around Wikipedia - you list other corporate products, e.g. Oracle Oracle Developer, Microsoft Popfly and many more - can you help me understand why this would be here and not another software product that is also commercially available? Thanks in advance. Nigel Nigelwalsh (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Cazort. Article was created by someone from the company to promote the company. We are being used WP:SPAM. I've googled it and it doesn't strike me as notable in any way. This is a clear speedy. As nice as Nigelwalsh (User created to promote company) is his reply above shows this 'I believe Corizon is on that journey'. Well when it makes that journey it might have a neutral article on it but WP:CRYSTAL. This has to go and quickly. Polargeo (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many pages are created as spam/advertisement but grow into legitimate pages because reliable sources are available. I have already blanked out the spammy content from the article so there's no issue of having it sit around in its current form. Nothing is gained by hasty discussions. This company strikes me as a marginal enough case that it is not totally clear-cut, for reasons I described above. Let's just let the AfD run its course. Cazort (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even Nigel says they are starting out. By the logic you outline we would never speedy delete anything. We waste too much editors' time debating AfDs for clear SPAM. I really hope Nigel develops into a strong wikipedia editor. His company gets some great notability and gets an article but wikipedians have to be aware of just how much prominance wikipedia has on the web. Someone googles 'mashup' and wikipedia is the top hit. Nigel's company name/website is now linked in its own important article from the mashup page, giving it prominance and cudos. Or at least it would be linked if a competitor (anon editor) hadn't removed his link here Polargeo (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - There is some coverage as already noted earlier in the discussion. An they are included in this article. But taking everything together, I still don't see this meeting notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right the link reads like a press release to an industry magazine. Polargeo (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love you guys enthusiasm to delete this! Whpq Perhaps you can point me to some good examples of small software start ups that have pages on here that also meet your criteria of Notable and you could point to as what good looks like. I can probably point to 100 that read like their own website and marketing collateral, just look at the list of software companies listed on Wikipedia and take your pick. Cazort Thanks for removing the other parts, I'm happy with this. I want to paint an accurate picture of the company, its achievements, customer, awards, patents awarded, and what makes it unique. Other sources for example with comment from external analyst include: [28], Gartner Podcasts [29] (interestingly how does the Gartner page read, it includes it's website, competitors, Edgar online and links to the BBC etc???) So before I add anything that doesn't confirm - does listing important customers count (I suspect not, but its an argument being used here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JackBe for saving it. It would appear that the rules referred to can and are being subjectively interpreted. If the ultimate end is that this peer group decide to delete and not allow the community to add more detail, then it needs to be consistent across the board. Is that a fair statement? My first addition from a notable, independent source would be this - [30] by Oliver Young, an Analyst with Forrester Research in which he references Corizon. Your view? By the way this is like peer review for a PhD - and this is the viva!! Nigelwalsh (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • other sources I would like to include: http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/bethgb/2007/05/ides_for_soa.php and http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=1963 - I look forward to your help in crafting this as the template for what good looks like Nigelwalsh (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS outlines why we don;t consider other articles in the discussion for this one. The focus should be on reliable sources providing some depth depth of coverage. I simply don't see this here, and none of the links you've provided have altered my view. -- Whpq (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response to Whpq, Sometimes I feel this is a futile exercise, and by the looks of it I'm not alone. I found both of these when trying to learn the appropriate etiquette here and improve the article. Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument and Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!#Avoid projecting elitism Would love your help in getting this right Cheers Nigel Nigelwalsh (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay Nigel. This is what is needed. You need to find sources that address Corizon as a company in detail, not just a peripheral mention of the company. These sources, lets say ideally a couple at least, need to be independant and secondary. Examples of these independant and secondary sources include mainstream media (so industry magazines are not included) or peer reviewed journals. The existance of a mention of the company in these media is not enough, the article needs to contain significant coverage about the company. However, my argument for speedy deletion, which still stands is that this was put on wikipedia as a blatant advert (we call this spam), therefore should really be deleted, even if it could be argued that it might ultimately be notable. You would then have the opportunity to argue recreation of an article about corizon when the independant sources are found. Blogs don't really cut it as sources, certainly not to start the article up anyway. Polargeo (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Polargeo. So the two independent sources that I propose are from the Butler Group and Data Monitor. Both independent and referenced 100's of times throughout Wikipedia under almost any technology article states (I took my example from here after a random search Ericom Software. A Butler Group Technology Audit stated, "Butler Group recognises Corizon as an established player that is able to deliver an already mature product offering [1]. The Data Monitor Perspective State, "Its key differentiation is its unique top-down approach to mashups which separates the design and creation of the end user application from underlying IT systems [2]. I also plan to reference these as per below and as per your note. Can you confirm that this is OK before I make any change? Does this work for you as a starter for 10? Thanks. Nigelwalsh (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nigel. These sources are still industry related. I personally don't think they are sufficient. Other editors have different standards to me so wait and see but you only give the links to the websites not the actual stories. Anyway thanks for pointing the Ericom Software article. I have tagged it for notability and advertising. This could be a speedy delete I'll give it a couple of days and see what the reaction is simply because it has been around for a while. Polargeo (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • one other quick question, should I be testing this out on a stub first and then asking for your input. I also put together a company info box and saved that in the corizon talk, Its probably not the right place but I didn't want to put it on the main page based on this discussion. Can you advise. Thanks. Nigelwalsh (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may also be closed through a wp:snow clause I think.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While even the creator agrees that this was put here to draw attention to the company (making it spam and therefore deletable as it stands) I do disagree firmly with Polargeo's assertion that industry publications are not reliable sources. Some industry publications are vanity press by another name I agree, but others have clear independence and serve a similar function to the peer reviewed journals of the scientist or medical researcher. To disregard the whole of the 'trade press' is to create an unnecessary hurdle.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay maybe I was generalizing a bit. But it is very easy for a company to get its press release published in an industry magazine, maybe not in the main news section but as a pseudo advert. Also I suppose I am thinking of whether it is a source through which we can establish notability. An article in anything other than an international quality general industry magazine does seem to suggest a lack of notability outside of the specialist field. Polargeo (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


References[edit]

  1. ^ Kellett, Andy (2009-06-10). "Corizon – Corizon Platform (version 4.3)". Butler Group.
  2. ^ Hong, Daniel (2009-06-17). "Company Profile: Corizon, A Datamonitor Perspecitve" (PDF). Data Monitor.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberate the Mind[edit]

Liberate the Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not clear how this website is notable, all references are primary sources. Not finding any google news, book or scholar hits specific to this website. RadioFan (talk) 20:17, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Non admin closure. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitemcinal[edit]

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

Article on a rejected drug. WP:NOTE? King ♣ Talk 19:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Withdrawn. --King ♣ Talk 17:07, 23 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) Erik9 (talk) 19:03, June 28, 2009 (UTC)

Cathal Mac Coille[edit]

Cathal Mac Coille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page is non-notable. Filled with original research (References like ""The matriarchs of Montrose". Irish Independent. 2008-10-25. [32]." make no mention of the person involved). His only other mentions are just briefly in an article, or articles in the "opinion" section, which are not reliable sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to plagiarism and original research synthesis concerns, there are also flat out inaccuracies as demonstrated by looking at the sources. The end of the page is a trivia section merely mentioning who he interviewed without any proof of notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To condense the argument for delete - there are ten sources used. 3 are primary source and do not count towards notability. 5 are blogs run in "opinion" sections of newspapers and cannot be used for notability. One is the Irish Examiner, which mentions Cathal in a list of other people who worked for a company and nothing else about him. The other is an Irish Independent article that talks about the company's reporting on the 2008 election and merely mentions him in a list of others. Neither of these two count towards notability per WP:BLP. Thus, BLP policy states that there are no sources proving notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, please note that the article was considerably developed when I first edited it. I also don't think it is fair to use the above reference against me as I was asked to provide it by someone at DYK and never claimed that it mentioned the subject of the article. It mentions a show he presents. But again I can see I have touched someone's nerve by trying to meet the standards of another. :( --candle•wicke 19:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically (or not?), you have referred to a source added to back up a "most listened to radio programme" claim already present in the article at this time. --candle•wicke 19:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source violates WP:OR, as do many of your sources. Most of the articles merely lump the individual with others on the program. Regardless of what the reviewer at DYK said, they should have said that you failed to prove notability. John Murray (broadcaster) and Rachael English also suffer from this problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well couldn't we just remove the unwelcome links? These references are only secondary sources. They are barely used in the article. All of the content in the article has an attached link. None of the article is original research. I created the article, and knew next to none about the man, before finding sources. In my opinion it is quite an encyclopedic article. Compared to some biographies, it is much better quality. Thank you,  Cargoking  talk  20:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does it violate WP:OR? The source is used to verify it as "most listened to radio programme" which, at least as far as I can see, it does. And if it doesn't there is another citation from an entirely different source right beside it. The presenter is mentioned in this source by name and with the exact same spelling as the title of this article. So how exactly is a presenter of a country's most popular radio programme worth a deletion nomination? I can see how you might say it is not perfectly sourced but since when has it been appropriate to delete an article with sources? --candle•wicke 21:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All AfD pages can be improved. It is suggested to improve them during the AfD process in order to keep the page and meet inclusion requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. :( So AfDs are about holding a gun to the head of an editor and pulling the trigger (or deleting) if they don't respond to the nominator's desire to improve quickly? --candle•wicke 00:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not our pages. We do not own our pages. There is a strict requirement for inclusion of BLPs. These series of pages haven't really proven notability as BLPs. As you even stated, one of the pages was heavily edited before you worked on it, so why are you taking it so personally? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have gone off the point again. When did I claim it was mine or that I own it? I simply questioned you on the context of the discussion that led to this debate and then questioned you on what appears to be a contradiction in your nomination and the note that you left on my talk page. Dravecky has mentioned some of this below as well so I can only presume I am not going completely senile (yet). --candle•wicke 01:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question- "When did I claim it was mine or that I own it?". Answer - "So AfDs are about holding a gun to the head of an editor and pulling the trigger". Such an extreme response as the above suggested a personalization of the process. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand that. It was not said with any anger (I might at least have used an exclamation mark otherwise) but perhaps the choice of words was not the best. What I meant was are AfDs about deleting pages when one editor does not respond to the desires of another editor to prove notability in time? Or are they more about deleting pages when one editor does not respond to the desires of another editor to turn the article into a fully fledged FA quickly? --candle•wicke 02:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many stubs that don't have some of the problems that this article has. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as source cited as a prime reason for deletion is used to back up a fact in the article about the program the subject hosts, hardly "original research". I find it an odd notion than an unreferenced claim about popularity would be preferred to a properly referenced one. - Dravecky (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary reason to delete is lack of notability - sources used are from blogs or only mention the name of the individual and nothing about him. The only information about him is coming from primary sources, which cannot prove notability. In a BLP, "no claim" is the preference to a claim with poor references. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way Ottava, "this is per the Wikipedia talk:DYK discussion about a series of bad articles put forth by you" (message I received on my talk page)? I am confused about the meaning of this. I went to that discussion and I found that it was you who brought up the topic of nominating them all for deletion when nobody else had expressed such an idea and then you seem to have given yourself permission to carry this out several days later when nobody responded. "This is just the first of a series" - am I allowed to ask in advance the identity of the rest of this series and when you plan to nominate them? I would like to be able to pencil it into my schedule - I wouldn't want to have them all deleted without comment while I turn my back for a few days. Will they all have been nominated by the end of June? --candle•wicke 21:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is standard to place things up at AfD where discussions about notability and the rest go. DYK's talk page is not for such a thing. The person who put up the original entry was not keeping up, so I listed it myself. Also, I listed two other articles above that will be followed after for having the same problems if consensus is to delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please note that they clearly mark "opinion" in front of the sources on the links. That makes it fail the BLP guidelines. The formatting of this source, monday, tuesday, wednesday, etc, only verifies that it is a blog. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the RTE cannot be used to establish notability as it would be a primary source. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a normal everyday news story on the website of Ireland's most read newspaper. It clearly has the day marked. It is quite obviously not a blog. The source though to do with Eoghan, is opinion. But in Cathal's article, it cites what Eoghan said:

Eoghan Harris criticised Mac Coille in the Sunday Independent for his "lengthy yet largely ineffectual pursuit" of Sister Marianne O'Connor on Morning Ireland in May 2009, which saw her "runs rings around him mostly because he cannot come up with a killer question".

Only stating Mr. Harris' opinion. The article is not relying on that one source.  Cargoking  talk  22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a blog at all. It was published in the newspaper. The writer is also notable, both as a journalist and a senator. Are the words of US senators dismissed on Wikipedia too? --candle•wicke 22:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP... "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." --candle•wicke 22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't subject to the editorial control and are clearly marked "opinion" for a reason. Also, the rest of BLP makes it clear that you must fully attribute the information from blogs. Once you do that, every single line will have attribution to others, which reveals that this is not really a notable subject. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, I'm curious again. What is the meaning of the "just drop a note" comment after you slipped in the bit about AfDs being a "viable option"? Did you expect someone else to carry out this for you while you watched from the sidelines? This doesn't seem very transparent to me at all... --candle•wicke 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one that started the thread. However, when it turned out that no one was pursuing it, I put it forth myself. I was gone for the weekend, and, when I came back, no one moved. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody seems to have suggested anything close to an AfD. They were merely commenting on an ongoing problem with several editors. For instance, Gatoclass said:

That doesn't mean however that they don't meet DYK requirements - there are a great many DYK submissions that are thin on content but meet the requirements, and I see no reason why we should single out Candlewicke for attention just because he is a freqent contributor. The hooks are another issue - if a hook is problematic, a more appropriate hook should be found. But that alone wouldn't be a reason to start disqualifying articles.

Giants27 replied:

I agree with Gatoclass on this one, if it passes the requirements (and isn't a copyvio and such) then it's fine, however a hook is key but like mentioned it shouldn't be used to disqualify articles instead the more discussion that occurs the better because then more hooks can be found and the best one available can be used. And I know some of my DYKs in, the, past have been content light but they still got the six hours because they qualified.

Dravecky then commented: "This is a problem with multiple DYK nominations at the moment and I'm hopeful that focused attention by multiple reviewers can clean this up a bit."

So where did your idea of nominating several of my DYKs at AfD come from when multiple editors (2 sysops and a rollbacker) did not seem to be making such a case at all? --candle•wicke 00:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can nominate for AfD, and none of them examined the links closely enough to see that many of the references didn't prove notability under BLP, especially with only a casual mention, primary sourcing, or being in opinion pages and not reliable sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I accept anyone can nominate something for AfD. What I cannot understand is why an editor with as much experience as yourself would nominate an article in which the subject (a) definitely exists and has been mentioned in more than one independent newspaper source irrespective of mentions by RTÉ, (b) has been mentioned in these sources as a presenter of the most listened to radio show in a country, and (c) that you would then use the source attached to the "most listened to radio programme" line as evidence of original research in your deletion rationale as it "make[s] no mention of the person involved". I am not taking the nomination personally at all, rather I just cannot get my head around the reasons for such contradictions. --candle•wicke 01:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP shows that we need to do more than discuss people that simply exist. We must use only the best sources and make sure that they are notable according to our standards. This protects against both vanity pages and pages that could possibly harm. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how this is either a vanity page or could possibly cause harm. --candle•wicke 02:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is rather clear about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the content of Cathal Mac Coille being dangerous? --candle•wicke 02:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this entry meets WP:notability. I've seen vastly worse referenced articles for sportspeople make past AfD but I know that precedent is not a reason for keeping this article - just making the point. Nevertheless, it is well written, well referenced and looks like it will only improve. Gillyweed (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By well referenced, which references do you mean? It was already pointed out that most used only mention him in one line or two, or are from opinion pieces. Either way, the facts contradict your statement and invalidate the above. BLP is very clear about the reference requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely meets WP:notability. Presenter of most listened to show on Irish national radio. Tick. Long standing journo with RTE. Tick. Snappy (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is a column in a newspaper a web-log (blog)? The Sunday Independent publishes all its newspaper content online. Eoghan Harris is a respected journalist, columnist and politician. He is a senator in Seanad Éireann, Ireland's upper house. Just because we are a small country, doesn't mean the four million of us in Ireland don't have an interest in probably the most listened to man on the radio, as he presents the programme most regularly.  Cargoking  talk  08:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Presenter" is not a major position on the program, nor one that really gives them much attention. The lack of references is telling. BLP has higher standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that then means we have a lot of deleting to do. Looks like Ottava has no interest (who apparently is representing the views of six billion people) in any sort of presenter. Bye Bye Rush Limbaugh. Larry King, Jonathan Ross, Jay Leno, Michael Parkinson, Oprah Winfrey, Conan O'Brien, Ant & Dec... and bye bye to anyone who has ever presented a television or radio programme.  Cargoking  talk  14:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are notable because they are in the news. Your statement above does not differentiate between the well known and the lesser known. It also makes you look ridiculous when you would compare this individual to those above. Furthermore, those aren't "presenters". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you asked an Irish person did they know who this man is, they would reply yes. He is very well known here. Don't discriminate the Irish!  Cargoking  talk  14:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If you asked" - not per WP:N. Plus, your statement above is false. If that was true, there would be actual sources on this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First two sentences of Secondary sources in WP:No original research: Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions.  Cargoking  talk  14:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP's requirements for sources are rather clear. Furthermore, the original research part of the above is about an article that doesn't even mention Cathal, which is the very definition of WP:OR. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.... I didn't add that, Candlewicke. Excuse me for a minute, while I revert Candlewicke's edit  Cargoking  talk  15:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering why Ottava is encouraging Cargoking to remove sources from the article now? Or how this is decreasing any original research? But perhaps somone else may care to comment on this illogicality... --candle•wicke 16:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently in Ottava's mind writing "His show is top-rated" is fine but adding a citation that proves his show is top-rated makes it original research, uh, somehow. I made a point of this yesterday and did not receive an answer on this from him. - Dravecky (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made it 100% clear that it is Original Research. It is not fine in any form. Please read the BLP guidelines on information. I find it highly both yours and Candlewicke's comments on the matter highly insulting to Wikipedia and Wikipedia's encyclopedic integrity. This is a BLP. All information in BLPs are supposed to be "highly reliable". This means unquestionable citations that spell out clearly what is claimed. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference cited says "[...]Morning Ireland, the country's most listened-to radio programme" which backs up the fact in the article that reads, in part, "[...]Morning Ireland on RTÉ Radio 1, which is Ireland's most listened to radio programme[...]" so I'm missing the synthesis at work here that makes this "original research" by Wikipedia standards. Perhaps you should expand on this point as I am apparently not the only editor not seeing it here. - Dravecky (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article called "Morning Ireland"? No. So, you take one fact Cathal Mac Coille works for Morning Ireland. Then you take another source that says Morning Ireland is number one. Then you combine them. That is the very definition of synthesis. Unless Cathal is mentioned in the source, it cannot be used to say anything about him. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To quote: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." WP:SYNTHESIS. You really need to start reading these policies because statements like the above show an ignorance of the very basics of what they state. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Dravecky, your two quotes prove that the article has plagiarised text. This is another major violation of editing standards. The fact that you quoted both above and didn't notice it is very disturbing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you mention this "plagiarism" before now? Are you referring to the "most listened to" bit? Why if that had been phrased as "a radio programme with a high audience" you might call that original research (as it only suggests that the programme is popular so it doesn't correspond to the source by claiming that it is definitely the most popular). Three words is hardly unlawful especially if the alternative is original research. The rest of the sentence is nothing like the source. And Cathal is mentioned in the source. --candle•wicke 17:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because Dravecky just pointed it out whether knowingly or not. And Candlewicke, you don't seem to get it. Information not in your sources and directly dealing with the subject is not acceptable in a BLP, let alone in any other page. It is original research. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What "conclusion" do you feel the article reaches in the phrase I quoted that is not stated in the source materials? The information can't be both so close to the source that you cry that it's "plagiarism" and so far from the source that you can claim that it's original research. - Dravecky (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dravecky, unless Cathal is mentioned in the second source, it cannot be used. It is very clear from what I stated above. You should know this, especially when it was made clear twice already. And you can plagiarise one source while using it as part of synthesis. To claim to the contrary is utterly ridiculous. Synthesis is the combination of two sources to lead to something not directly stated in either. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the source? I mean the part in the very next paragraph where it talks about "calibre of its presenters over the years" and one "Cathal Mac Coille" is listed? So this single source verifies that Cathal Mac Coille is a presenter of Morning Ireland and that it's "the country’s most listened-to programme". No conclusion is drawn. The facts in the sentence are present in the source. That mountain you're climbing is a molehill. - Dravecky (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to make such smug comments, please don't do it when it will only embarass you. The source you are using (which isn't even the source in question) says: "the quickest illustration of its importance can be gleaned from the calibre of its presenters over the years". It does not state anything about Cathal being currently on the show nor can you declare such from the source. The rish Independent source, the original research source which has been stated constantly, does not have Cathal mentioned at all. Please explain how a source that doesn't mention an individual can be used as a source for the individual. The fact that you would try to justify the inclusion of this source is blatantly disruptive and unacceptable in any regard. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Can you tell me where I insulted Wikipedia please so that I can apologise to it/him/her/whatever gender Wikipedia is? --candle•wicke 16:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another dead discussion. Enter WikiKnittingCorner. By the way Candlewicke and Dravecky, you are not insulting Wikipedia. You are Ottava... no offense.  Cargoking  talk  17:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is very strict. Your lack of respecting BLP is a serious problem and people have been blocked for egregious abuse in the area. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, who are you threatening to block? --candle•wicke 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that every time you respond, you demonstrate that you didn't read? I was stating how serious the policy is. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What have I not read or what exactly is it that you're asking me to do? I have taken on board helpful comments which make sense in relation to this and other items at DYK - this does not appear to be helpful. --candle•wicke 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I will address this now in relation to the "Rush Limbaugh. Larry King, Jonathan Ross, Jay Leno, Michael Parkinson, Oprah Winfrey, Conan O'Brien, Ant & Dec" reply from Ottava above as it does not appear to have been noticed.

