Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 June 29 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 keep. Based on upgrades (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alun Woodward[edit]

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

Article does not provide any evidence of the importance or notability of the person and no references are offered. magnius (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per above. -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Moving to keep.[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no indication from the above comments that anyone made an attempt to search for sources, as the guidelines ask us to do. I found that this musician has received plenty of media coverage in UK newspapers as a solo artist, and I have just now added six citations, as a sampling of what exists. The subject meets the general notability guideline, or WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1; so, keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Paul Erik's sterling work (again) shows the subject meets WP:GNG. I miss the Delgados - what a fucking awesome band they were in their day. sparkl!sm hey! 21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the changes that Paul Erik has made. -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 21:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks to Paul Erik, this is sourced, and we can see that he's notable. Fences&Windows 01:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Oakbrook Center. There is a very strong consensus, with no convincing evidence presented to the contrary, that this mall is a hoax and does not exist. Equally, it is clearly a plausible search term for the mall of a similar name that actually does exist. ~ mazca talk 20:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oakbrook Mall[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any evidence that this particular mall exists. The article is unsourced and doesn't state a location aside from Oak County and Oakbrook Township, neither of which seem to be a county or a township anywhere, and a few ambiguous streets. A Google search for Oakbrook Mall Annlyn Properties turns up nothing (just searching Oakbrook Mall turns up too many results for Oakbrook Center); for that matter, the supposed owner of the mall, Annlyn Properties, doesn't seem to exist either, since Google again turns up nothing relevant. Even if this isn't a hoax, which it probably is, the utter lack of sources makes this non-notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which were created by the same person. And consider these edits. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this definitely appears to be a hoax; thanks for catching that, Blanchardb. Delete the other two as well. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. It seems not even the place it is supposedly in exists - there is no county called "Oak County" anywhere in the world as far as I can tell. The closest in the united states is Live Oak County, Texas, which contains no places called "Oakbrook". Oakbrook, Kentucky is a Census Designated Place in Boone County, Kentucky that contains no malls. Oak Brook, Illinois is the home of the Oakbrook Center, a different (and undoubtedly notable) shopping centre. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears that this is one of several such creations [1]. See also The Mall at Oakpark and The Lexington Mall. There really was a Lexington Mall, but it was in Lexington, KY, rather than in "Lexington Township" (no state). The Ledgewood Mall is legit, but the rest of this is bizarre. Or should I say bazaar? Mandsford (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's more, Mandsford, Kentucky doesn't even have townships! Even if we see these just as error-filled articles about real places, we can't find the place: The Mall at Oakpark is located along 21 at Lexington, and Kentucky Route 21 isn't too far from Lexington, but I can't find an intersection with a Lexington Avenue anywhere along its route. "Lexington Parkway", meanwhile, is too broad of a name for there to be any chance of finding it in a Google maps search. Add in the "Oak County", and it's impossible that this is real. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescue: I noticed that this article does not appear to specify what state this is located in. There are quite a lot of places called "Oakbrook." I'm sure this place does exist. This article was created by someone who has somewhere between 100 and 250 edits, mostly of articles about various malls. It appears s/he created this one in good faith. This apparently is a mall with some big-name department stores. Most malls fitting such a description are indeed notable. Perhaps s/he got the name of it even slightly wrong, thereby leading a Google search to turning up nothing. If someone could at least provide some info on what state this is in, I could either improve it myself to meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards or provide others with the information needed to do so. Sebwite (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you consider these edits by the same person to have been made in good faith? I would say this is a good editor who's had a bad day and started mixing his fantasy world with the real world. This user made no edits since this AfD nomination. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I created the Oakbrook dab page following my attempts to find where this mall supposedly is - note that all of the following facts together show how we cannot work out where this mall is -
      • most of the places named "Oakbrook" do not have Wikipedia articles - which for places in the United States generally means they are very small (in area or population) places that are exceedingly unlikely to have a mall with such big name stores. Furhtermore I cannot find evidence of google for malls located in them.
      • Of the three places that do have Wikipedia articles, as detailed above
      • None of the rest of the entries on the Oakbrook dab page are places, mainly they're middle and elementary schools.
      • Other editors above have shown that there are no Twonships in Kentucky, so it cannot be in that state,
      • Township (United States) further shows that it cannot be in New England, Tennesee or several other states.
      • I have not been able to find evidence that Oak County exists anywhere in the world; Live Oak County, Texas is closest in the United States, but it contains no places or malls by the name of "Oakbrook" or "Oak Brook"
      • The intersections of numbered and named roads the mall is supposedly at have been shown by other editors not to exist
      • [2] shows there was an "Oakbrook Mall" in southeast Fort Worth, Texas. Other google hits for this mall show that it was regarded as a long-term rotting eye-sore in 2005 and thus patently not the mall in this article.
      • Two google results briefly mention an "Oakbrook Mall" in Omaha, Nebraska but further investigation shows that this is actually called Oak View Mall.
      • Every other hit down to page 8 of this search turns out to be about the Oakbrook Center.
    • In summary therefore, if the article creator made a mistake, they mistakes in such basic facts as the name of the mall, the name of the streets it's on, the name of the settlement it is in and the name of the county it is in. Given that, how can we be sure that they didn't make mistakes in the rest of the information? Even if we could trust the information was accurate, WP:RS requires us to be able to verify everything in independent, reliable, secondary sources and I have just proved we cannot verify it in any sources, let alone reliable ones. All this combined with the telling edits linked by Blanchardb mean that as far as I am concerned at least this is 100% haox. Thryduulf (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just discovered an article called Oakbrook Center, which is in Oakbrook, Illinois. This very much seems to match. If this is the case, then this article should be Speedy merged into that. Sebwite (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually if you read the articles they don't match -
Oakbrook Mall Oakbroook Center
Opening date 1971 1962
Number of anchor tennants 5 6
Location Township of Oakbrook, Oak County, [state unknown] Oak Brook, Illinois
Restraunts 3 27
Management Annlyn properties General Growth Properties
Gross leasable area 1,500,000 ft² 2,018,000 ft²
Oh, and none of these facts about Oakbrook Mall are verifiable, but every single one about Oakbrook Center is. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, it's impossible to assume that this was created in error, because of the many differences between this and the Center. However, Oakbrook Mall is a possible search term for Oakbrook Center, so after the history is purged by way of deletion, a redirect page can be created. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the redirect after deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So do I. Looks like something that would be a common mistake. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As do I, as nominator. It's definitely a possible search term. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as unverifiable and probable hoax. A redirect from Oakbrook mall is not a bad idea at all. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 00:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Lambert (radio presenter)[edit]