"They are notable because they are in the news. Your statement above does not differentiate between the well known and the lesser known. It also makes you look ridiculous when you would compare this individual to those above. Furthermore, those aren't "presenters."

Now, Ottava, why are you suggesting that notability is based on being "in the news"? How can you presume that this is any less true of Cathal? Based on your own assumptions? And why in all seriousness are you attacking Cargoking's contribution as being "ridiculous"? --candle•wicke 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"why are you suggesting that notability is based on being "in the news"?" WP:N - third party sources and coverage in them. The above listed people have actual coverage. Your individual is mentioned in primary sources, blogs, or in a brief mention without any detail among a list of others. That makes them non-notable. The comparison of the above individual with someone like Rush Limbaugh, Larry King, etc, is highly laughable. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really "highly laughable" in my opinion. I don't know or care very much for Larry King if the truth be told and I had never even heard of Rush Limbaugh until someone mentioned him at ITN a few days ago. You don't care much for Cathal Mac Coille but I know at least as much about him as the other two, if not more. So differing opinions and different perspectives depending on where you are in the world are not "highly laughable". You have not given an answer to why you called Cargoking "ridiculous" and now you have called his view of the world "highly laughable". Would it be too much to ask you to stop attacking the creator of the article? --candle•wicke 19:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personal knowledge is not enough for notability. We have objective standards which this clearly fails. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37 kilobytes later and we're getting nowhere but circles, spirals and loops of all sorts (and that's not even counting the talk pages of other editors who are being harrassed - can you please leave anyone who has the misfortune of commenting on my talk page alone?) Why is Cargoking "ridiculous" and "highly laughable" if personal knowledge counts for nothing (which I quite agree with at any rate)? Your lack of knowledge on Cathal Mac Coille is no reason to subject him to any more of this (I wonder does he even know?) --candle•wicke 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is amazing how you can claim I am attacking people on your talk page when you are bad mouthing me on multiple talk pages. And what is your problem with Wikipedia standards? Why do you think that -you- know better than the WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, and WP:BLP? You don't have the sources because he is clearly not notable. It doesn't matter how many friends you get to support you above, admin closed based on the AfD standards and you haven't provided anything to override the delete rationale. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify these quite serious allegations, I was engaging in discussion either referring to or started by someone or something else in these cases. I have been doing other things too as normal, I should hope you're not going to bother everyone I've spoken with today in relation to other topics. Why "-you-" (as in -me-) when Dravecky, Cargoking, Gillyweed, Snappy, ww2censor (questioned on my talk page) etc. seem to disagree with Ottava as well, I don't know. I didn't recruit these people to back me up and there are some with whom I have had little or no previous association with at all. And Ottava is still unable to explain his personal attacks on Cargoking who has not attacked Ottava in any way. --candle•wicke 20:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no personal attacks from me, but your constant violations of policies and your claims like the above are a severe breach of disruption and are very incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottova. I have seen your post on the Cathal's talk page. Are you saying you wanted me to directly copy copyrighted material onto Wikipedia? That is an even more serious offense. If we were to do that the Wiki could be sued. Nasty.  Cargoking  talk  21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the statements on the talk page are clear that dates and other things are 100% wrong. I didn't ask you to plagiarize, but there is a way to be correct without plagiarizing. All of my articles are able to do so without a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like me to fix these problems?  Cargoking  talk  21:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that you would fix them. All concerns brought up in AfD should be fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMG! What a terribly tedious discussion! Anywho, why is it that the 2 editors who are arguing most to keep this article have not registered Keep votes? Not that its a voting contest or anything. Consensus rules! Snappy (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per all my comments above. (Thank you Snappy)  Cargoking  talk  10:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are also one of the main editors of the page so your keep vote is intrinsically expected and not really important. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - references such as this would indicate that he is a notable presenter. -- Whpq (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
    He is not even close to being mentioned enough in reliable sources for verifiability or notability. Your keep is invalidated as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I thought the bolded vote made no difference when it was clear from the above that I wouldn't vote delete anyway but I hope returning and leaving it will help end this soon. --candle•wicke 20:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but best to make these things clear, because clarity is what is desired! Snappy (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, as one of the page creators, Candlewicke, like Cargoking, is expected to put forth a keep, so it doesn't really matter if they say so at AfD. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did not do so until asked by a third party so the bottom line is it can be counted if it is desired to do so and if not I'm fine with that as well. --candle•wicke 17:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just pointing out that it was already counted. :P So you don't have to worry about anything. Just like my delete vote is counted without me having to post beyond the AfD. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this passes the threshold for notability for me. ww2censor (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Harrell[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, appears to fail WP:BIO. Article lacks verifiable references. Some GHits for name, but nothing that appears to relate to this individual. No GNEWs hits. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. This appears to be a hoax. I heavily searched Google in various methods after reading the article, and I cannot find any information about anyone named Stuart Harrell working with Thomas J. Watson (who is a real person, however) or being involved in any way with the PET circuit. In addition, there is no such magazine as IEEE Monthly. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:52, 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 Speedily merged Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vega Colony[edit]

Vega Colony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deneb 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject fails WP:N as it hasn't been sufficiently commented upon in reliable, third party sources. The colonly only appears to be referred to by trivial namedrops so I doubt any encyclopedic article about this subject is possible. As the article's last sentence reads: "Aside from these mentions, we have no information about the world, and it was never actually shown on screen during the run of the series or its various spinoffs." ThemFromSpace 19:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm also adding the Deneb 4 article onto this nomination, as they were both created by the same editor at the same time and they both have the same issues. ThemFromSpace 19:20, 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 copyright violation. --Kinu t/c 21:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Box elder (film)[edit]

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

non notable film and article hijacking vandalism. Cewor (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Looks like a piecemeal copy/paste. Will nominate for CSD if there is no substantive content left. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tagged for G12. No substantive content beyond copyright violations. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:29, 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 delete. Cool3 (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serial killers ink[edit]

Serial killers ink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article created as clear COI/advertising attempt for website that does not meet notability requirements for an article. The closest thing to an independent, reliable source is a mention in a newspaper article that mentions them in the most extremely trivial way, everything else is MySpace and its own site. DreamGuy (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This website has phone calls and interviews with serial killers, I have not found any content such as that on other true crime websites. if you take the time and visit the site you will see that it's an excellent site for term papers and the like. i am only wanting the info out there instead relying on true crime sites that only post biographies. this website goes beyond biographies and talks to the killers themselves. I have removed the myspace link. please let me know your thoughts. I feel this website should be included on wikipedia due to its close contact with real serial killers, via interviews and phone conversations posted on the website. i find it a good site for term papers and the like. there is no other site on the internet with actual phone call recordings and i feel this site is stand alone. The site is notable due to the direct contact with convicted serial killers as well the site sells murderabilia which is a very heated topic at present due to several states moving to enact anti murderabilia legislation.Darbiedoll78 (talk) 20:22, 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. Flowerparty☀ 23:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie and the Three Musketeers[edit]

Barbie and the Three Musketeers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Future films are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. SummerPhD (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article needs work, but considering it's available for pre-order on Amazon, that should prove notability. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh God, not another Barbie video for my little cousin to force me to sit through.... oh, sorry, Keep part of a notable series and enough sources to prove that it will actually be released. - 2 ... says you, says me 20:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't doubt that it is scheduled to come out ("come out"? Barbie in Pride Day Celebration?), that it is part of a notable series or that you'll have to sit through it. I doubt that there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources to show that it is notable enough for its own article before it comes out. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FILMNOT states that films that have commenced principle photography are generally eligible for inclusion. Additionally, the WP:GNG is met since this is part of the Barbie film series. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The GNG specifically says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." There are no independent reliable sources at all for this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the creator of this article, I can assure you that the source I found proving the release for this future film is very reliable and I believe it is enough to keep my article. The source is a trailer and I have placed the link for it in the article. - LightSpirit06 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2009
    • Comment This is copyright violation in its present form ("BarbieCollector" at youtube does not present any argument that ze has been permitted to post this copyrighted trailer to youtube.). Further, if we do find a valid link for the official trailer, it is not an independent source. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Other films (e.g. Disney ones) that have not been released yet have their own articles. Vltava 68 06:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That other unreleased films have articles is not relevant. Those articles either present significant coverage in independent reliable sources (which this one does not) or they, like this one, should be deleted. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I added a valid reference and cleaned up the promotional material. As I said, the article still needs work, but it doesn't need to be deleted. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:44, 28 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) 08:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Samonas[edit]

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

BLP with no reliable sources provided. Unable to find any. No significant roles. Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - had the lead in Coach Shane, a significant role in Little Men , and "co-starring guest role" in Wizards of Waverly Place. Additionally, he has a significant role in The Least of These (completed by not yet released). That should be enough to meet WP:ENT. No great sources on GNews, but presumably their is better coverage out there. (For example, critical reviews of his acting). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has now been expanded and sourced. With respects to the nom's search, it wasn't too difficult to find stuff on this 'tween heart-throb. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep He is a very notable actor and the article is sourced greatly now. And as you can see by his filmography he has had a lot of signicant roles, such as Wizards of Waverly Place, Litttle Men, and The Least of These. His entire career makes him very notable. PeterGriffin11298 (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Well Sourced now. Notability has been asserted. Hitro 09:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete With all due respect, The above strong keep votes are wholly inconsistent with our notability rules, specifically WP:ACTOR. These are not starring roles or even significant roles. The alleged starring role in Coach Shane is not a mainstream release, being an amateur effort that's only 22 minutes long. The "production company" is just the writer/director, and it's not released through any distributor or anything... it's essentially hardly any better than a video released on YouTube. Big deal. This person simply has not even come close to having met the standards for notability at this time. He may some day, but it's clearly not now. DreamGuy (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "WP:ACTOR" is a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, not to a guideline. Our inclusion guidelines begin with WP:V, WP:N and WP:GNG which he passes. Perhaps you meant to refer to attributes listed at WP:ENT, which are subordinant to the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG, as WP:BIO specifically states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speed keep(voted above) he has appeared in several television shows and movies, recurring roles in 2 tv shows, and The Last Day of Summer, and he had a major film with Jennette McCurdy. You don't know what you are talking about. Starred in an episode of iCarly, and just look at his filmography, and how it is sourced and his other achievements. He has appeared in starring roles and significant roles in both Television series and movies, DreamGuy doesn't know what he's talking about. He has the lead roles in future films too. PeterGriffin11298 (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You already said Keep above, you don't get to !vote twice. And I have looked at the filmography, which is why I can say without reservation that this person doesn't meet our criteria for having an article. Those roles are not lead roles in any major production. What "starring" roles? A guest spot on a single episode, which you claimed was a starring role on iCarly, is nothing like a starring role. DreamGuy (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is the applicable inclusion criteria. If an article topic meets WP:GNG and Basic Criteria, one need not go to the attribute sections to then find reasons for exclusion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete WP:CSD#G11 (advert). Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mersey sound wave[edit]

Mersey sound wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No real assertion of notability. CSD and PROD both removed previously, so I thought I would take it to AfD. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 18:02, 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 Redirected to List_of_Viz_comic_strips#P_-_S. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rude Kid[edit]

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

Non-notable, or not independently notable enough to require its own article, based on searching, as well as a complete lack of existing sources coupled with this being an unprofessionally written article. Wutwatwot (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unsourced, unencyclopedic, and not notable enough for own article. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:59, 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. Flowerparty☀ 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dayne Walling[edit]

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

Campaign-style bio of a candidate for municipal office, which fails WP:POLITICIAN. All sources present are blog entries, self-published content on his own website and articles which mention the candidate only in passing, thus failing to meet the criterion of substantial coverage. Previously prodded, but prod notice was removed by creator. Note also that an earlier version was speedied in 2007, but I don't think we can speedy this as a "recreation of deleted material" since the fact that he's a mayoral candidate in this year's election, while still weak as a claim of notability, is substantively different from the 2007 version. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Flint is a sizable city and the article contains refs to MLive.com, which is a reliable source. He's also been covered by the ABC affiliate: [33]. I don't see a notability problem here.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MLive references aren't about him; they just mention him in passing while actually being about something or someone else, which isn't the same thing and fails our rules. Bearcat (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are additional articles referenced about Dayne from Mlive.com, a reliable source, where the stories are "about" versus "mentioning" him. Also, just go on google news and google Dayne Walling, you'll find plenty of articles supporting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adayan (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. It would be doubtful whether the mayor of a city the size of Flint would be notable, so just being a candidate certainly doesn't make for notability, and there's no claim of anything like notability outside the mayoral candidacy. The sources to mlive.com appear to be blog entries. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(see etiquette statement below. Philosopher Let us reason together.) The mlive.com blog posts are written by Flint Journal staff writers and often are used to publish stories that don't always make the paper issue of the Flint Journal. They also use the blogs to post stories they've contributed that may have been placed farther back in the paper issue.--Adayan (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (the etiquette at deletion discussions is for each editor to give no more than one bolded "keep" or "delete" statement) Also, why do state level politicians warrant notability? They simply represent the same geographic area that a mayor represents in the particular case of Flint, MI. Walling warrants notability simply due to significant press coverage, per WP:POLITICIAN--Adayan (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You might have some argument there for having an article about the mayor of Flint, but this is only about a candidate for the position. I really don't think that articles that don't make it to the print edition, or only get to page 94, of a small-town newspaper can be considered to establish notability. Please carry on your campaign in more appropriate places than an encyclopedia. That will be a better use of all those dollars that your candidate has raised. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 24 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 19:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People and culture of Illinois[edit]

People and culture of Illinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page is a content fork. In its current state, it includes only demographic information that is also available at Illinois. The article was proposed for deletion on 17 June 2009, but a Rescue template was added on 18 June 2009. At that time, the article contained unreferenced statements to the effect that Chicago "has a very metropolitan culture" while the rest of the state "is very rural... revolves around the churches... and often keep to themselves". This content was removed by the original PRODer on 20 June. This namespace is unlike to be a search term for Illinois. —Cnilep (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Information already covered in Illinois, article itself seems mostly abandoned. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Illinois #Demographics The racial makeup information is already there, but the religion subsection could accommodate the additional info. I see no need to do a spinout called "People and culture of" for any state, province, county, etc. Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 23 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. Originally closed by the nominator. Reclosing to fix formating (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Pointe Park[edit]

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

NN park, no sources. roux   17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep no offense, but AFDs like this are exactly why you should check for sources before making an AFD nomination. There are a lot, I've just added 2 and they're the tip of the iceberg. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know much about Miami Beach but apparently this park was one of the key pieces in a successful plan to revitalize it in the 1980s. Seems like that should meet any reasonable concept of notability, and the sourcing is obviously there... hundreds of newspaper articles exist about this park. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about saying 'no offense' (sic) is that it generally better to simply not say something offensive in the first place. I had prodded this, and someone else pointed out the lack of references. //roux   21:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does any of this explain why you didn't check for references? In your haste to condescendingly add 'sic' to your quote (despite the fact that what I wrote was perfectly valid American English) you appear to have ignored my argument. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no interest in indulging your apparent desire for an argument. You think the article should be kept, fine. You should have kept on topic rather than engaging in an attack. //roux   21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you basically have no good reason why you didn't check for references first, and no explanation of why my keep argument is invalid. Why not just withdraw the AFD? Your nomination rational has been debunked. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, people aren't allowed to make mistakes. I assume you're perfect and never do something quickly? That's what I thought. Despite your references, I don't see anything particularly notable about it. It's a park, some residents whined about having to put their dogs on leashes, blah blah blah. It's not like Hyde Park or Central Park or High Park, which are indeed all notable for the importance they play in their respective cities. //roux   21:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be perfect to spend 10 seconds running a Google News Search... it's a basic thing you should do prior to AFD. If you can find a policy that says a park has to be as notable as Central Park to have an article, go for it... but WP:N just requires non-trivial coverage, I've demonstrated that exists. If you want subjective notability, like I said, it was a major part of the revitalization effort of a pretty high-profile city. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Not only has the nominator shown they failed to follow the deletion policy by failing to check for sources, but their "I don't see anything particularly notable about it. It's a park, some residents whined about having to put their dogs on leashes, blah blah blah." demonstrates they do not understand notability on Wikipedia. It is not importance, it is about coverage in independent, reliable sources, which this has four now and likely many more due to the size of the city. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do understand it, but this page seems to be more about having a go at me than anything else, so please do me a favour and come up with some more baseless ad hominem crap for my collection. //roux   06:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you understand it, then time please search for sources first and then make your argument as follows: After a search I found only one source that qualified as a reliable source and it only contained trivial coverage of the park, the article was really about a homeless guy who died in the park. Saying something is "just a park" or "just a xxxxx" does not show an understanding of how notability works. And as to ad hominem, no, I attacked your actions and your argument, not attributes of you. An attack on you would be say "x is a big fat jerk" or "x doesn't know what they are doing because they are Christian/Jewish/Tall/Muslim/Black/White/Rich/Poor". And lastly, if you had followed my advice when I removed your prod then we would not all be here wasting time, nor would you feel you are being attacked. The deletion policy is clear (see the sixth bullet point) that sources need to be searched for, and the notability guideline footnote #10 also clearly tells editors that they need to be researching articles before asking that they be deleted. So you will have to excuse me if I don't get a little blunt with editors who end up wasting people's time with bad CSD/PROD/AFD nominations, as hopefully this will educated them and prevent similar occurrences in the future. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Time is only 'wasted' if you choose to waste it. Your choice. And your condescension is sickening. Do forgive me for acting in good faith. I know it's frowned on around here, but for some reason I keep trying. //roux   06:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be keeping this AFD open because you don't want to admit you rushed into it. Everyone makes mistakes... part of acting in good faith is being able to say, "Whoops, I screwed up." Spend more than 30 seconds on your next AFD nom, write more than 3.5 words for it... that's the good faith way to proceed here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again there, chief. And that personal dig, after being told to stop? Tsk. //roux   15:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently notable with the added sources. ThemFromSpace 06:15, 23 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 Icestorm815 • Talk 04:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Graziosi[edit]

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

Current state of article reads like promo advertisement spam. Subject fails WP:NOTE: has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I came across this article today and tried to remove some of the promotional bits and copyright violation [34], which left very little in the article. Fifteen minutes later it was back. Subsequent edits have been the addition of more promotional material; as I noted on the talk page, I think this is likely to be a constant problem. Google results are so liberally seeded with this individual's SEO and promotional content that I have so far been unable to find any reliable, independent mentions of the subject. He may or may not be slightly notable (at least one of his books appears to have been on the NYT bestsellers list [35], although I don't know how many copies you need to sell to get on the hardback business list), but lack of any significant mention of this person outside his own websites and people complaining about him on other sites is a major problem. By the way, the article presently contains a partial copyvio of several of the subject's websites [36], [37]. I didn't want to remove them unilaterally during an AFD, but perhaps they should be blanked?--Kateshortforbob 20:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

""delete"" --Neoursa (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Due to the lack of useful unbias bio information and the repeated spamming of this article it's best to remove it. I can't find any info on the subject on the search engines. One interesting thing I learned (looking up this subject) is that extorsion sites exist that act as consumer complaint sites; for a fee from they remove complaints and damaging info on businesses/services etc. Maybe of note is the user: Awesomeweb has been revising the article as others mentioned it reverts back to ad/promo. 23:55, June 27 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article is likely to be a constant WP:ADVERT violation and notability is not established, per nom. ERK talk 23:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as he did write a best-seller, he is a notable author in his subject, and that makes it necessary to keep the article--though I fully understand why the immediate impulse upon seeing this article would be to get rid of it. The spam must of course be removed, and the article carefully watched, protected if necessary. DGG (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt to prevent re-spamming. Notability isn't inherited even if he had written a best-seller. Drawn Some (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for same reasons as others have pointed out. I would protect the article to avoid undesirable edits and I would ask for a major rewrite. Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:33, 27 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 19:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Almeida[edit]

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

No source support he has made his professional debut neither in Portuguese Liga nor Belgian First Division Matthew_hk tc 17:19, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PimpMyNumber[edit]

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

Overly promotional article that does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Talk page discussion hasn't helped, and the situation has deteriorated. Question for AfD: Is it notable? I think the answer is "no". Verbal chat 16:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Article is not overly promotional no more than any other article for a business listed on WP. Company is notable. But I doubt this will make any difference. //Melonite (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article shows no evidence of notability. The claimed notability relies on some awards given to an unnamed parent company, yet, a search of the referenced sites reveals no information regarding this company. There are links to a couple of industry regulatory bodies, which also show no information about this subject. I have searched and found no credible citations of this company anywhere. The author of the article, Melonite, has a conflict of interest, being an apparent insider, as the company uses DNS resources and web hosting services of a domain 'melonite-group.se'. The author has therefore been engaging in war editing with COI implications. Kbrose (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have also failed to find significant coverage in third-party reliable sources to indicate notability, which is the criteria for inclusion. None of the current references provide that as they're all self-published or not about the company at all. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems completely unnotable - reads like an advertisement. Mathsci (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak Keep This is a recurrent problem:and article on an organization which contains a good deal of promotional content, but weak sourcing, normally written by someone with COI, but where a good deal of sourced negative comment is added as well by others. The easy solution is to delete the whole thing, Very frequently whoever has COI & is associated with the organization supports deleting the article rather than have the negative material present. . This is a little unusual, in that the ed. with apparent COI has been trying to both delete the negative material and to keep the article in his preferred version. i'm reluctant to give up on the possibility of writing a balanced article. DGG (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're very right that COI and promotional tone are not good reasons to delete, DGG. Could you explain why you think the article's subject is notable? Olaf Davis (talk) 10:22, 23 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:BLP: this needs to be deleted quickly. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kelley (Kentucky politician)[edit]

Larry Kelley (Kentucky politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per discussion at Talk:Steve Beshear#Edit war. This article has been tagged for notability and other concerns since May 2009. Possibly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Consensus on notability is needed to resolve edit war at Steve Beshear. In an unusual move, I as the nominator am neutral; I just want to get the community's consensus. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Setting aside any BLP concerns, "County Attorney" is not a high enough position to warrant coverage under WP:POLITICIAN, the criminal activity isn't significant enough to warrant coverage as a notable criminal, and the business activity isn't significant enough to warrant coverage as a notable business figure. – iridescent 17:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, lean delete. County Attorney is a high enough office to warrant such inclusion (see Irv Maze). With Maze, he was a candidate for Lt. Governor at the time, but we have established that being a candidate alone doesn't "guarantee" an article (see Wanda Cornelius, which was deleted. We didn't delete the Maze article after he was no longer a candidate for LG. This article meets notability requirements under WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN (in particular, two of those last three, but all that has to be met is one). The guy was County Attorney in two separate jurisdictions, which is notable in itself as they were in completely different parts of the state. However, the article has some significant WP:BLP violations, which is why I'm ambivalent about keeping it. I am particularly weary that the article (and the info added to the Beshear page) was added by User:Lkelley1944. TylerKnew (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and note: I have substantially revised the article to deal with the most egregious of its issues. This is a WP:BLP disaster zone. The entire article should be deleted as failing both WP:BLP1E (for the conviction) and WP:POLITICIAN (for general notability). I weighed doing so unilaterally, under the BLP enforcement provisions given the magnitude of the BLP issues, but since this process is already open I will hold off. MastCell Talk 17:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Disgraceful. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per those above and BLP. Only notable for one event, fails POLITICIAN. لennavecia 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with irridescent, and others that this person's elected postition and crime either alone or together do not make him notable for the purpose of inclusion in an encyclopedia. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC) (Deleted while I was adding my delete comment).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Guilfoil[edit]

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

I think this reporter fails WP:BIO. Despite the many things in the ref section, I think none of them constitute serious secondary source reporting that is independent of the subject and sufficient for notability. His main achievements seem to be that he is a reporter for the Boston Globe, and that he was student body vice-president at Northeastern. RayTalk 15:58, 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 keep per nominator withdrawal. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaver (Firefly)[edit]

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

Not notable, as there is a lack of reliable sources independent of the topic. (Try doing a google search for Reaver Firefly; there is not much coverage.) – DroEsperanto(talk|contribs) 15:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because its well written, a notable element of a notable fictional series, and found in both the series and the movie. I read it all through, enjoying the article, even though I had no interest in the series itself. Remember, wikipedia is not a set of rules. The guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law. If a rule gets in the way of making the encyclopedia better, you are suppose to ignore it, and use consensus and common sense. There is no possible reason, other than wikilawyering, to try to destroy this article. Dream Focus 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with your assessment that the article is well written and interesting. A lot of the content is crufty and probably boring to most readers. Would the average person who didn't know what reavers are really care about their battle techniques and ship markings or what Book thinks about them? The important information -- that they are savage humanoids floating through space killing things and encountering the crew of Serenity -- could easily be expressed in a section or even a set of parentheses. The rest is cruft that belongs in fireflywiki, not Wikipedia. – DroEsperanto(talk|contribs) 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the average person isn't interested, they don't have to read it. The average person doesn't care about any of the science or real world history articles. Popular culture dominates wikipedia, and has from the beginning. Its interesting to those who care enough to come to this article, seeking out information through a search engine, or link clicking over from the main article page. Dream Focus 22:42, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H2No[edit]

H2No (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a short article about a type of waterproof fabric that appears to fail our notability guidelines. It is currently unsourced and I couldn't find any information from sources outside the company itself of which one could build an encyclopedia article from. ThemFromSpace 18:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. No sources. Very brief description only on manufacturer's site. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 15:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect Can be covered in parent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can find mention in various back-packer / outdoor magazines, spanning some 20 years (at least I saw one hit from 1989). So it is being debated in those circles as an alternative to Goretex and the other fabrics. Yes, it's sure a short article, it also was unreferenced - coz I just added three refs. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:25, 24 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 for now. General consensus seems to be that there's a good chance this could be well sourced, though some research is necessary due to the time period involved. This result should not be taken as a precedent against renominating this in a month or two if no such verifiable sources have been found. ~ mazca talk 22:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Deois[edit]

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

not clear how this person is notable. Lacks significant coverage in verifiable 3rd party sources, fails WP:BIO RadioFan (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed the unremarkable person tag because I do not agree with the reason given. Deois was a well-known criminal in the area, and was a subject of local folklore long after his arrest. Furthermore, it demonstrates just how long the highwayman era survived in Ireland, giving some dimension to the times concerned. Fergananim (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now at any rate. Sure it needs a couple more references (although the two that are there seem fine to be going on with), but the article was only created a few hours ago. We don't need to be that trigger-happy, it certainly shouldn't have been prodded after such a short time. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm having difficulty finding any sources online[40][41][42][43], but I doubt that Internet usage was very high in this part of Ireland in the early 1800s, so that doesn't really prove anything. I note that the two books cited are both self-published[44][45]. It would be interesting to know whether those books themselves cite any other reliable sources, such as newspapers or previous books, or are they based on the poem and oral history? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 15:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on life support for a little while. Assuming someone would work on the article and provides ref from the 1800s, eg from the national library, and be prepared to make the sources available, e.g. upload to Commons, then keep. Without any WP:RS we cant keep articles, but for a 1800 person, the 7 days AfD horizon is too short. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:35, 24 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. If anyone feels that any of the content is worth merging, contact me and I'll restore it as a redirect. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sharapova career history[edit]

Maria Sharapova career history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

prod contested by IP editor. This page was based on the Maria Sharapova article as of 03:38, May 5, 2009. This article was forked off to placate an editor vehemently opposed to the removal of any detail. I believe it is now surplus to requirements, as the editor is no longer active, and the article contains an excess of trivial detail Ohconfucius (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: This article is great and has vast amounts of important information that is not in the Maria Sharapova article! The latter article is more of an overview while this article has the forked detail. Keep it, please!! Chidel (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think the main article would be too big if we merged them? Or do you have another objection to that idea? Olaf Davis (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ohconfucius. The article is littered with trivialities.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Lots of important information? If so it belongs in the mainpage, if not its not worth mentioning...reading it looks like lost of the latter to me. Fuzbaby (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A lot of content forking, but why not remove the duplicated content from main article to make it more readable?Biophys (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because this article, as it stands, is a rather indiscriminate collection of very trivial detail and resembles a fan-site rather than an encyclopaedic biography. As I said, this is derived from an older, untrimmed version of the main article, so if we stripped the main article of all the duplications, there would be nothing left. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:BLP1E by User:Orderinchaos. As another admin, I support this speedy deletion.. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin Grech[edit]

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

minor official notable for only one event, so failing BLP1E. Quantpole (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per BLP 1E unless the event is notable and then it should be moved to that article title. But the event doesn't seem notable on first blush. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a news service and this individual is not notable — fails WP:BIO--AssegaiAli (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A minor public servant. Entirely non-notable. However, the event may be notable, but not this version of it. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person meets the basic criteria under WP:BIO and the event for which he is now famous for had the potential to force the resignation of a prime minister, easily satisfying the 'significance' criterion of 'People notable only for one event'. GhostWhoVotes (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please can you outline how it meets the basic criteria of WP:BIO? Quantpole (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable outside the event. The event may need an article, but not this public servant.  florrie  23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave People will be wanting to know about the guy and want a authoritative article. Charles Esson (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At least for now, no more than WP:ONEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 00:04, 23 June
  • Retain. I came to Wikipedia looking for the Godwin Grech article. I was surprised not to find one, so I wrote one myself. He is the nost notable man in Australia at the moment, there are TV crews camped on his front lawn. He almost brought down the most popular PM in recent Australian history, now he is under criminal investigation. To suggest he is not notable is ridiculous. What's this "one event" business? Lee Harvey Oswald is notable for only one event. Is he "not notable"? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge. The man himself is not notable, the political affair that he is a major player in certainly is. The article almost completely deals with this affair. I would redirect from this page to an article on The OzCar Affair and move the body of this article to that page. Unless that article has already been started, in which case I would suggest merging in this information. The actual text contributed by Mr Toad is well written, well cited and should be retained, just not under a biographical article. Oska (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Utegate as that's what he's notable for. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Utegate - a silly article title but the correct place for this material. Grech has no notability outside the "Utegate" saga. He is a major player in that single event, though not the only one as it also heavily involves the Prime Minister, Treasurer and Opposition Leader. The relevant notability guideline states that "when an individual is significant for their role in a single event it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the indvidual, the event or both ... The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." This seems excellent advice - for the moment the key feature is the Utegate scandal itself and that seems a fine place for Wikipedia's article on this issue to be located. At present we know very little about Grech's role - we don't know if he wrote the email, we don't know if he sent it to a journalist, all we do know is he claims he got one from Rudd's office, the one found in Treasury was forged and he was questioned by police, and then his house got egged. Fascinating theatre but not notable in the absence of further material. If over time Grech assumes a notability outside of Utegate, or if his role in Utegate becomes so central as to eclipse Turnbull and Rudd's, then a separate article may be warranted. At present however, he has an undefined role in a single event accompanied by breathless media speculation over the course of a few days. To date a classic case of WP:ONEEVENT and best merged into the parent article on the scandal. Euryalus (talk) 03:23, 23 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) Erik9 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dhokla[edit]

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

AFD'ed to see if this article meets WP:NOTGUIDE policy. Article is unreferenced and reads like recipe. GainLine ♠ ♥ 14:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added one reference, there are hundreds more available.[46] If the recipe part is deemed offensive to WP sensibilities, then it can be removed. Priyanath talk 15:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I normally stay away from food articles, but there's more to the Dhokla than a recipe. It's a staple breakfast and snack item in Western India and that aspect should be added to the article. There was also some extremely basic non-recipe info in earlier revs of the article, and that needs to be added back in. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a very notable food, the article needs work but that is not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability requirements. I found and added a photo. And, yes, the article does need work, but that's not a reason to delete, as noted by Thryduulf.Geoff T C 00:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no violation of WP:NOTGUIDE, perhaps the issue was easily fixed. Articles are not deleted for being unreferenced either, see WP:ATD Power.corrupts (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per G4. Icestorm815 • Talk 21:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Smolik[edit]

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

Article was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion on June 19; it was recreated as "Viktor smolik" (note the lowercase) on June 21 with no evidence of any attempt to address the issues that led to its removal in the first place. It has since been moved over to the fomerly salted page. I'm not sure that the burden of proof for notability has been met on this one, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 14:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, With one more keep vote can we delete this article?. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • G4 Speedy Delete and salt Persistenly recreated. Hairhorn (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - all the reasons for deletion still apply. Enki H. (talk) 17:52, 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 redirect to Adobe Systems. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypatia Sans[edit]