Marcus Lambert (radio presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Radio presenter with no assertion of notability. Turns out that the radio station on which his show airs, Blast 1386, is a student station with no claim of being available outside the Thames Valley University campus except via the Internet. In any case, this Google search returns nothing of substance. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:57, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 United Kingdom heat wave[edit]

2009 United Kingdom heat wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Absolutely insignificant and unsuitable for a platform like this. I agree that it becomes notable the moment it reaches 1976's extent. Otherwise, it's a subject for newspapers, discussion platforms etc. gerundgrinder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.123.5 (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable heat wave. Chidel (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notable. See [3] Francium12 (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (The article and, if possible, the wretched heatwave itself! ;-) ). Seriously though, only 1976 is going to be notable because there was a very serious drought which lead to serious water supply problems. The rest is just ordinary, annoying, British weather (i.e. unpredictable bursts of too hot and too cold). I don't see any need for a a series of articles and templates for short term British weather events. If it develops into a drought then that will be notable. In the meantime lets not be fooled by the acres of news coverage this will get. British newspapers love nothing better than an easy weather story accompanied by a picture of some attractive young women sunbathing. It is news but it isn't an encyclopaedic subject, yet. Somebody being struck by lightning may be a news event but it is not unprecedented. The "heatwave action plan" might be the beginning of something if it is more than just hot air (excuse pun). Also, I assume that the heat affects more than just the UK, so a specifically UK based article seems incorrect. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like something that was written by someone who was dripping sweat and wanted to vent his frustration with the weather of that one day. (By the way, here in Canada, such temperatures in the last week of June would be considered chilly :-D) -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It was about 95 here today, I wish it was at the levels in the UK. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's next? An article on the temperature falling below freezing in Alaska in December? Garden variety weather events are not notable. Resolute 04:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is at best premature. It is relying on forecast future temperatures rather than actual ones, but even if 32C (90F) is reached for a day or two that would not be that remarkable. To be notable by UK climate standards, it would either need to be more prolonged or reach 35C or so. JH (talk page) 08:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We could wait for the possibility of notability being established. How many elderly deaths from heat will be needed to keep the article.... 92.23.165.153 (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as others have said this is at best premature. The heatwave will most likely be notable only in the context of the last two very disappointing British summers or it will last notably long or get notably hot. Regardless of what happens an article at this point violates WP:CRYSTAL. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It almost reached 90°? My goodness. Get the tongs, this calls for a second ice cube in my beverage. Mandsford (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. If this keeps up, the heatwave might see snow. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If pubs start running out of beer, which I remember being the most serious effect of the '76 heatwave, then we can call this notable. Otherwise delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon the pun, but snowball delete. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The heat wave by itself isn't (at least yet) quite notable enough. If the heat wave becomes severe, it could be merged here. Kotiwalo (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS Trevor Marron (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of historical notability (phew, it's warm today). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Really we need something like Heat waves in the United Kingdom. 92.23.165.153 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is an odd article to have. If anything it can be added to United Kingdom as an interesting fact at the most but an actual article??? No. Tree Karma (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia coverage of heatwaves and particularly British heatwaves is pretty poor. Rather than improve this it is much easier to delete so we don't have to worry about it 92.23.165.153 (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While sourcing problems do persist, a clear consensus seems to hold that this person is sufficiently notable and sourceable. ~ mazca talk 16:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishida Shunei[edit]