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

Contested prod. Completely non-notable font, no claims to notability. Canterbury Tail talk 14:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Canterbury Tail have any evidence to support his claim of non-notability? This is a modern font that was specifically created by Adobe to fill a gap in its line (it is Adobe's only geometric sans serif font) and is being distributed free by Adobe, hence is widely disseminated, therefore it is likely that searchers will want to know what it is (which is why I found out about it and wrote this article). Sometimes common sense should trump the unthinking application of the notability rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfzimmerman (talk • contribs) 19:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable evidence that it is notable. It could well be a notable font, but it needs to be referenced and proven to be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, see WP:Notability. Canterbury Tail talk 20:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get someone who knows about fonts and typefaces to weigh in. Is there a typefaces project on Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfzimmerman (talk • contribs) 19:42, 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. ÷seresin 07:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of snipe hunts[edit]

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

Amusing. But it belongs in Urban Dictionary rather than here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yes, amusing (although some of them I saw were wrong/incomplete), but still an indiscriminate list of never ending WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 22 June 2009
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amusing in parts but not encyclopedic. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete keep Unless it can Needs to be improved by solid sourcing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I created the page to try to settle some of the long back and forth that has gone on at Snipe hunt over putting this kind of stuff in and then taking it out again. I agreed that it does not belong in the main article, but it keeps creeping back in and I thought this may satisfy both camps. I don't see it as much different than other problematically long lists like List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction. I suppose I can see the WP:OR argument though that may be a more philosophical battle that is being waged in other List discussions like above. Either way I am fine with the decision reached here. Nowimnthing (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep I would normally have said "merge to snipe hunt" but I can understand why people would have kicked this out of there. Although this list seems to have been compiled from multiple contributors, I suspect that there have been enough practical jokers and victims that most of these have also been mentioned in verifiable sources. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would add "Nails with the head on the bottom so they can be hammered in from underneath", if I had better documentation for it. Should someone have said, "It is already in the Urban dictionary, and I will add a link to that in Snipe Hunts", I might have voted Weak Keep. "(fake quotes, rhetorical paraphrase):Could be added by someone at some supposed future time, assuming they can replicate the work of multiple contributors over a great deal of time, to Urban Dictionary" is a considerably less compelling argument to me. And btw, address or link to Urban Dictionary, please? Anarchangel (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nowimnthing.--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:23, 24 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 List of Hardy Boys books#Undercover Brothers Graphic Novels (2005-Present). ÷seresin 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warring Adolescents Revenge Division[edit]

Warring Adolescents Revenge Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictional organization in the Hardy Boys, not notable. Abductive (talk) 14:13, 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 redirect to The War in 2020. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Intelligence Agency[edit]

Unified Intelligence Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional agency has no reliable sources, and therefore is not notable. Abductive (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not redirect during an AFD discussion. That is the same as blanking the page, since you are in fact blanking it, just with one line added to redirect it. If there is only one book this is found in, then I agree on a redirect. If this is an important factor of the book, then the content should be copied over to the main article. Someone who has actually read the book would have to be the judge of that though. Dream Focus 20:42, 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: G3/A7 as vandalism/hoax and part of a coat rack for a speedied YouTube band article. --Kinu t/c 22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracksuit Rock[edit]

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

no notability shown or found Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Possible speedy delete, because this appears to be a coatrack article about an unimportant band: Tracksuit rock is a music genre that was created in 2009 in Brisbane, based on a musical philosophy developed by Graham Osborne and David Adolphe co-lead singers of Run! Colonist!. Tracksuit rock is a guitar based music genre of garage rock that invokes the comfort yet unfashionableness of the tracksuit pant in the music. The basic theory of Tracksuit rock is that it must be written and recorded live in the garage and uploaded straight onto the internet as you are making it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, the unnotable band was deleted as A7 but unfortunataly there did not seem to be a speedy category for this and the author appears to have disputed the prod (although this afd may end up being quicker). Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Take your pick: WP:NEO, WP:COATRACK, WP:NFT. Did you notice the article wikilinks itself a couple of times in the text? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 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: G7 per author request. --Kinu t/c 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kernophobia[edit]

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

Brand new article with no sources provided. Google search for "Kernophobia" finds nothing. Not sure if this is a made up term but its certainly not notable enough for a single article. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out at this stage that an attempt to rig the outcome by the editor who made the article has been found on a Cornish website which promotes a very limited point of view. [47] Previous attempts to influence content on Cornwall articles have been advertised on this website before.

BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Point 1-Britishwatcher, I asked other people if they had heard the word before. Look, most phobia words are odd, ask the average bloke down the pub what "anglophobia" means and he'll probably say it's to do with fishing! :) From the replies that were given it led into another debate. As simple as. Nevertheless, I can find no hard reference to the word yet and so have nominated the article for deletion- even deleted the body of the text myself.
  • Point 2- Previous attempts to influence content on Cornwall articles have been advertised on this website before.- by whom? Myself? What do you mean attempts to "influence" articles? Do you mean Cornish people or people with an interest in Cornwall, as we would expect on Cornwall 24, being asked to contribute to articles on Cornwall?- the only appeal I have ever made on another website for Wikipedia was for Cornish speakers to help with the Cornish language section- on an entirely separate forum.

Brythonek (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all of you. I have posted a agree to delete message on the page and nominate it myself for deletion if it's going to create such nastiness.

But I pose a question--- What is the word then for "fear and loathing" of Cornishness equivalent to all the other -phobia words that exist? Brythonek (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a non-neologistic word that means "fear and loathing of Cornishness" that would Wiktionary's Criteria for inclusion because people have not generally felt the need to use such a word, as using multiple words to express the concept appears to have been adequate. A great many of the -phobia words you see listed are not actually used - see Use–mention distinction. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universal paradigm[edit]

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

The term "Universal paradigm" is not defined by reliable sources in the way it is in this article; in fact, it is not defined at all by reliable sources. Interestingly, Universal truth is a redlink on Wikipedia, something I spotted in the article. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: while there are many search engine hits for "universal paradigm" none of them are about this, whatever this is. While looking for universal truth here, I was also surprised to learn that we do not have an article about mathematical necessity. This would appear to be mostly patent nonsense as well:

    Supporters argue that the Common Elements are so basic and universal that they cannot be debated or disputed. As an example, one can go to any society and find the concept of "greater than". One can lay 5 same-sized stones on the ground in one pile and 8 identical stones in another pile and 100% of the people will agree that the pile with 8 stones is larger. This is considered a Universal Truth. ...

    Binary economics states that it is the expression of a new universal paradigm or new understanding of reality that creates a new economics; a new politics; a new justice and a new morality. In its economics aspect, binary economics is a market economics whose markets work for everybody rather than just a few; and it upholds private property but private property, again, for everybody rather than just a few.

    Was there a second step missing, possibly involving underpants? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost looks like WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article doesn't say what a Universal Paradigm is, and neither do the sources. --Pgallert (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 04:10, 23 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) 08:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of quote databases[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Content herein fails WP:N and WP:RS. The only member that has ever had an article with any demonstrated notability (bash.org -- full disclosure, I own bash.org) was deleted a few years back as failing WP:N and WP:RS -- see full AFD here. No sense in having an indiscriminate list on topics that are all wholly non-notable; I don't see what criteria is being used to "discriminate" this list.

  • Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete linkfarm (short and pretty but still a linkfarm). Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This comparison article could not be classified as a linkfarm as it contains no external links and no internal links that fit the "linkfarm" definition. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, so. Blaxthos. Just because you own Bash.org and that you created an article about it a while back (but got deleted) you think this should be deleted too? This is a list of QDB's including bash.org, I don't see the problem in it. The columns do need to be modified to be better. Eckstasy (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Has nothing to do with my association with bash.org -- a reading of that article's AfD will reveal I abstained (WP:COI) but urged the community to keep the article. The community, however, didn't agree.  :) I would have also nominated this article if it was any other sort of List of my favorite websites article... Do you have any rationale for your Keep !vote? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Has nothing to do with my association with bash.org". I'd have to disagree with that. You nominated this article for deletion purely because your article for Bash.org was deleted. Eckstasy (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick glance at my nomination history will show plenty of distaste for all sorts of List of... articles, so I'd venture to say empirical evidence doesn't support your assertion.  :) A little good faith goes a long way... cheers! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It also shows plenty of nominations for articles relating to quote databases. It makes more sense that because your article was deleted; you have to nominate all others relating to quote databases. Eckstasy (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not, because I have not nominated any such article since my participation in that AfD. You've presented no argument towards inclusion beyond an ad hominem logical fallacy. I had a feeling I should have resisted the bait to begin with, and you now have my regret for having taken it. Best of luck! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/QDB.us, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IRCQuotes, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bash.org ..[...] Eckstasy (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those occurred year(s) before bash.org was deleted... cause must come before effect.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Point being, you still nominated QDB related articles. Eckstasy (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blaxthos has edited articles on a subject Blaxthos understands. No evidence of improper behaivour has been shown. Above suggestions show an extreme lack of good faith. Eckstasy should be shamed. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please, I don't need to explain myself any further; You obviously lack knowledge on the current subject and the history of Bash.org because you would know that this nomination was done in bad faith. Eckstasy (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I do lack that knowledge. Saying I'm lacking does not explain the history, does not justify your unsourced claims. If this "knowledge" and "history" exists enlighten us. (If I'm lacking that info the closing admin is likely to lack that info too. That admin is who decides. If you're making such claims they will not be taken seriously without evidence.) Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, I didn't know that such an article exists. the article has no integration to others. the project irc would look after this article, if the deletion-tag is removed! mabdul 05:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I agree with Mabdul If it's kept, it can be moved to QDB or something of the sort and then expanded (a real article with more information about what a quote database is, and then the list at the bottom ?) Eckstasy (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Featurelist: which im-protocols are allowed to submitted mabdul 09:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Either way a version of this comparison table could still be included in an article about Online quote databases. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial, falls afoul of WP:NOT in a couple cases, and a list in an encyclopedia needs to be encyclopedic- I don't see any sources for those management figures, or any of the assertions about anything else. Being a list doesn't magically exempt you from sourcing. --Mask? 11:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a list article, not a standalone topic-article. The notability guideline does not limit the content of articles. WP:N states: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." The nom clearly does not understand that list-type articles are handled differently than standalone articles.
    Moreover, as pointed out above, the nom has a clear bias/COI when it comes to competing articles due to his involvement with bash.org. Rather than add say a {{refimprove}} template so someone could deal with any potential ref issues and address any WP:RS concerns he might have, and instead of following WP:BEFORE, he decided to just prod and AfD with a laundry list of guidelines [48] in hopes that something would stick. He also prodded this article after it had already been prodded once before, which is a violation of the WP:PROD policy. The first prod was on 2009-05-12 [49] [50] and the second prod was on 2009-06-22 [51] [52]
    Contrary to the above comment, I don't see where this comparison list article "falls afoul of WP:NOT", and although the information included is very much verifiable, I do agree that some of the refs need improvement. That however is an editorial issue that should be addressed per WP:BEFORE and is not a valid reason for wholesale deletion.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes this is a list article. Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies (Wikipedia:Lists). This list is sourced entirely by the databases own sites. No independent reliable sources. This also looks to me like a Stand-alone lists. Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. (Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists None of these entrys have there own article. Remove everything with no article you are left with an empy list. No reason to keep an empty list. As it is it is simply an excuse to add external links to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it interesting that you left out the exception for WP:LSC when you quoted part of it above. "... The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert." As such, stand-alone lists do not necessarily require each entry to have it's own article, this one being no exception. As stated above, quite a number of the articles that would otherwise be linked from this list were deleted for failing the Notability guideline and a list article in this case is entirely appropriate.
        Despite your continued assertions otherwise, this article contains no external links whatsoever.
        Given the nature of the information presented in the current form of the list article, the sources provided are adequate. No "exceptional claims" are made in this list article which would require 3rd party fact checked sources. That said however, we could always add a column for each site's Alexa page rank which would resolve any lingering doubt. List of social networking websites is a perfect example of where primary sources are acceptable and where the Alexa page rank is used in this sort of list article.
        Oddly enough, bash.org would in fact now meet WP:N as a number of books have been published in the years since the AfD that cover the site adequately enough to satisfy the Notability guideline.
        To reiterate, list articles are one type of article that is exempt from WP:N. They are not required to be "notable", and each entry does not have to have its own article or be "notable".
        --Tothwolf (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The exception you mention is list of something directly related to a obviously notable subject. There is no indication quote databases are notable. There is no indication of the notability of this list. There is no independent reliable sources. There is no independent sources. For the external links, look at "References" 1, 2,3,4, etc. Direct links to the databases home pages. Wikilawyer all you want, they are still external links. (Would you prefer it if I moved all these bad self references to external links to suit your quote?) And Lists are subject to Wikipedia's policies. Oddly enough if bash.org is now notable then this list does not qualify under the exception you mentioned. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you continue to have "interesting" ways of interpreting things that are written quite clearly and your arguments continue to contain false logic. Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT is also quite apparent and it is not a valid reason for deletion. Considering how you've continued to twist and distort things so far, why would I expect any different from you now though? :)
            Having an article for bash.org would not change anything at all. I actually could cite published references for bash.org, but I don't see the point in doing so here as your argument above yet again contains more false logic.
            --Tothwolf (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to the obvious and admitted coi. The existence of this article is benificial to bash.org as it supplys a friendly EL and comes of well on the feature list. The nomination of this list from someone who from my look clearly benefits from the lists existance shows a clear interest in advancing the aims of Wikipedia over simple personal gain. The over Proding was wrong. Bad editing, but maybe a mistake (AGF). That has never been a valid reason for Keep. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please point out the External Link for bash.org then. As anyone actually looking at the article can see, it contains no external links. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's funny, because I see one here. User makes a good point about the nominators motives, as well. --Mask? 08:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe you are confusing External links and References. Wikipedia:External links#References and citation states: "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section." There are no external links in this article whatsoever, and hence it cannot be considered a "linkfarm". The article does contain references, but those are not considered external links. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, i'm not confusing anything, im refusing to wikilawyer. The point you're side-stepping was not about linkfarming, but instead about the nominator, whom is accused of some sort of malicious COI, having a link to his own site on the page he nominated for deletion. Such an external link is, in fact, in the article. This is a long thread, so i understand how you can lose the point being debated. --Mask? 12:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've not sidestepped anything nor have I lost track of this discussion. This was a bad faith nomination which has already been addressed above. User:Duffbeerforme continues to assert that the article is a linkfarm, yet it does not contain any external links, only references, which are not "external links". --Tothwolf (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • If I edit this article and move all the self referencing "references" to external links where they belong then there will be many external links. Shoul;d I do that for you? Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agreed with above poster Markusbradley (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added an Alexa page rank column with references and removed the "Management" column that User:AKMask objected to. This should resolve any lingering reliable sources issues. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources given come anywhere close to being reliable. I'll go one further and say that there exist no reliable sources for this subject, which is a clear indication that the topic lacks encyclopedic notability; everything here is original research. Additionally, list articles are only appropriate when grouping groups of articles -- not a standalone list of non-notable members that otherwise fail to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikilawyer much? Its pretty clear at this point what you are up to. Too bad bash.org keeps getting DDoS'd and bash.org.ru is getting better traffic rankings these days. I suggest you take your frustrations elsewhere. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, as I already quoted once above, WP:LSC states "The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert." Do you really want to open up a debate over this sort of thing again? Surely you've seen what has been happening in regards to this very issue over fict? --Tothwolf (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and for those interested in exactly why User:Blaxthos has been trying to get rid of all the "quote database" articles, including bash.org, see [55] [56] [57] --Tothwolf (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N plainly requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Can you demonstrate even a single independent reliable source that would help demonstrate that the "concept" is inherently notable? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no evidence that "quote databases" (in the sense used in this list, as opposed to the sense of databases of price quotations for stocks or other financial instruments) meets the requirements of WP:N through treatment in reliable sources. If the underlying topic is not notable, a list of individual instances also fails the requirements for WP inclusion. Deor (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that the concept of quote database is notable enough to merit listing them in an article; neither are the websites so listed individually notable and thus worth listing. Seems to fail the basic guidelines of WP:LIST on both of these counts. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:57, 30 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. Flowerparty☀ 23:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas tree machine[edit]

Christmas tree machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This speculative class of devices is unfortunately not backed up by reliable sources. Abductive (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open source cornucopia machine project -- http://reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome; book use -- http://books.google.com/books?id=9H3tHKUFcfsC&pg=PR15&lpg=PR15&dq=cornucopia+machine&source=bl&ots=lRM4vQ2SdX&sig=PVpPBjg9b7E81AjLIaWCmL82pks&hl=en&ei=_kRASoXXEaX0MvmUjGQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6 ; science blog use -- http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050221004054data_trunc_sys.shtml ; it can be argued that Aladdin's Lamp is a cornucopia machine, the idea is very old; this is one of the newer names. Maybe that makes it a NEO. One of these should be an article. htom (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ala Fast, Cheap and Out of Control? Or Rapid prototyping? Abductive (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The follow-on to Rapid Manufacturing, I suppose. People are not using "cornucopia" by itself, because the image that word inspires today is much more the woven basket than the magical horn, and the object spoken of is not the magical horn, but an unmagical maker. htom (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur it offends WP:NEO and WP:NOR.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that this is a widely used term and even the one link is broken. I had never seen it in the sense of something where things you want or need appear out of nowhere. I have seen that description for the type of technology one sees on a low budget TV show (for example, the original Star Trek series computers with lots of colorful lights that blink on and off). As Otter notes, a cornucopia (or horn of plenty) is the same concept, and is part of classical myth. Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the mythical horn is magic, while the Christmas Tree Machine, et all, are technology. htom (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a made up term unless Charles Stross is editing the article. htom (talk) 22:26, 29 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. Valid delete arguments are made that there is very limited real-world coverage of this; and equally-valid points to keep are made that this is not excessive information beyond a valid split of a weighty section from the main article. A merge could reasonably be suggested as a compromise; but given the amount of information provided here that would not be far off a delete. Given the lack of overall support for any of these three options; and the lack of one argument being distinctly stronger than the others; I am pretty confident that no consensus can be pulled from this discussion. I would encourage a merge discussion on the talk page; but this close should not be taken as a binding decision to that end. ~ mazca talk 20:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BattleTech technology[edit]