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

I have reviewed the available sources via a Google search (97 in all) and conclude that Shunei does not currently fulfill Wikipedia's notability requirements (WP:BIO). The WP article figures prominently on the Web, as are its numerous backlinks. But in terms of independent sources I have found only [4] as a solitary mention of an award by a local art museum, no significant coverage in secondary sources, reviews etc. The artist's biography lists him as faculty at Hiroshima City University and a trustee of Japan Art Institute - he may be notable as an educator, rather than an artist, but I could not find sources that establish notability as a result of these roles either. Enki H. (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It'd be good if the link for that award the nominator found were added to the article -- none of the awards are sourced at the moment. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the book you have found is an exhibition catalogue for a retrospective at the Imai Museum in Yamagata. It is at least debatable whether exhibition catalogues are independent. IMO exhibitions and catalogues by themselves cannot establish notability: WP:N states "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources[...]" - i.e. reviews, material that is written at arm's length. I do not see that Shunei's work has been independently reviewed. I do not doubt that Shunei is active as an artist and has exhibited. I doubt that he has achieved notability by doing so and I see no evidence for it. WP policy requires verification. This article has been tagged since September 2008. If no one has come forward in the last nine moths to provide the required verification, then at some point we just have to pull the plug and delete. I suggest that time is now. With respect Enki H. (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The catalog clearly indicates the importance of the exhibition. The catalog is in the libraries of major museums. Fg2 (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I tend to agree with nominator that notability has not been established, but there is circumstantial evidence that that this artist is notable, and the awards are likely to be genuine. So on the grounds of future potential, keep. Zargulon (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 23:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per investigation by three good faith editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on [5] his work is in major museums. If an exhibition catalog is from a notable exhibition, it's good evidence.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Leans towards full keep, but with so little discussion, I'll keep it at no consensus (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch Beginnings[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability criteria for books; of 5 external references or links, one is the book's own webpage, one is some guy's blog, one is a page where people pay to have their products reviewed, and one is a clearinghouse for press releases. A single interview at the Christian Science Monitor is not "multiple, non-trivial public works". Zhou Xi (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although this article could no doubt be improved, the book appears notable. Reviews or discussions of this self-published book have appeared on NPR, CNN Headline News, ABC News.com, the Christian Science Monitor, the Seattle Times, Minneapolis Star Tribune and several other regional newspapers. I have added these references to the collection of Reviews and Media Discussions of the Book at the end of the article, although someone else could integrate them better into the text of the article. Dlduncan2 (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reviewed by many notable news organziationas. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 23:30, 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. Mere suggestions are valid, but even still there's no consensus to delete right now (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Births, Marriages and Deaths in Coronation Street[edit]