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

Heavily in-universe article, citing only primary sources. A lack of secondary sources makes it difficult to see how this can be written within WP:WAF guidelines or fulfill WP:V policy. One might be able to gather some citations from reviews in magazines (indeed, I have a lengthy BattleTech feature in G.M. magazine, here) - but as a subject, the fictional technology itself does not have any notability outside of the game (WP:GNG). Marasmusine (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it should be merged, why are you voting to delete? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it cannot stand alone per WP:GNG and WP:V however I have changed my vote to better reflect my sentiment. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can support a partial merge of any material that can be attributed to third-party sources in an out-of-universe perspective. The GM feature I have is from 1990 and might be useful for early BattleTech history. I'm not sure how much it focuses on the game technology but I can make it available for those interested. Marasmusine (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Legitimate spinout article to keep main article from growing too long. Edward321 (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The compromise solution to fictional elements is combination articles like this. It avoids the two extremes: multiple very small fansite-like articles on individual elements, and inadequate coverage. I have for some time now promoted the deletion and merging of the former individual articles, and, to be frank, i expected to be met in good faith with the retention of the combined ones. There is no consensus that notability outside of a game is required for elements of the game. Attempts to say so have consistently failed. For those above suggesting merge, this is the merged article and the one you should be supporting. The main result of deleting this article will be to prevent the possibility of a compromise consensus. I hope this was not the actual intention. DGG (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think previous mergers should prevent merging further any more than previous splits should prevent splitting further. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DGG has summerized this quite well. The nominator's concerns are best met through WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable part of a notable series. Dream Focus 08:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to BattleTech - I agree with the above comments that these are organization/style problems and do not warrant deletion. However, I've got two main issues with keeping:
  • I can't find any reliable, secondary sources that are unaffiliated with WizKids, who own the rights to BattleTech. WizKids bought the intellectual property from the FASA Corporation and licensed Catalyst Game Labs and FanPro to publish content, so I would consider all of them to be primary sources and insufficient to satisfy the GNG.
  • Without some real-world context, this is basically a plot summary.
If this doesn't get addressed by the time this AfD is closed, consider me on the side of the keeps and we can decide what to do on the talk page afterwards. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of third-party sources or real-world notability. In the absence of independent references, this is original research. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 30 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. Flowerparty☀ 23:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her Day[edit]

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

Non-notable film. For example, I can't find anything for either the title or the star on IMDb. Lugnuts (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 13:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the film isn't even in IMDB. WP:NFILM requires coverage in reliable sources other than comprehensive databases, and this film doesn't even seem to have that. The article does claim that the film won a "Herb Gold Award", but a Google search for "Herb Gold Award" returns only two results, this page and a Wikipedia mirror, so we can safely say that it isn't a major award, if it exists at all. The page clearly fails WP:NFILM and WP:V, and might even be a hoax, since no evidence can be found that the film or the award it supposedly won exist.--Unscented (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Total lack of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a hoax. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. "Seems" like a hoax? I can't even find "Her Day" and Georgia Matthews in the same context. This film does not exist. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT A bit difficult to determine now if hoax or not, as the article has already been deleted before this AfD had run its course. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, even though it doesn't matter now, what it all boils down to is, Google had no hits on anything titled Her Day, much less the supposed star of the film, Georgia Matthews. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thank you. With those clues I found a google-cached version of the deleted page [59]. Seeing now what was asserted and in making my own searches, I agree that a delete will be the best option... but AFTER the AfD has run its course. I am uncomfortably worried at a precedent being set by its deletion before results of an AfD had made this the decision. I'd hate such pre-emptive action to become policy-by-default. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All that really happened here is that the admin that deleted the article neglected to archive this debate. (That's been happening a lot lately, now that I think about it...) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies to one and all for deleting this article as a {{speedy}}, which in my view it clearly deserves. I have restored it by request, as there is no reason not to, but I would like to stipulate that if an obviously speediable article , tagged both for speedy and AfD, exists, an admin is well within his/her competence to delete it without waiting for AfD consensus; given that we can always be required to justify our actions. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was myself under an impression (WP:NOTCSD) that film articles were not generally speediable and are to be sent to AfD. I do agree that ultimate deletion as the result of AfD will best serve Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original prodder for the very same reason, unverifiable. While this looked very much like a hoax, I was reluctant to tag it for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. However, an argument could be made that the hoax was blatant enough to fit the criteria, and clearly, both COMPFUNK2 and Anthony felt that this was the case. As Anthony points out, the article may be speedily deleted if it is determined to meet one of the criteria, regardless of an ongoing deletion discussion. decltype (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. I will, however, leave it for the duration of the AfD to avoid appearing dogmatic or biased. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just declined a speedy on this, lets let this AfD run its course for now. Ta. GedUK  20:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I'm not mistaken that was just a tagging that was left on the article after it had been restored (The article was speedily deleted earlier during this AfD and restored on request). decltype (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain how this survived for over two months?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 22:48, 27 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☀ 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wedgie[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Scouto2 (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is the third AfD discussion and this (the 2nd discussion) is not supposed to be modified. Does someone care to fix this? Cazort (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is not a dictionary entry. Gigs (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is little more than a dictionary entry. Unless more can be made out of its frequent encounter as a form of bullying, or in some way tie it to the significance of its place in civilization, there's not much here that's worthy of keeping. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article would be better-supported as part of the "school pranks" article. There is already a section devoted to wedgies, therefore it would be a better thing to delete this article and use the information in the main "school pranks" article. Also, this article was in a poor state when I found it and cleaned it up. The article was little more than a glorified pop-culture section. Now the article is little more than a glorified dictionary entry. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a dictionary either. Note this statement on the "What Wikipedia is Not" page "Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well." --Scouto2 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Double-voting struck. Uncle G (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies. I thought that I had to actually vote in the proceedings rather than just nominate it. --Scouto2 (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NAD. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is already a bit of encyclopedic content here, in the connections to bullying. This search: [60] shows that there is frequent discussion of wedgies in the scholarly literature. Although some of the coverage is trivial, not all of it is; there's discussion/debate of whether a wedgie constitutes sexual harassment. This source: [61] says it does, other sources in the first search seem to dispute that. Here's a thesis that even gives a definition of the term wedgie, after and before using it in a few places: [62] (annoyingly, not searchable by text, it's a scanned image). Also, the existing source on "wedgie-proof" underwear is a perfectly legit article. Funny? Of course. Encyclopedic? I think so--it's verifiable, written about the topic directly, and it's far more than just a definition. Perhaps editors who object to the inclusion of such humour on wikipedia need to be given a wedgie. Cazort (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Used in everyday speech, in media. Part of american culture. Keep in my humble opinion. Turqoise127 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is beyond being a mere dictionary entry (talks about variants, reasons for performing, prevalence in pop culture, etc.).Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this meets WP:N. Now stop it! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While this article has notability, it does not need an entire article. All of the information about it is in the "School Pranks" article. Also, all of the variations of the wedgie in the article are entirely subjective: "Another type of wedgie is the yeasty, which is a wedgie done to a girl that causes a yeast infection." This article does not make Wikipedia look good at all, and serves even more to discredit Wikipedia. This article has, mind you, been nominated twice previously. Also, this article should at the very least be semi-protected to prevent people adding the own variants that they just came up with, such as the "Ranch Slide-a wedgie where the victim is givin a wedgie until he orgasms", and the Popular Culture section was ten times longer than this article, consisting of mainly "X gives Y a wedgie in Z show.--Scouto2 (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, School Pranks contains more information than the main Wedgies article itself. Therefore, it may be a better course of action to merge this and the section in School Pranks. Can I have some input on that?--Scouto2 (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see serious problems with the School pranks page--it is highly arbitrary, and relies heavily on one source. The names of the pranks are rather arbitrary, many go by multiple names and it's problematic to include them with a single name in a list like that. A wedgie stands out among these pranks as something that is notable in its own right, and has an agreed upon name--most of the other pranks in the list are not as notable. I would not support a merge into a page with as many problems as the school pranks page. Cazort (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article School Pranks seems to no longer exist, so why should one prank get special attention? Ronark (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Why does a wedgie deserve an entire article? The article is just a magnet for bogus vandalism and variants. Here are a couple excerpts from the page: "I have wedgie" "A 'yeastie' is a wedgie that gives a girl a yeast infection." If it is notable that there are wedgie-proof underwear, then they deserve their own article. A Wiktionary page is more suitable for the subject. If the School Pranks article was deleted, then why not delete this? This article is poorly written. Also, if an article has already been nominated for deletion three times before, then there must be a serious problem. --Scouto2 (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attracting vandalism is grounds for page semiprotection--and should not factor in in any way in deletion discussions. Otherwise, we would be deleting a lot of featured articles. I don't think vandalism should even "tip the scales" in a marginal case, because that's giving the vandals too much power. Cazort (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article meets WP:N. Just because it may attract vandelism is no rational for deleting it. If that were the case, George W. Bush would have been deleted long ago. The article is a lot better than it was since an industrious editor has clean much of the garbage out. In any case, the Wedgie is a significant part of pop culture, there's a lot of literature about it as well. Certainly the article could use some expansion and sourcing, but that doesn't justify deleting it, especially since it meets grounds for inclusion.--Lendorien (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You see this throughout popular culture, although I don't know of anyone ever doing it in real life. Dream Focus 09:03, 29 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 00:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Empire Martial Arts Association[edit]

The Empire Martial Arts Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not too familiar with martial arts, but this organisation seems non-notable to me. Article is newly created, so don't bite. Abductive (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per nom.; no meaningful rationale given for deletion, and barely week-old created article. JJL (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Memebership by notable people or association with notable orgs don't confer notability. No assertion of notability for the association itself. Fails WP:ORG and WP:MANOTE.
  • Speedy keep don't bite. The web references are primary but there are notable people involved: the article has a chance to develop if given time. Review in 6 months. Give the new author and the new article a chance. jmcw (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's spam. Abductive (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Spam can be tasty if well prepared<g>. jmcw (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 6 months? There is either notability or not. There is either coverage or not. I'd submit to you that if it takes 6 months to find sources, that is a strong indicator of lack of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed: it is notability or not. There is coverage or not. But there is a queueing problem: it takes a few moments to propose deleting an article but several hours/days to determine the worth of an article. I did tag the article about sources and notability: that took just a few moments. jmcw (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dime-a-dozen organisation, without independent attestations of notability. possibly speedy per WP:CSD#A7 Ohconfucius (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertions of notability, no independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited so just because notable people are involved, doesn't make this automatically notable itself. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comment regarding lack of assertion of notability for association itself.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 04:03, 23 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 Ivan Vorpatril. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alys Vorpatril[edit]

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

This fictional character from Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan Saga is not notable, as far as I can determine. Abductive (talk) 11:45, 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 close. This AfD should not be here at all and seems to be a magnet for socks/meatpuppets. I don't like to throw AGF out the window but I have to apply WP:DUCK in this instance. If the article has problems, then by all means repair them - but no valid rationale for deletion is being presented whatsoever and this appears to be more of a convoluted move request. Shereth 14:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quayside[edit]

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

Article does not represent the global meaning and is very confusing. The term Quayside appears to be adopted by those on Tyneside. //Melonite (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (1) I am concerned about sock-puppetry. Most of the people arguing to delete seem to be merely repeating or paraphrasing the nominator's original assertion. I would encourage people to read all comments rather than just counting numbers of deletes or keeps. Other than these fake "votes" it seems there are no people arguing to delete. (2) The people arguing to delete have not given any sources (or discussed the lack thereof) to back up their view. (3) I am finding numerous sources: [64]. Yes, the word "quayside" also has other meanings...but it appears this region is highly notable and is often referred to as "quayside". The proper way to solve this is by a disambiguation message, not a deletion discussion. Cazort (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: No one is sock puppeting. And I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. //Melonite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melonite (talk • contribs) 13:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turn it into a generic stub? Arriva436talk/contribs 14:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was tried, but without references, it is hard to make it look like anything other than a dictionary definition, which we don't create articles for. Anyway, none of this debate even resembles a valid reason for deletion, so I've requested a speedy closure at wp:ANI before it gets silly. MickMacNee (talk) 14:55, 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 merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: T. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trioccula[edit]

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

Non-notable female mutant from the Marvel Comics. Abductive (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to appropriate target. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its just like the other hundred or so Marvel Comics Stubs. For a Stub, it is fine. Remember, stubs have different requirements to exist than articles do. Dream Focus 19:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not like the hundred or so other Marvel Comic stubs; just now I looked for sources on a few of them, and found them. The Random article button brought me to a topic that has no reliable sources. She has only 41 Google hits, including Wikipedia; Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Therefore I nominated the article for deletion. Abductive (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete I'm making a list of articles to merge together to create a "List of minor Marvel Comics characters" and this pretty much meets the criteria for it. I haven't yet made the article but could either start with this as a nucleous or grab the data once it is deleted. I can't see any hope for major expansion or demonstarting notability but if someone comes along with it we could always look at restartingthis (or splitting it off the list). (Emperor (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • Wouldn't this hypothetical list of all minor Marvel Comics characters be indiscriminate, especially if composed of the characters that had so few sources that somebody nominated them for deletion, rather than some underlying construct of Marvel? Abductive (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such articles are a prefered solution to this problem, e.g. WP:Fiction#List articles says "Elements that are important to understanding a work of fiction, but that lack significant real-world information may .. be dealt with very briefly in the form of a list article of, for instance, minor characters". I don't see any part of the Indiscrminate section that applies to this. I have discussed this with a number of members of the Comics Project and it seems an acceptable way of dealing with things like characters (or fictional objects or groups) that currently don't appear to be able to satisfy notability. (Emperor (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
        • What I mean is, that would be like a list of all minor characters in all CBS TV shows. Abductive (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really, as the majority of them share the same fictional universe, it would be simlar to, say, listing the characters in the Law and Order franchise, except they largely break down to their own shows with discrete crossovers whereas there is a lot more crossover in the Marvel Universe. So no, not indiscriminate. (Emperor (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep, or merge per Emperor. BOZ (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the merge target? This character is so obscure that nobody can say where. Abductive (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For now, it could redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: T. BOZ (talk) 11:38, 26 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. لennavecia 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Green[edit]

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

May not meet notability standards. Referenced articles are either written by the subject (i.e. promotional links) or only tangentially reference the subject. As the references are not about the subject of this article, it should be merged and/or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonka09 (talk • contribs) 2009/06/16 14:59:40

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2nd nomination? Please link to the 1st one as this is clearly an invalid afd as is as implies that their has been a 1stnomination. Is this deliberate. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as satisfies notability requirements. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how this article satisfies the notability requirements; the referencing is minimal, is she primarily notable for throwing pies at two famous people? Presumably more than that should be required. Not linking to a prior nomination doesn't render this AfD invalid, by the way. Nathan T 16:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not feel qualified to determine whether or not Green is notable enough to have an article, but I would just like to point out her entry on Marijuana Policy Project's website to provide detail about her background. If all of the information present was included in the article, such as the fact that she has co-authored a book, contributes weekly to U.S. News & World Report, and has been published by The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Maxim, would this make the subject notable? If the information presented makes the subject notable, I'd be happy to help improve the article. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the information provided in the article, she is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If Another Believer, or anyone else, were to add the sources and material mentioned above to the article then she might meet the guidelines at WP:AUTHOR. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning towards Delete I do not find other people's arguments to delete valid or compelling--the article being unsourced is not grounds for deletion--rather one must argue that the article cannot be cleaned up and reliable sources cannot be found to establish notability. This must be demonstrated, not merely asserted. I am finding more sources than are currently on the article. A quick search: [65]. However, I don't think that articles she has authored are sufficient to establish notability; the majority of those hits are ones she has authored. There is other coverage in there, her giving a proctor-and-gamble executive a pie-in-the-face at a protest. But in my opinion not enough to establish notability. The MPP link that Another Believer gave is not independent. The book she authored: [66] does not seem to even be easily available, and I can't even find basic publishing info, let alone any reviews in reliable independent sources. To other editors: please, if you want to argue to delete, do more work instead of just throwing in your two cents. If you did your homework before commenting, please share your insights in such a way that clearly demonstrates your points instead of just asserting your perspective. Cazort (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; rereading my comment it makes it seem like my opinion was based entirely and solely on the content in the article. She has written quite a few articles for reputable sources, but these consist primarily of workplace advice and that sort of thing. The volume of coverage about her specifically is still minimal, much relating to her pie-in-the-face antics, and I don't think that has qualified her for notability at this time. Nathan T 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not seem to satisfy our threshold of notability. The article's subject apparently relies on trivial mentions in journals. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, I offer my thought here as pertains to my view of "wikipedia is in part here to tell the generation of year 2300 about us". Now, this article subject is not rocket science. However, it would be important (at least I think, one may disagree) to show the lengths people of today went to in order to do activism for animals. Do we have this covered elswhere? If so, maybe merge? Turqoise127 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably at PETA and similar articles, sure. I don't think there is enough here to merge into a more general article like that, however. Nathan T 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability. The few refs given are mainly self-published (i.e., PETA links), and tossing a couple of pies and writing a few op-eds are not enough to meet the threshold.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the point of the article is to describe animal rights activism, the content should be merged under that topic. This appears to be a vanity article about a person who has been involved in notable organizations without crossing the line to notable person. Having been published in notable publications does not warrant an entry. Being a general staffer at notable organizations also does not warrant an entry. Research on this person shows nothing of lasting historical significance that is not or cannot be covered by articles on the organizations or movements referenced. I believe it fails to meet notability standards. Wonka09 (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comments advocating keeping the article are simple declarations that it meets notability standards without any explanation. As far as I can tell, the grounds for keeping this article would allow anyone with published op ed pieces and a newspaper article that mentions them on their high school athletic team to meet notability standards. I could be wrong, but I just don't see how this article is anything but a vanity piece. Wonka09 (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is close, but I would say keep. rmosler (talk) 06:15, 25 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 00:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Martial Association[edit]

Amateur Martial Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Association fails WP:ORG and WP:MANOTE. Article has been tagged for notability, sources, reading like an ad and use of wp:sps for nearly a year. Vague wording of the name makes it difficult to narrow the google searches down reliably. The article makes no assertion of notability and is essentially just a list of martial arts that memebers have studied. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a ad for the company and there has been little improvement in the past two years. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep largest in Britain is a clear claim of notability, and sponsors tournaments and teams drawn from large regions, certifies referees, names champions, etc.; 64K hits via gsearch that indicate that a great many dojos from a wide variety of arts and regions in the U.K. affiliate with it and consider it important (e.g. "NWCJ is affiliated to the Amateur Martial Association and all our policies regarding insurance, child protection etc are guided by those of the AMA.", [67]; "has been honoured by the Amateur Martial Association (AMA), one of the principal governing bodies for amateur martial arts in this country.", [68]); lots of mentions in WP:RS: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], plus a couple of books of abbrieviations [74]. This is a major, significant org. JJL (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, large doesn't mean notable, just as small doesn't mean not-notable. Mere mentions in the media don't confer notability to me either. One of your sources, for example only mentioned the orgs website as a possible source of things to do. An article about a child athlete and mentioning that he belongs to the Assoc. isn't significant coverage of the org, it's a passing mention. I appreciate the effort, but I'm sticking with my nom for now. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just because an organization is the "largest" of its kind doesn't make it notable.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They appear to run national squads[75] and host international open events [76]. There is press coverage from around the UK of people winning at AMA events.[77] and have 95,000 members. All this is pointing to a significant organisation in the UK martial arts scene.--Salix (talk): 20:11, 24 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 keep, AFD started by banned user, someone else can restart one if they want. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Gloag[edit]

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

Questionable notability, questionable sources. We learn that she was a member of a Moroccan harem. Not much else. [78] [79] Wutwatwot (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep sources availalbe on Google Books such as this one [80] ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that it looks like an extravagant claim for one sentence, but a quick search on Google suggests this is accurate. A properly referenced article would be better, but it's nothing that editing can't fix. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of evidence of notability, lack of sources, and lack of content. The article is one (unsourced) sentence; If what it asserts is true, then notability would arguably be met, but there would still be source and content problems. Just too many problems here.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Chris Neville-Smith and ChildofMidnight. There seems to be enough print sources to verify this information. The article could be expanded into a decent stub. freshacconci talktalk 12:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as article is now properly expanded and sourced per WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:28, 23 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 (CSD A7) by Flowerparty. NAC. Cliff smith talk 18:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our Last Day To Live[edit]

Our Last Day To Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recently formed band with no published work/web site/etc. I'm sure they're very good and such, but can find nothing to suggest they are unique enough to be encyclopaedic. TB (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:02, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Slam[edit]

Serena Slam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete- How this page has lasted for so long I will never know. It is a sheer fan page that is not notable in the slightest. Much to the fact that other tennis players have surpassed this achievement, the term "Serena Slam" is hardly ever used in the tennis world as anyone who follows tennis will know. Good riddance to a pointless article. OgiBear (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:02, 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 delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syed gilani[edit]

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

CEO with no apparent notability, and written more like a fluff piece than a biography. — Coren (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:02, 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 Delete and salt. Flowerparty☀ 23:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Prince Yung D[edit]

The Prince Yung D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yung D discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(delete) – (View AfD)

Absolutely fails WP:MUSIC per searches of allmusic.com, billboard.com, google.com: No coverage in secondary sources or any charted singles/albums. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yung D discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:29, 23 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 Graustark#History of Graustark. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Ganlook of Graustark[edit]

Prince Ganlook of Graustark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fictional character has 19 Google hits. Article makes no attempt to provide context for the character. Abductive (talk) 11:02, 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 merge to Minor Wheel of Time characters. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattin Stepaneos den Balgar[edit]

Mattin Stepaneos den Balgar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictional character in Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time fantasy book series. Non-notable, as there are no reliable sources available for this fictional character. Article gives an unencyclopedic treatment. Abductive (talk) 10:51, 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. Flowerparty☀ 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaldar Bahadur[edit]

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

Fictional Indian policeman, non-notable comic book character. Abductive (talk) 10:42, 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 Deleted by User:JPG-GR as copyright infringement. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bioline allergy[edit]

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

Contested prod. Mostly advertising, with no assertion of notability. References amount to self-pub and non-RS, excluding the majority which are wikipedia urls. Format and writing style also suggests possible copyvio. Verbal chat 10:41, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aprilicus (satellite)[edit]

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

The Article is a fake and complete nonsense: None of the sources given support the claims of the article. The Text itself is a rip-off of the Canyon (satellite) article. The Redsone 3C rocket metinied does not exist. GDK (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, according to the Australian Air Force the last satellite launch from the Woomera facility occurred in 1971. Deor (talk) 14:51, 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. No specific reliable sources have been identified to demonstrate independent notability; and the article is sufficiently low on actual content that there is nothing worth merging. ~ mazca talk 22:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radiate (label)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet wp:notability guidelines Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:52, 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, Stifle (talk) 10:00, 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gauthier[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable author, at least one of whose works is self-published. None of the Frank Gauthiers who come up in a Google News search appears to be this person. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:39, 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. Cirt (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Star Line[edit]

Dark Star Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable band whose article has had both a speedy tag and a prod removed by an IP. They get no GNews hits and almost nothing in a general Google search. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:34, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7th Floor Crew[edit]

AfDs for this article:
7th Floor Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability/NOT#News: This was a minor story in sports for a couple of days in 2005 and that was it. The subject is treated in the Miami Hurricanes football article, and that is sufficient. This article is really nothing more than the product of Wikipedia:Recentism. In light of its relative lack of notoriety (as well as the fact that "7th Floor Crew" is neither a formal rap group nor a commercial recording -- or even one made for public consumption), an independent article is unjustified.PassionoftheDamon (talk) 09:21, 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard Aerospace[edit]

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

Advertising for non-notable one-man company created by owner with COI AKAF (talk) 08:54, 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manjula (actress)[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Fails WP:N and WP:BLP. I also cannot find any reliable sources that backs up the "Played in 100 films" claim. The article does not state her full name, so that might be a reason. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 08:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has combined information about two Manjulas, viz. Manjula Vijayakumar and Manjula Ghattamaneni. Switching to neutral. Salih (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, that was my mistake, I mistakenly told Pablo that as I looked at one of the production credits and assumed incorrectly, I'll fix this! -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the updates by Pablomismo and Spaceman7Spiff. Salih (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes notability. Priyanath talk 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, if she's so notable, how come that none of the films she has acted in appear on IMDB? See here. Tris2000 (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one of the reasons IMDB isn't considered RS. Many foreign language movies aren't included purely because no one submits them, and this is especially true for pre-internet era movies. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent rescue work by User:Pablomismo; I see no more reason to delete. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 10:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not out of the woods yet; I suspect that the original article may have combined information about two Manjulas (it is a common South Indian name), and I may have then compounded that error. Please see the talk page, where any input will be most welcome.  pablohablo. 14:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have removed the information about Manjula Ghattamaneni. Article still needs some (hard-to-find!) references, and a filmography section would be good! Ultimately this article will need to be moved to Manjula Vijayakumar. pablohablo. 21:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article as it stands is a viable stub. Finding more online references is a tricky proposition mainly due to the fact that the zenith of her career was pre-internet . Added to that there is no reliable, comprehensive filmography that I can find."Everybody" (in India) knows how famous she is, but "nobody" has got around to documenting it; however this stub can be built upon.  pablohablo. 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to mention that there were four other Manjulas, also actresses, three of whom had IMDB profiles but harldy any news coverage, and one other who was apparently quite famous, but no IMDB profile like this Manjula. I didn't even know that this was such a common actress name. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:47, 25 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) Erik9 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Bolle Barometer[edit]

Bert Bolle Barometer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject may be notable enough, but article content is not independent(ly verifiable), created by a one-issue contributor. Also created on :nl.

The four sources curiously date from before 1985 (the year this machine has been built), and two of those are not independent. I suspect the author and the creator of the barometer to be one and the same. — Zanaq (?) 08:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • seeing the consensus below, I have no objections to an early closure of this debate. — Zanaq (?) 07:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I think that it is notable enough for my standards, if it exists. We have articles on similar "world's largest" topics. As noted, the article needs a lot of work and some sections should be deleted entirely, in my opinion. It does have the feel of being written by the person who built it, but it seems odd that he would not know the year he was born in (there is an asterisk after the year). -- Kjkolb (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — florrie  14:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely exists and is notable for it's size. A quick search found a few independent refs...[81], [82], [83]. Needs some work with inline citations.  florrie  12:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. DutchDevil (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's plenty of sources that back up the main claim to notability. Gigs (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The objection is not that the subject is non-notable, the objection is that not every claim is independently verifyable, and that it contains "facts" like Letting the water barometer operate for so many hours each day without failure is not an easy task. — Zanaq (?) 14:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not a valid reason to delete the article. Go delete the claims you think are unverifiable. The burden is on the person adding contentious information to find sources for it. Gigs (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is unclear about "Subject may be notable enough"? I didn't start this debate because I think it's non-notable, but because the contents of the article are non-neutral, promotional and unverifiable, and has been pushed cross-wiki. — Zanaq (?) 16:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then why not discuss your concerns with the originator or on the article talk page rather than on AfD?  florrie  23:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't want to facilitate promotion. Anyway, I'm not active on :en, and only came here because I found the article on :nl. good luck! — Zanaq (?) 06:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While there are indeed some strange claims in the article, this is no reason to delete the whole thing. Take the contested sentences out, or document them (BTW, the challenge operating this barometer is described here). --Pgallert (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Deal with contentious and unsourced claims within article, but no persuasive reason to delete the whole thing.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable enough - I'd place in in the middle of the Big Things in terms of coverage. The article does have problems, but nothing that a good copyedit and source check won't fix. - Bilby (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I can see no reason to delete the article. The Barometer does exist and stated facts can be checked and if found questionable, then those sections can be edited or removed. But this is no reason to delete the entire article. I have seen the Barometer and cannot understand the objection to a statement like letting the water barometer operate for so many hours each day without failure is not an easy task. This is a quite unobjectionable statement for a device of such considerable size and complexity.Os1951 (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per the comments above. Dan arndt (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made improvements to this article, especially by adding sources. If you can read Dutch, I welcome you to the Dutch version of this article. I inserted 20 more sources there (in Dutch) about the barometer in the Netherlands. Platoplatypus (talk) 08:35, 28 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. chaser (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Verna[edit]

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

Contested prod, claiming sources but the article was not updated. This article can't be saved and has so many problems with it, it's close to a speedy except that I don't think there's a category for this as it isn't gibberish. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N badly. !! Justa Punk !! 08:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I did find one source that indicates that the article is legit. [84] --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One match against Lou Thesz doesn't prove notability. And how reliable is the site linked? Much information from 1960s would be hard to verify to be brutally honest. !! Justa Punk !! 03:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is your suggestion? Should everything pre-1970 be deleted? Or should we apply common sense and acknowledge that there won't be as many sources for older wrestlers as there are for current wrestlers, but that they are notable nonetheless? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Show what titles he won for a start. That can be sourced if he did and the title was notable. If he didn't win any titles, back in those days that's automatically non notable such was the state of the business then. !! Justa Punk !! 02:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that no titles indicates no notability. For example, Steve Lombardi has never won a title in the WWF, but I certainly wouldn't call his tenure there non notable. In any event, Bill Verna won two internationally recognized titles, and the article contains this information along with sources. Can I assume, then, that you are willing to request that this discussion be closed now as a "keep", or do you intend to continue moving the goalposts on a daily basis? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never moved the goal posts. Lombardi is notable because he was involved in Wrestlemania 5 as the Brooklyn Brawler, and he played several roles over a long period of time. I'd call Kimchee notable by itself. The editor below has destroyed your assertion that the two titles this guy won were "internationally recognized", so as they aren't notable - neither is he. My opinion has not changed. !! Justa Punk !! 03:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Articles has been expanded and sourced since this nomination. A long career, spanning many countries and at least 20 years, that included title victories and wrestling main event matches, and has been discussed in several newspapers in addition to websites, that has been noted by a well-known wrestler as influential in shaping British wrestling, is easily notable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It needs more than sources. It needs proof of notability and lots of. I'm finding myself agreeing with the nom. It can't be saved. Rick Doodle (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I sense that the subject might well be notable but the references are poorly chosen and do little to highlight his importance and I could find very little myself on him--AssegaiAli (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, he wrestled main event matches in a couple of different countries. I would like some background on the titles he won, though. How important were they at the time? Nikki♥311 16:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know where GaryColemanFan gets the idea that the two titles noted are in any way internationally recognised. I found nothing in Google that was relevent for the All European Championship. For the British/Commonwealth title, all bar two title holders don't have articles here, and one of them that does is a stub (Douglas Clark (rugby league) and he is more known for rugby than wrestling). It is also stated in the Professional wrestling in the United Kingdom article here that; the addition of European, Empire/Commonwealth, Scottish, Welsh, and area championships got out of hand, and at one point there were conceivably 70 different titleholders to keep track of within Joint Promotions alone. I bolded the relevant part myself. The reference by Adrian Street list this person as one of literally dozens of people. So this fails WP:N in my opinion. TaintedZebra (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting the commentary Zebra drew is unverified? If you are then maybe you should go over and challenge it. !! Justa Punk !! 03:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of multiple non-trivial citations from reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JBsupreme. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 30 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) Erik9 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cortez Jordan[edit]

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

No apparent indication of notability in the article. Common name, but name with umpires only brings up articles from 3 years ago, with no indications of notability in them. No other apparent hits. Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notability is clearly established in the opening sentence: "Test cricket umpire who stood in 22 Test matches". He is mentioned in plenty of reliable sources. Passes the notability criteria set out here. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article asserts notability. The article asserts that he died in 1982, any reason why you would expect him to be currently in the news? AKAF (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator makes four claims, all of which are utterly mistaken. Other than that, spot on. Nick mallory (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established within first eight words of article. A reference is provided to confirm it. The article needs expanding, yes, but it's certainly not delete worthy. Andrew nixon (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I do not think it's clear that being a test cricket umpire is sufficiently notable by itself, and these articles are not immune from the requirement of WP:RS that indicate notability. The references given don't indicate notability, (and they are all the same reference too). In addition, those were added after my nom. At this point the article needs to not only assert notability, but be notable. The assumption repeated here, that hasn't been well explained, is that all test cricket umpires are notable. I think that's a misunderstanding of WP:N. Take a look at List of NBA referees for a point of comparison. The articles that do exist have claims to notability in addition to their status alone.
That said, I've done additional research and found some WP:RS that do mention him outside of merely his position. I'll add those into the article. Shadowjams (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to argue on this one, the NBA is domestic, with Canada thrown in for fun. Test cricket is international. There lies the big difference. I'm not going to argue that the NBA is not-notable, far from it, but the comparison is invalid, the comparison would be valid when you compare the NBA to the England and Wales county circuit. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically the NBA is international (Canadian teams). I wonder how viewership rankings compare; or what about endorsement money. Sports popularity can be measured in any number of ways. Shadowjams (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And cricket would come out higher than basketball on pretty much all of them. Nick mallory (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons given about. Test cricket is the highest level of the game, and those umpiring Tests are surely notable. JH (talk page) 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an international Test umpire. SGGH ping! 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Test cricket umpire is surely notable. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jevansen above. Johnlp (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets the general notability guideline "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with earlier post that status as test cricket umpire is insufficient to establish notability alone. There needs to be something else, and I don't see it.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in my view, the umpires in the highest level of an international sporting contest are just as notable as the players. Coretez Jordan is in the top 50 or so Test umpires by number of appearances (see List of Test umpires). There are plenty of reliable sources, there is a clear criterion of notabilty, and Wikipedia is not paper. What is the problem? -- Testing times (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets notability guidelines per WP:CRIN. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As explained by User:Jevansen above, the criteria in here is absolutely clear about the notability of first-class (let alone Test) umpires. There is no doubt at all that Mr Jordan was a notable cricketing figure. The nominator needs to understand that cricket is a major global sport, not merely a major sport in one country like basketball. --Jack | talk page 17:55, 27 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☀ 23:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JackBe[edit]

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

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non notable company Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dalete Non-notable Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. [89] [90] [91] Several claims it is a, or the, leading company in this area, and if you look at the page history you'll find out that there was a section called "Competitors", some of which are notable in en-WP. So if the followers are notable, surely the leader is. There is a lot more coverage on it, I gave up after 40 of 16600 GHits. Mostly blogs and own PR, but there are a few independent links in between, like the one from Oracle. Putting the article here after its context (i.e., the competition) has been deleted seems not right to me.
    Additional Comment: Can one of the admins please look at the edit war about this article? Surely it is not proper to repeatedly delete the section "Competitors" (several IPs are involved). --Pgallert (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - did anyone even bother to try and find sources? There are a whopping 389 GNews hits for this company: [92]. A good portion are press releases, but there are still dozens and dozens of good sources.. In depth coverage by Washington Post, Forbes, & Infoworld, & Computer World (among many others) indicates notability.
The company is a pioneer in mashup/AJAX, has some very significant clients (like the U.S. Department of Defense), and has won awards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:33, 24 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 Railway electrification in Great Britain. Flowerparty☀ 00:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Railway electrification in Great Britain - conductor rail systems[edit]