List of Births, Marriages and Deaths in Coronation Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fancruft. This is a long list of incidental events that should probably be on a fan site, not here. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful list of notable events in a very notable TV show —G716 <T·C> 00:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're contesting the deletion on the grounds that it's useful? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's wrong with being useful? The link you give is to an essay, i.e. an opinion piece that hasn't gained consensus either for or against. I would have thought that usefulness, when it helps our readers find encyclopedic information, is exactly what we should be striving for. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes —G716 <T·C> 23:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wholly unverified to any reliable sources and consisting entirely of plot from an in-universe perspective. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All that is needed is to give the episode where the event takes place, and then its verified. The primary sources is sufficient. Considering the very great importance this series seems to have, an article like this is appropriate--and a list has merely to be useful. DGG (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Normally, I'd go for delete as a plot summary article, and the only doubt over this one is how major Coronation Street is as part of UK TV. The information appears to have been lifted from these pages, and you could easily link to this from one of the other Corrie articles. What the Wikipedia version does that the corrie.net version doesn't is provide Wikilinks. Whether that's enough to be worth a Wikipedia article is something I'll leave for others to decide. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as notability goes, here is some evidence to show that the topic of births, marriages and deaths is discussed by secondary sources as an important part of Coronation Street: [6][7][8][9][10]. Verifiability of the individual births, marriages and deaths is, as DGG points out, taken care of by the episodes themselves as primary sources. Chris is correct in saying that this information is available elsewhere, but if that was a reason for deletion then Wikipedia would have no reason for existing. The whole point of policies on verifiability and no original research is that we only publish information that is available elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and pd_THOR, but mainly for being in-universe. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until there are full lists of episodes by season, then merge The assertions to delete are the other side of instruction creep; the WP rule Telephone game. See that something is -like- an example of a WP rule, pick up the rule and run as far as you can with it. In-universe perspective of a list? Laughable. Other Coronation Street articles? Name two (Name [coronation street character] doesn't count). "How major"? The first entry is an episode from 1961. The original 'stories'. I wanted to merge this article with lists of episodes of Coronation Street, but it appears there are none. A bedrock series in British television, that deserves far more from WP. Anarchangel (talk) 21:19, 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 Withdrawn by nom. Corpx (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graveyard (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Google search only turns up mostly MySpace type stuff. Fails WP:BAND. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing nom per further information provided by Hammer. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graveyard's album recieived 3.5 stars on allmusic. Played at SXSW. Signed to teepee records. Why does Witchcraft have a page.Hammer of the Gods27 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even holier than thou Rolling Stone had an article on here's the link http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/04/10/frickes-picks-graveyard/. Hammer of the Gods27 (talk) 23:23, 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 deleted per G12 although it was also eligible under G4 and G11. I've also taken the liberty of WP:SALTing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Global[edit]

Elite Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 18:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcom[edit]

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

Non notable. Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:16, 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 keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Niemi[edit]