Railway electrification in Great Britain - conductor rail systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An unlikely search term and a fork of Railway electrification in Great Britain. Was proded, but prod removed with the edit summary (- prod as merge discussion is active) [93], but the merger discussion Talk:Railway_electrification_in_Great_Britain#Merger proposal - conductor rail systems looks inactive to me Edgepedia (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot step three and listing it here. So I've done it now. Edgepedia (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • So go and make it active. Deletion forms no part of the merger process. AFD is not a big stick. Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the apparent consensus of the merger discussion. When the merge is complete redirect this title for attribution purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Uncle G, though I'd add that many people try to use AfD as a big stick.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per merger discussion on talk page. Then delete the resultant redirect. Merger discussions are not trawled for by many of us unlike CFD and AFD, so that they may go on for a very long time and have few contributions. This case is typical. The article is covering the same ground as Railway electrification in Great Britain, and we do not need duplicates: thye are liable to develop so as to contradoct each other! However, AFD is not the appropriate way to bring a merger discussion to a head. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone please tell me what is in this article that is left to merge? Edgepedia (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to the my last comment (made last night after I returned home from a business trip). I looked at merging this into the Railway electrification in Great Britain, but there is really nothing to merge. WP:merge and delete is not appropriate, because there has been no cut and paste move of text from one article to the other. I looked and found that Volk's Electric Railway was not in the Great Britain article, but the text I added [94] is not a copy of the text in this article. Therefore with no information to merge, my rationale for deletion is WP:fork and unlikely search term. Edgepedia (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Food Crops Society[edit]

Caribbean Food Crops Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG. lacks sigificant coverage [95] LibStar (talk) 07:07, 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. Flowerparty☀ 23:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Grabman[edit]

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

Another editor thinks this article contains an assertion of notability. I cannot see it. In any case it is a blatant autobio. Sgroupace (talk) 06:44, 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 merge to Shanghai Art Museum. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen's 5[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kathleen's 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Local sources exist, but no apparent widespread notability to meet WP:Notability. Zagat ratings are international, but do not indicate notability Shadowjams (talk) 06:17, 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 A7, Non-Admin Closure. A new name 2008 (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure and Safety Systems[edit]

Pressure and Safety Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertising created by a user with a COI username. My db tag was removed by an anon with no other edits. An attempt by another editor to change this into a generic article about pressure and safety systems, rather than about this particular company, was reverted. Therefore, let's decide this here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete neither the "Pressure and Safety Systems" business unit nor the Reeve Holding parent company appear to have third party sourcing indicating notability per google news check. A generic article about pressure systems sounds like it has potential for an encyclopedia article, but it does not appear that such an article is likely to be generated from this base. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7 or G11, take your pick. Block user or at least force namechange. Hairhorn (talk) 06:13, 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 from mainspace and userfy for User:MichaelQSchmidt. Cool3 (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Field[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable film which has yet to be released. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. When it's released, and if it shows itself to be noteworthy, a new article can be made. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As said, if and when it's released, it might be notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unreleased film (for now), and no assertations of notability. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete without prejudice and userfy to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Black Field. I have just given the article a needed cleanup and sourcing. It is currently in post-production and just barely tickles the WP:GNG. I'd like to be able to bring this back in a few months when it gets released and is reviewed. As the feature debut of an award-wining director, it is getting early attention. More will doubtless be forthcoming. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:05, 24 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. Flowerparty☀ 23:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBMMRPG[edit]

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

Neologism that is only used by a few small gaming communities. Couldn't find any, good, reliable sources to back this up. blurredpeace ☮ 03:51, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austral-Asian Christian Church[edit]

Austral-Asian Christian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG. very little third party coverage [98]. google search mainly reveals directory sites. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard University-related topics[edit]

Harvard University-related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This entirely duplicates Harvard University. Possibly merge to that. Mblumber (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP: currently has over 30,000 articles with the term "Harvard University" of various levels of relatedness. Yes, it currently seems similar as I only created it an hour ago, it needs more work. I just need a break but it will be continued further. CaribDigita (talk) 03:27, 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 No consensus. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students[edit]

Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG, very little third party coverage [99]. article is based on primary sources and sounds like group cruft. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for mentioning these sources. Apparently I have not made enough edits on Wikipedia, despite wanting to help. Please accept my apologies. Bookscale (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
equivalent groups from other countries is not a valid argument as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As the Austrialian affiliate of IFES it is certainly notable. As an umbrella organisation, it may not have a high profile, but its constituent Christian Unions no dount will, at least within their universities. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable due to lack of significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:CLUB as well as WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of independent coverage. Looking at the IFES, only two or three similar organisations have articles, and most of them suffer from the same problems. Orderinchaos 16:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not allowed to include books? Bookscale (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - there are clear issues with the article but the topic seems notable enough. Bookscale, if you have sourced info from books please add it. Springnuts (talk) 07:13, 28 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. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chet Childress[edit]

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

Four different users have prodded this article, each time removed without improvement. It has had a notability tag since its creation in February by a user whose only edits were about this person. He is professional, but the article does not assert its extent and notability to pass WP:ATHLETE. Reywas92Talk 02:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One sentence is not an article.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that this article was three sentences when you read it, what made you think that rationale had any application? We call such short articles stubs, by the way, and if sources exist from which they can be grown, deletion policy is to keep stubs. Uncle G (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of online sources prove the notability of this skateboarder. Childress appears to be a well-known person in the skateboard world and Wikipedia entry may be useful for the readers. I've added relevant links, check it, please. Amadscientist, we shouldn't judge the size of the articles at AfD, but the notability of the subject. --Vejvančický (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete INsufficient notability to meet guidelines. Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cannot find anything to support article expansion and this is probably why the article has languished for the last 6 months--AssegaiAli (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 23 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} 14:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessi werner[edit]

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

The article's assertion of the subject making history at Lincoln Center is not verified via Google or Google News searches. The choir which the subject conducts is not a major musical entity. The article has problems with WP:RS and WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:53, 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) 11:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dashboard Prophets[edit]

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

I can't find any sources proving them notable. Article was deleted a few times in 2008. Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:49, 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 no consensus. The main achievement this discussion has produced is to demonstrate that this person's pretty borderline as far as notability goes. While the overall consensus here probably leans vaguely towards deletion; said consensus would be very weak and the article has been substantially improved fairly late in the discussion. I don't think it's correct to make a judgment either way at this point, and the discussion is rather too weighty to reasonably relist. I would suggest a renomination of this article in a month or two if concerns persist after the recent sourcing by Pohick2 (talk · contribs). ~ mazca talk 20:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hupp[edit]

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

An alleged heroine of a 1782 attack by Shawnee Indians against a white settlement in Pennsylvania -- a great story, except there is no independent verification of her actions outside of an account written by her great-grandson. The sources linked to the article -- a genealogy web site, a municipal assessment plan that mentions Anne Hupp once in a larger list of names, and a photo of a marker -- do not meet WP:RS standards. A search through Google Books and Google Scholar turn up nothing to verify this story. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No references. Nearly no prose. However....refine your search terms references do exist; Advanced Book Search Showing: Books 1 - 10 of 410 on Anne Rowe Hupp. (0.12 seconds) --Amadscientist (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

entry would need to meet NPOV as well as notability. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- This is not unreferenced as there is an external link which is an adequate reference. Material on Rootsweb is not necessarily WP:RS, but this is a credible account. I am not clear if it is taken from a letter or from a published local history, but in either case, it is a reliable source, despite being based on oral tradition. It is not likely that 3rd party sources are available, but that does not make it WP:OR. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that the subject of the article is notable. However, the defence of Miller's Blockhouse is a potential subject for an article, either as a freestanding article, or in one on the place where it was. Convert to article on Miller's Blockhouse. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability and unverifiable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of sources and content.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ann Hupp was considered a "notable woman of Pennsylvania" as determined by a commission of that state [101]. There are numerous independent and reliable sources, as shown by a Google Book search[102], which attest to her heroic defense of a blockhouse [103] during a prolonged attack by Indians after the able of the male defenders were killed. The notability is attested as well by a historical marker. Satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I am not wearing out my welcome, but there are a few problems here. The link to the "notable woman of Pennsylvania" is just a snippet that shows Ann Hupp's name -- the chapter itself is not available for review (at least not on that page). The Google book search and the link to the blockhouse defense only mention Mrs. Hupp in elusive, fleeting references. The historic marker does not, I believe, fit into WP:RS standards -- there is also a historic marker for Betsy Ross, another colonial-era figure whose importance has been exaggerated. (As an aside, I would like to find out the Shawnees' side of the blockhouse event!) Pastor Theo (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See a newspaper story [104] presenting her story, 217 years after the event. It constitutes another reliable and independent source with significant coverage. A Google news search proves that Hupp is covered in two more books, not available online: "Fort Ligonier and its times : a history of the first English fort..."Subscription - Ancestry.com - Jan 1, 1932, and "History of Washington County, Pennsylvania." Subscription - Ancestry.com - Jan 1, 1926. Old print books are not always available for full viewing. That so many of them discuss her 24 hour defense of home and family from Indian attack attests her notability, especially with historic markers and with her presence in a book about notable people of that state. If you are troubled by only a snippet view being available online, then go to the Pennsylvania state library or request the books through interlibrary loan. References not being easy to consult is not a convincing ground for deletion. The Native Americans' side of the story is completely irrelevant to the notability of Hupp. Betsy Ross is highly notable, and also pretty irrelevant. The complete narrative is available in at least a couple of full view versions, and I expect the snippet ones pretty much cover the same points. Edison (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a larger issue with reference to documentation provided by dead trees. I have run into this with scientific sources and wanting to add "details" by reference to popular press accounts. This can be dangerous or at least uncertain.

Since we don't have peer review beyond volunteers auditing text, it is helpful to have something that is widely available for verification. I'm not against the practice, and have defended other attempts to include obscure topics. But, it needs some real thought. If you exclude dead tree sources, for obscure topics you really only have google books and maybe the nytimes scanned historical papers as online comprehensive sources. Also, the NPOV may be an issue. Once you put it up there, be prepared for balanced text to describe her as assisting a genocide or as if defending a crack house. Again, NPOV does not mean positive towards everyone who is likely to complain or currently in favor- "heroine" reflects a POV but factual description could still survive if notable. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on the Shawnees was, as I stated, an aside -- the only thing we know of the blockhouse incident came from one side of the fight. (Actually, the Post-Gazette link that was added here has someone saying the same thing that I did about the lack of historic perspective from both sides of the fight!) The Betsy Ross comment is not irrelevant -- Ross, like Hupp, is a colonial-era woman who is recalled for an unverified incident that was popularized by a descendant. In Hupp's case, she is being mentioned for basically firing some shots during a conflict with the Shawnees -- and that's it. I am sorry that we cannot agree on this. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it looks like someone must invest their time in physically visiting a reference library to see what the actual "books" say. Please do not ignore WP:BIO and indulge in some original research for "truth" and "justice" as defined in "Newspeak" in which the Native Americans who scalped her husband were victims of her "oppression" as she unjustly sought to prevent their additionally murdering Hupp and her children. Reliable sources from the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries attest her notability. Edison (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is indulging in WP:OR or ignoring WP:BIO. The point remains that the only source of this story is a letter written by her great-grandson, which has been used as the basis of promoting her legend. And furthermore, the sources from the 19th through 21st centuries only mention Mrs. Hupp in very brief -- almost elusive -- citations. This doesn't fit into Wikipedia's editorial requirements, as I understand it. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Ancestry.com account: "she, with true Spartanism, snatching up a rifle fired at the approaching savages, and then "ran from porthole to porthole," protruding its muzzle in different directions--to convey the idea of great forces in the house--at each presentation causing the savages to cower behind trees or other objects for protection." She scared armed Indian warriors by sticking a single non-firing gun in and out of a few windows every minute or two? Hello? Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am sure you do that every day and twice on Tuesdays. But it is not how impressive you personally think it is, the issue for notability is whether multiple reliable and independent sources have given significant coverage to the story, and that standard has been satisfied. Edison (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Edison made my point, she didn't need to be Paton or Rommel, or invent an atomic bomb, just do something notable. Further, sensationalized accounts do no detract from reliable accounts- it may be possible for aliens to spawn children with earth women even if there exist fictional accounts in various tabloids. I guess I'm fixating on treatment of reliable but obscure paper sources that require someone to go to a library to examine. I guess even a legend would be ok if otherwise notable- does her name come up on Janes Defense Weekly even as a joke(" and the outnumbered commando group employed the Hupp strategy to defeat blah blah blah")?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be sarcastic, Edison. The pastor made the point that your references barely mention Hupp. In some cases, she is just thrown out in a sentence. That is not significant coverage. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I believe that the criteria for getting a Pennsylvania Historical Marker defend the criteria of Anne Hupp being notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. And I quote "The person, place, or event to be marked had a significant impact on its times" and "The person, place, or event to be marked is of statewide or national historical significance rather than that of local or regional interest." The Pennsylvania Musuem and Historical Commission believes that Ann Hupp and the site of Miller's Blockhouse is of notable significance and thus is worth recognition on wikipedia. 7jbecker 14:38, 26 June 2009
I am sorry, but WP:BIO clearly states: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." A photograph of a marker is not a "published secondary source material," the first recorded reference of Anne Hupp came from her great-grandson (who was clearly not independent of the subject), and there is no evidence in the article or the fleeting references cited here that Anne Hupp did anything that represented an act of "statewide or national historical significance." Pastor Theo (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully disagree, the Pennsylvania Museum and Historical Commission and I quote in their review of "The nomination (of a historical marker) is clear and organized and includes thorough documentation (with selected photocopies and bibliographies from primary and secondary sources) and verification of the facts claimed." If you look at the record of the official marker, it does not include a photograph but the actual inscription of the marker. Also, I feel that there are at least one primary and at least two secondary sources that claim the event happened. The primary being the account from the grandson and the secondary being that it is mentioned in a historical account of the region and another separate book found on google books. Not to mention the many other aforementioned books that mention her on google books whose full record is not accessible as well as a full chapter in the book "Notable Women of Pennsylvania." Also, the fact that there is a marker there represents "statewide or national historical significance" as the qualifications for getting the marker require such. 7jbecker 23:53, 26 June 2009
Also, If you read the sources, the gun she was using was actually being fired. 7jbecker 1:02, 27 June, 2009


Comment : Assuming the following, that it was plausible for her to have been in the time and place to make her actions possible, that the event of the police action by the original owners (Indians, wording reflects POV concerns only ) occurred and was documented, the first written "evidence" or her actions is a letter from her grandson, that some recognized historical group decided she is noteworthy, let me add a few thoughts and analogies. It isn't clear at this point if the decision criteria are even agreed upon- do you need historical accuracy or just recent secondary source coverage. If you hold only to notability, then it doesn't really matter if the PMHC has arrived at the historically accurate decision of not- if their chamber of commerce asked them to create a legend and the media picked up on it, notability is established and primary source, by some criteria, aren't really relevant. If you need to establish that the subject herself did something notable, and probe the factual accuracy of stories about her, then you need to judge the secondary sources based on the quality of primary sources and try to get at truth. You also need to make some value judgement about obscure versus trivial, a reference book that ignored the obscure in favor of only the well known would seem to serve a small audience.

Essentially the notion of reliable or "credible" secondary sources is called into question- is CNN a credible source when describing religion or Ted Turner? It is impossible for value judgments to escape the "credible" or "reliable" decision as you can't presume reliability when a piece defies primary sources any more than if you tried to call an opinion piece in the same publication "reliable" because the publication is "reliable." Certainly with medical lit a reliable secondary source generally has a track record of publications and conclusions "agreeing" with primary sources- they don't make stuff up and added commentary is "reasonable" based on evidence presented. If they succeeed in making a legend, and the entry reflects that, all seems fine just as if you did a story on any other fictional character that is notable. Certainly with Jesus, some would consider the trivial coverage by Josephus to detract from his notability but if you believe in the miracles or not, he is notable today by most criteria.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:03, 27 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 Breakout (arcade game). Stifle (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardball (Palm OS)[edit]

Hardball (Palm OS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hardball is not notable in any way Jhay116 (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hobit. - 2 ... says you, says me 14:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you read the above sources? Hobit (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. Two sentences is not non-trivial coverage, making someone's top ten is not by itself an argument for notability. I accept the review, but we need more than that. - 2 ... says you, says me 15:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the "no secondary sources" part made me unsure. Why not merge though given that WP:V is met and we have a decent start on WP:N. Hobit (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Hobit (talk) 17:21, 23 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) 11:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Johnson[edit]

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

Chuck Johnson is simply not notable Jhay116 (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those are the same reprinted press release intended to look like an "interview." - 2 ... says you, says me 14:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I was not aware that you were there. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that? - 2 ... says you, says me 03:38, 24 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. DS (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World History II[edit]

World History II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is there really a need for an article about some random teacher's history course? ( fi ) 02:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The course itself is not notable enough for its own article, as it appears to be an average high school course, plus course descriptions (which is all this article really is) fail WP:NOTGUIDE. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but really this should be converted to be an outline of what is taught in a second semester high school world history class. That would make it somewhat useful. I don't think that WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. --Mblumber (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think that the article suggested immediately above would fail as original research, not to mention on the lack of reliable sources.
    • Comment: You don't think that there have been articles written about what to teach in a high school world history class? Schools don't just make this stuff up, they write their curriculum based upon guidelines from their district, which in turn bases it on criteria handed down by one of the regional High School accreditation organizations. --Mblumber (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment; Quite right, I agree, although your suggestion appears to be about United States schools and it would be difficult to integrate the views of all other countries. I do suggest, though, that the syllabus for Mr. Ian Cheney's approach to World History II at Waterford High School in Waterford, Connencticut is an attempt to use Wikipedia as a webhost and that Waterford High School needs to host its own syllabi. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a webhost for school materials. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Cannot even be vaguely constrewed an encyclopedia article. Reywas92Talk 03:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for goodness sake. Wikipedia is not a free host. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page is not an article. Userfication might be an option but the article's creator currently has the same content on his userpage. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:31, 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. Cool3 (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epicormic shoots[edit]

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

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. Fails WP:DICDEF. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a notable topic judging from a Google book search. It will never be a huge article but it can definitely develop into more than a definition or stub. I'll add a ref or two. Drawn Some (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvagable with more content, but at the moment it looks like a "no context" Speedy Delete candidate. Hairhorn (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DICTDEF. - 2 ... says you, says me 02:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the sourcing and expansion. 13:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep pending confirmation of sources etc. It wouldn't take much to make it more than a dictionary entry and topic seems to be notable based on comments of others. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep stuff at AfD pending confirmation of sources to establish notability unless they are not available on-line. In this case I added three on-line sources (out of hundreds or thousands available) to the article so there is no reason to say "pending". Drawn Some (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I've been noticing this omission for some time, and I'd have started it myself if I'd got around to it. It's closely related to a number of topics – for example Pruning, Apical dominance, Plant hormone etc. Without epicormic growth the woodland management techniques of coppicing and pollarding would be impossible. This is an important botanical topic which will certainly make far more than a stub, and I shall be adding to it soon if no-one else gets there first. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The initial problems with the articles seem to have been rectified. Smartse (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - notable topic worthy of an encyclopaedia entry. Epicormic buds are important in re-sprouting, especially after fire or serious wind damage. Guettarda (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; plenty of potential for expansion beyond a dictionary definition. Probably should be moved to epicormic bud, though. Hesperian 06:04, 26 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. ÷seresin 07:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala[edit]

Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL are the applicable policies. News sourcing does not extend beyond the event and trial itself. RayTalk 01:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note my disagreement with TAway's tagging of Dino Velvet in this manner. Dino is a relatively new user, true, but he has edited on a variety of topics and commented on multiple other AfDs. To suggest that he is a single purpose user with no interests outside of this AfD is misleading. RayTalk 21:44, 23 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) 11:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faith! Christian Church[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. the original AfD didn't have any keep arguments addressing how it actually meets WP:N. Google search is mainly mirror and directory sites. very little third party coverage [110]. also oppose redirect as there are several churches around the world with the same name. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

other places where it operates? there seems to be 100s of churches called this around the world [111]...good luck merging. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient independent verification of notability. - Altenmann >t 16:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, most likely to Australian Christian Churches. Recreation later if sufficient notability is established remains an option. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of sources to establish notability. Springnuts (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was verging towards keep as a denomination, but the church's own web site is clear that they are one church in three locations. Delete for lack of sourced notability. Springnuts (talk) 07:03, 28 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 (by UninvitedCompany)

National Hippie Day[edit]

National Hippie Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Total invention. Delete per WP:MADEUP. Fences&Windows 01:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This appears to be made up, and there certainly aren't any third-party sources about it. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per original poster. That said, all references that I find for "National Hippie Day" all refer to completely different days of the year. So while the concept may be a bit more known than being merely "made up", there certainly aren't any valid references that can be added to this article to make it work in any usable way whatsoever.SpikeJones (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, heh Capitalismojo (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no references or sources, no indication of notability, seems to be made up at school one day. Also: national to which nation? JIP | Talk 06:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no rationale was ever given for creating the article, and the initial PROD was simply removed without explanation. Favonian (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definately WP:MADEUP. Maybe speedy as a hoax. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete "On June 20th, put on that tie die shirt, blast some Grateful Dead Music, and don't forget the head ban and just relax" and "A Day of relaxation, music, love, and to forget every negative thing in your life and the world" are advert-enough to be G11 material in my opinion, almost certainly madeup as well. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:54, 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. Flowerparty☀ 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Wheels go-kart[edit]

Hot Wheels go-kart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I fail to see how this is notable other than the fact that it carries the Hot Wheels brandname, half the article appears to be pulled directly from the instruction manual. Additionally, I wasn't able to find any non-trivial secondary coverage on the product anywhere. - 2 ... says you, says me 01:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect to Go-cart. Non-notable variation not even worth merging into main article. SpikeJones (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find much of anything. It seems the author should find other hosting to host this instructional information. Gigs (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the one and only place for the information on this go kart. I don't have a manual, so whatever I described was experimentally found. Let's say another person wants to know how to start it, why not let them find this info in Wikipedia. It's not like I am trying to promote some product or a person. This is really useful, impossible to find elsewhere information. Hopefully other people will contribute in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigYank (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of basic operational facts in an article about a notable product is acceptable as it almost always adds to the article's encyclopedic value and is useful for readers. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual clearing house and articles that consist primarily or solely of how-to information on a product are not appropriate, and are counterproductive from an encyclopedic standpoint. Additionally, notability and sourcing issues aside, reprinting text directly from a printed instruction manual is almost certainly a copyright violation. If you wanted to post original operational instructions, tips, troubleshooting, etc for the Hot Wheels Go-Kart, the place to do it would be on your own personal website, or a Wiki dedicated to such things, such as WikiHow. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:40, 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 G2 Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative release[edit]

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

WP:DICTDEF if I've ever seen one, no sources, no work on the article in weeks. - 2 ... says you, says me 01:37, 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. Withdraw as a procedural nomination per User_talk:NuclearWarfare#Jason_Pierce_and_Jeremy_May_Deletion and User_talk:NuclearWarfare#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FRoger_Bowling_.28fighter.29. No prejudice to future nominations for deletion, which must be under a different rationale than G7. (non-admin closure) NW (Talk) 15:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Bowling (fighter)[edit]

Roger Bowling (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One of the two authors who wrote this in March tried to G7 the page. WereSpielChequers declined it, and an IP placed the tag back on. I removed that, and I am sending this to AfD as a procedural nomination. I am neutral as to whether it gets kept or deleted. NW (Talk) 01:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just realized that the two contributors who contributed the most edits to the article were an IP and an editor, both of whom placed G7 on the talk page. I am unsure of whether enough substantial edits have been made for G7 to apply still, but it might. NW (Talk) 01:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G7 Judging by the edit history, there have been four contributions made to the page other than those of the two main authors and deletion-related edits. Two of those removed copyvio, one added a category, and one fixed a link. All of the content was added by the two editors who requested deletion, so G7 applies. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MMA fighting, unlike boxing or other sports, doesn't generate a high level of mainstream media attention. However, Mr. Bowling has been the subject of at least two in-depth articles in mainstream media outlets -- [112] and [113] -- plus he holds at least two welterweight championship titles. Problems with the text can be fixed in editing, but I think deleting the article is an excessive step. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable due to adequate coverage in reliable sources (demonstrated in the article and by Pastor Theo), but remove the first paragraph in the Biography section as a BLP issue. JJL (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep unless someone has a reason for deletion besides CSD G7. Deletions under G7 should be "uncontroversial" like PRODs and the fact that a rescue tag has been placed on the article shows that someone wants it kept. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:55, 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. No consensus on merge. Flowerparty☀ 23:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry of the Deed[edit]

Poetry of the Deed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Not yet released album, wp:crystal, unsourced anyway. Bonewah (talk) 17:14, 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) 00:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreleased album from artist who himself may not be notable. Merge Can be mentioned in his article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Revised to merge based on some coverage found by Anakin101. I don't think it's enough yet, but others seem to disagree... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ChildofMidnight. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 19:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My initial reaction was delete, but it seems just notable enough. Many web mentions, not just spammy blogs, despite it being unreleased. E.g., [114] [115] [116]. Pre-orderable from multiple sources so passes WP:CRYSTAL. • Anakin (talk) 06:00, 29 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. A strong consensus holds that this actor is not currently notable, failing WP:ENTERTAINER due to a lack of reliable-source coverage. ~ mazca talk 22:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Lucan[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. No significant work or third-party coverage to assert notability. Also a possible COI, as the actor's description here matches the biography at IMDB. LeaveSleaves 05:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RayTalk 02:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough notable Rirunmot (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual does not appear notable. rmosler (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:ACTOR, almost certainly self-promotion, and with the duplicate of the IMDB text it's a copyvio anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 14:41, 26 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) 13:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Stop Torture Now[edit]

North Carolina Stop Torture Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:N after search - lack of significant relevant coverage. Current version vio WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, possible WP:COI (could be resolved with rollback, however no suitable previous version found) -wizzard2k (C-T-D) 03:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The organization exists, but nothing to prove notability in terms of reliable source coverage. There's one RS ref in the article related to the org, and a couple more on search, but they just prove existence. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ORG: no significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. RayTalk 02:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete limited third party coverage [117]. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. notability Capitalismojo (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anarchangel. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 09:12, 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) 11:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On It[edit]

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

Same as their other singles. Charted only on sales charts and not singles charts, no sources, no notability besides being by a notable act. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:54, 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, 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, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:36, 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shito-ryu techniques[edit]

List of Shito-ryu techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is a long unsourced list (and I can't imagine/find any definitive sources that would exist). Also, Wikipedia is not a directory. TNXMan 00:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment merging seems a reasonable and in fact preferable solution to me, if someone is willing to undertake the work to do so. It seems like there's a lot to merge, and it isn't quite as simple as it first appears--e.g., Shotokan and Uechi don't share nearly as many techniques as do Shotokan and Enshin. JJL (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. There isn't enough that is that different to support a stand alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree with the AfD rationale, other editors do not see it as an impossible task to find sources. The WP:NOTDIRECTORY ratiionale is completely misplaced. The techniquie is notable. Sure needs work to make it accessible to other people, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:54, 24 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 List of Grange Hill characters. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Beilby[edit]

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

It has been over a year since my db-bio was removed, and the article has not improved in any substantial way Click23 (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment either way works for me. My suggestion was the path of least resistance--he already appeared there. JJL (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Obviously not notable enough for a separate article, I think. • Anakin (talk) 05:20, 29 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) 13:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H2K: Hati-Hating Kapatid[edit]

H2K: Hati-Hating Kapatid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While a real show, sourcing is exceedingly difficult here. There is one link to the show's website in here and a link to a press release/story on it. GNews gives nothing, however, and most of the entries on Google are either procedural (i.e. a bare-bones IMDB article) or brief lists in mentioning "and [insert person here] was in this as well as other things"...also largely procedural. The net result is that I cannot verify the plot outside of the official website (which we seem to have a straight copy/paste from, likely a CSD) suggesting a notability failure. Some of this might be language-related, but in general there's just nothing beyond the bare bones that say "it existed". Tyrenon (talk) 15:28, 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, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RayTalk 02:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nomination. Also, the show only lasted a year or less. -- Kjkolb (talk) 08:47, 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 redirect to House of Krazees. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season of the Pumpkin[edit]

Season of the Pumpkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:36, 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) 00:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 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. No consensus for deletion, but the keep "votes" are still a bit weak. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ducktown, Atlantic City[edit]

Ducktown, Atlantic City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable neighborhood in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The article reads more like a tourist brochure. Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, real place, so at least minimally notable. The tourist brochure section can be trimmed down. JIP | Talk 06:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into Atlantic City, New Jersey, I do not think that it is notable enough for its own article. I think that neighborhoods should generally not get articles that are separate from their city or town. However, redirects are acceptable - the redirects should include the city's name and the state or province, like "Ducktown, Atlantic City, New Jersey". -- Kjkolb (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Neighbourhoods should generally not get articles that are separate from their city or town"? We have plenty of articles about individual neighbourhoods. See for example Category:Neighbourhoods of Helsinki. JIP | Talk 09:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and re-direct. The WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument is not persuasive. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To what WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument are you responding to? --Oakshade (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Plenty of notability [119]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added information from a 2,000-word newspaper article about the neighborhood. I see many other 500+ word articles about the neighborhood (not just casually mentioning it), including the Philadelphia Inquirer, several more in AC's local paper, and the NYT and Baltimore Sun. Neighborhoods, like most things, are notable if they've been given meaningful coverage in reliable sources. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a distinctive neighborhood and the coverage indicated by Chiliad22 is substantial. --Oakshade (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The anti-WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument is not persuasive. (Sorry, Niteshift36, I couldn't resist) shirulashem (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Chilidad. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has references, therefore is notable. For the "brochure" problem, the ad template should be placed at the top, and then appropriate corrections can be made. Sebwite (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In lieu of tags I think we could just blank everything but the "hotels" and "transportation" sections. Those two sections mention notable buildings and developments in the neighborhood, while the other sections are indeed more of a tourist guide kind of thing, at least in their current state. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:45, 25 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. Not sure anyone really knows what to do with this, but after 3 weeks there is certainly no consensus to delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enhancement or quenching of QD, Q-wire and QW radiations[edit]

Enhancement or quenching of QD, Q-wire and QW radiations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural AfD. Was prodded under "No context/OR ". I'm neutral, but prodding would remove a lot of potential mergable material. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:16, 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]
  • merge if there is a suitable target (without context I can't work out what such a target would be) and it isn't original research. I wont stand in the way of a delete if that is consensus though. If kept, this article needs an introduction writing and wikification. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 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 00:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a massive rewrite for us regular folks (if it's worth keeping); even the lead is unclear. Hairhorn (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a whie  : The intro sentence is a tautology( "quenching is a way to quench") , or maybe a fancy was to explain that QW is an abbr. for quantum well but if the someone can develop the article it may have merit. I guess you could move it to a talk page in the mean time but I wouldn't throw it out until authors have some time to make it useful. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The tautology was introduced in my quick attempt to wikify the article. I edited the article to (hopefully) remove the tautology. Cheers Boghog2 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original author has shown no interest in the article beyond the first posting. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep  : The three provided references are reliable, neutral and verifiable Rirunmot (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They however in no way establish notability. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Very strong keep. I agree that the article is difficult to understand, because the contributor is super, extra, hyper specialist; however with an WP:AGF interest in creating an encyclopaedic entry on new class of light sources. The challenge of Wikipedians is then to recognize that a new article, properly referenced with three peer-ref journal entries, has the potential to stay in this project to "record the knowledge of the world". We could perhaps help to make the article accessible to ordinary people, perhaps we could improve it, but, Oh no, first we PROD it, and then AfD it, mostly because lack of insight. This is a sad story. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:  : Well, we can't do peer review on original hypotheses but we do need to do a patent nonsense review and certainly a preponderance of eloquent jargon could be generated by an automated nonsense generator ( as long as it follows grammar rules). Someone needs to pass judgment on semantics- the article has to say something.

So, if you just want to make a list of ways to make small things emit more light based on details of their smallness fine but an article that says that making them brighter makes them brighter still doesn't help an interested reader get brighter :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak deleteIf it is based on three good published sources it is not OR. How important it may be I cannot tell. Scopus shows very few articles referring to those 3, though they only 2008. Our best practice with specific scientific work of this wsort would be to wait until there were more citations or some indication of obvious importance. DGG (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and merge where possible) The page does not have a suitable subject for an encyclopedic article. It basically reviews some recent research on how certain properties of certain constructs of a certain material depend on various factors. By itself this is not a notable subject. The material in this article can possibly be merged in to various other articles with the most likely candidates being: ZnO, quantum dot, quantum wire and quantum well. The article itself should be deleted since it is not a plausible redirect to any other article, but not before any salvageable material has been salvaged. (TimothyRias (talk) 12:53, 24 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 - meets WP:BAND: charted # 1 on a national public radio station in South Africa with top 40 format. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes Wear Red[edit]

Heroes Wear Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Charted at #1 on a local radio chart, far below WP:MUSIC. Only other source is an interview. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article meets the following WP:MUSIC requirements:

2) Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart. (7 weeks @ No.1 on South Africa's only national pop/rock station 5FM)

10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.) (MK, GoTV)

11)Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. (5fm, Highveld/KFM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.174.4.166 (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The band has had a Top40 & No.1 hit on South Africas National Pop Radio station, 5FM. They are one of the countries more reputable rock acts. Consist of members of a historically great South African Band, Sugardrive (played the Big Day Out concert in Australia, multiple national hits etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.40.67 (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & improve I think the article could do with better sourcing, but I dispute TPH's use of "local radio" to describe 5FM - the station is owned by SABC and broadcasts nationally. As 41.174 points out above (also a "keep", presumably) this band is notable. Astronaut (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & improve It just needs a source from a local magazine and or mention in a newspaper (e.g. Sunday Times), also "Surviving September" was also a best saler on one of the online music stores in South Africa, that can be mentioned and sourced in the artile. Ricky.Adams (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I also, added some newspaper articles about the band...that should help. Ricky.Adams (talk) 23:12, 17 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment More input is needed from experienced editors. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep minor claim of notability, adequately sourced. Unclear why this was relisted. JJL (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that consensus was determined, except that three of the editors weighing in appear to be SPAs and one is the article's creator. And that being said -- Keep since the article meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it asserts notability through the few references it has; can be expanded upon later. blurredpeace ☮ 00:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete – I am not convinced that MoreThanMusic.co.za is a reliable source as, judging from [120] and [121], that the material is self-published and hence does not fall under the umbrella of verifiability; the same reasoning applies to mio.co.za. With only one newspaper article in there and that primary sources cannot determine notability, there is not enough here to establish notability per the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage through multiple reliable sources. I would not oppose to userification until that is met, however. MuZemike 00:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Reply to Ron Ritzman, I don't understand why you wanted to "relist" this, ALL opinions are valid rather they come from the articles creator, or an IP address. The article seems okay to me, as long as it has sources, why should it matter. Ricky.Adams (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My decision to relist had nothing to do with your !vote. I did not even know you created the article until Pastor Theo pointed it out. (and he also closed this discussion and then reverted himself when he noticed the SPAs). I relisted it because one of the !voters was an obvious SPA. The account has one edit which was his !vote in this discussion. The two IP addresses had a few edits not related to this discussion but those were over a year ago so I didn't mark them as SPAs. Also, I never said that the comments weren't "valid". I just felt that additional input was needed from editors with other edits besides this AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:45, 23 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:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Music that Sucks[edit]

Behind the Music that Sucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Poorly-sourced article about a very non-notable Internet series. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Heavy.com. This seems like the best option to include appropriately this marginally notable thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Heavy.com. Perhaps once more citable info becomes available it can be broken back out to its own article. SpikeJones (talk) 16:27, 20 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirect added sources demonstrate notability for the web show itself beyond just the web site and merge per SpikeJones. JJL (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is not nearly noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia article, even one as inclusive as Wikipedia. -- Kjkolb (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The series is notable and has received significant coverage in plenty of secondary reliable sources (I have added a few to the article). TheLeftorium 17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Kjkolb.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, absolutely. Everybody could learn from this discussion. Few references, this is an old recipe for being nominated for AfD . I did personally search for some sources, but they are not immediately visible, for instance my Google news search is empty, I could be inclined to vote delete. Then I check the recently added refs by TheLeftorium (what a ridiculously long script you have here), and then, a wonderful rack of WP:RS turns up. Ladies and gentlemen, all it takes is hard work, much harder than opting for the easy delete option. Good job, Leftorium, respect. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Power.corrupts. TheLeftorium has done an excellent job of sourcing and otherwise rescuing this article. ~ mazca talk 22:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_22&oldid=1142644426"