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

An actress who seems to be notable only for being Patrick Swayze's wife. Searches for reliable-source mentions of her outside the context of her husband seem to turn up little or nothing; and notability is not inherited. There's no worthwhile, merge-worthy content in this article that isn't already mentioned in the "Personal life" section of Swayze's; though several efforts to simply redirect this article have been reverted. This seems a classic example of an unsourced WP:BLP of highly marginal notability that we shouldn't leave lying around. ~ mazca talk 21:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - since the article has been expanded substantially by Niteshift36 (talk · contribs) I have switched to keep, see below. ~ mazca talk 18:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bit sad that people apparently would value articles so little as to split off substubs like this. This is not to argue against splitt-off articles, but why do it before you have a half-decent stub, with one or two sources other than IMDb? 84.44.140.9 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If she's notable, sources shouldn't be difficult to find. I think this is more about organizing content than determining notability. Please consider that the AfD was only started after attempts (including my own) to simply redirect. I for one would prefer a redirect for the time being because Lisa Niemi is currently not even a proper stub. In other words: There is nothing much to be kept or deleted in the first place. 84.44.253.167 (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about these sources? Entertainment Weekly hated the show, but confirms her as a co-star of Super Force. [11]. The show is notable enough for its own article. The NY Times also shows her as the co-star, billing her ahead of Patrick Macnee. [12]. The NYT also shows her as the co-star of Steel Dawn (another movie notable enough for its own article). [13] and as the Director, writer and co-star of One Last Dance (yet another movie notable enough for its own article). [14]. They also confirm she directed a 1990 movie called Dance. [15] A&E confirms that she directed Episode 10 of The Beast. Like I said, she doesn't have the resume of a mega-star, but she sure passes notability. Most of the more in depth coverage is from sites that won't pass WP:RS, but we can prove with RS's, that she has done things that pass notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of your links are simple cast&crew listings. Not one sentence is actually written about her, and you could hardly use those to significantly expand the article with verifiable info. Even if the series is notable (no opinion on that as of right now), it does not mean that all starring cast members are automatically notable as well. Btw, I had googled her name, too, and didn't change my mind precisely because none of the links I found were of greater depth than yours. Sorry, I still believe that (a) she's not notable and (b) on the basis of the "sources" found so far, no stub can be written. This is not deletionism vs. inclusionism, it's about organizing content in a plausible and useful way. 78.34.202.69 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know what the sources are. It might surprise you to know that I actually READ them before posting them. The criteria of WP:ENT are clear. She has had significant roles in multiple movies and TV shows. We can prove that with reliable sources. On that basis alone, she passes WP:ENT. Just because you don't find critiques of her performances or in-depth articles about her life doesn't negate the fact that she had multiple roles in notable movies and shows and that we can prove it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not simply find no critiques or articles about her work or life, I found virtually nothing usable, despite consulting Google. Then again, I'm not the best RS sleuth. At any rate, don't let me hold you back. Just put a few sources into the stub, I'll even help scan them for material and help get a stub going. As of right however, this and IMDb are the only things in the page even resembling sources. 78.34.250.108 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I already gave reliable sources, so saying there is a lack of them is simply incorrect. Further, where did you get the notion that sources had to be critiques or in depth coverage of her life? WP:ENT simply says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". She has had those roles. They can be verified through reliable sources, which I've already posted. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep though married to a significant/notable star; she herself is significant and has had her own series and follows the guidelines of WP:BIO and WP:Entertainment. What makes her article weak is lack of material and resource but in the short moments I looked, there was plenty of information available from reliable sources. She did have a major dance career as well but due to the fact a lot of articles written on her were in the 80s and are difficult to source online now. BioDetective2508 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2009
  • Um, in the short moments I looked, there was plenty of information available from reliable sources. So were there reliable sources online, or did you quickly find some offline? At any rate, we need solid citations. 87.79.139.215 (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I provided online sources above........unless the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly aren't reliable enough for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that they are not reliable, of course. But none of the entries contain much prose, let alone anything mentioning Lisa Niemi so much as in passing. She's only listed as a cast member. 78.34.250.108 (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you please answer my basic question: Where did you read that verifiable sources required "much prose"? The standard is that she appeared in notable movies and TV shows. That can be proven as FACT. Why is there a demand that you need to read someones critique of it to be notable? You are demanding something that the criteria does not require. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:BIO#Basic criteria says: If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. The footnote attached to that explains: Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Believe it or not, I've read the criteria before. I am not looking at general notability criteria, but the specific ones for WP:ENT. These specific standards are in place for a reason. For example, WP:PROF sets standards for academics. One of the measures is how many times their works have been cited. It doesn't differentiate between a one line citation and a 3 paragraph citation, just the number of them. WP:ENT doesn't say that they have to have in depth coverage of their roles or performance, but that they had significant roles. She did. In any case, I've expanded the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does she meet any of the notability prerequisites ENT sets out? Has she had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions, does she have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following or has she made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment? If she meets any of those, I honestly don't see it. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not stated an unequivocal opinion before. In the light of Niteshift36's expansion the former issue that it was a substub is resolved, since it is certainly a suitable stub, at least content- and formatting-wise. However, I'm still not sure whether even with the new material the article couldn't and shouldn't rather be merged to Patrick Swayze, who undeniably adds a considerable portion to her notability. Therefore, I abstain from any judgement pending further developments. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course he adds to her notability. I've never said otherwise. But he is not the sole source of it. That has been my point all along. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he adds a considerable portion to her notability, that is part of my point. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her co-starring role in Super Force alone, which Swayze wasn't connected to, gets her past WP:ENT. I say delete far, far more times than I say keep or merge. In this case, I think delete is totally wrong and that merge diminishing her achievements. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "diminishing her achievements" -- As you probably know, that is as irrelevant and also untrue as it would be to say that we "honor" anyone's "achievements" by having an article about them. That may be true for the individual editor who is committed to writing about a favourite actor or some such, but not for Wikipedia as a whole. I agree that outright deletion is not an option, it's really between merging into Patrick Swayze or keeping the material in its own page. ENT talks about significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. I don't agree that her participation in Super Force and the other work she has done establishes her notability, certainly not in a confident way. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are to focused on my wording and totally ignoring the point. She has multiple notable roles. Steel Dawn, Super Force, One Last Dance and The Beast all have their own articles. She co-starred in, directed or wrote all 4. I think 4 qualifies as multiple. I think writing, directing and co-starring qualify as significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel I focused on your wording, I was really aiming at responding to your point. I focused on the quoted portion because I felt you were (inadvertently) creating sort of a strawman with the other part: Although this is an AfD discussion, nobody save for the nom has pleaded for outright deletion rather than merging into Patrick Swayze, and even he did on the basis that there isn't anything of significance that isn't in the parent article already.
    At any rate, her body of work does not imho raise her above the notability threshold in a way that would make me say keep. Steel Dawn is little more than a stub itself, with little to no real sources. Same for Super Force and One Last Dance (2003 film). That she directed one episode of a cancelled series that never made it past season one isn't that impressive either. Just stating my perception, and most news outlets appear to agree with me in that they didn't report a lot about those. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of the ENT threshold. 78.34.201.60 (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's be fair about it, The Beast was cancelled because the star (her husband) has terminal cancer, not because of ratings. The show itself was successful in the ratings and received critical acclaim. As for the others being stubs, yes, they are....so far. The fact that nobody has taken it on themselves to expand them doesn't dimish their notability. Actually, I found probably 8-10 sources about the movie One Last Dance while looking for something else. Steel Dawn is simply old and most of the press coverage of the film just aren't online. Maybe if I decide to expand that article, I'll have to rely more on off-line sources. Same with Super Force...successful enough to get renewed, but still in 1990-91, so not a lot of the coverage is available. Of course I could try sneaking in the ton of sites that do talk about them all, but I am limiting it to reliable sources that can't be challenged. No intention of trying to do an end run and hope nobody notices. I would also note that the nominator has changed his opinion to keeping the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed Mazca's change of mind. As I've laid out, I think that the material currently in her article could still easily be merged into Patrick Swayze. Since we're now essentially negotiating our respective interpretations of the inclusion guidelines set forth by ENT, I hope it's not a problem that I am not voting keep. For me, significant roles in multiple movies and TV shows simply refers to something different than her body of work. But FWIW your great improvements to the page have certainly "saved" the article from being submerged, and it really does look a lot better now than it did at the start of this AfD. [Hint: By bolding the word keep in the post above yours, I intended to depart from the discussion by hinting, in a subtly unsubtle way, at my "basic ok". In other words: I can live with that article and won't stubbornly insist on redirecting when I see that a majority of other people now deems the article appropriate.] 78.34.201.60 (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as nominator); I'm pleasantly surprised as to how well this article's been expanded. Normally an article makes grandiose claims to notability but cannot be backed up by sources; whereas in this case prior to the AfD nobody had bothered to include any reason she was notable. The article has gone from doing little more than noting she's Patrick Swayze's wife, to detailing a reasonable career in some fairly obscure but clearly notable productions. The article has therefore, in my view, gone well beyond what would reasonably be included in a merged section, and is acceptably sourced. I'm not withdrawing the AfD as there are clearly good-faith arguments to merge; but I retract my own argument to that effect. Nicely done. ~ mazca talk 18:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Mazca, I appreciate that very much. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her details must be retained and expanded upon if possible. She is the last and closest confidante of Patrick Swayze, a man likely soon to depart this Earth. Her personality and appeal is exceptionally unique. You see her capturing Mr Swayze's heart in 1975 when they were both young and she has held his heart for 20+years. This is quite exceptional for a Hollywood megastar. What brought this about? Only by retaining her details and expanding it can we ever hope to remember the special quality that is Lisa Niemi and Patrick her husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.240.155 (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blink. (band)[edit]

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

Band doesn't meet WP:N Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:12, 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. Keeper | 76 00:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basement tattoo[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. This doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Some sources suggest such a thing exists but not enough to confer notability. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Take your pick: WP:NEO or WP:NOTADICT. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Could be a part of urban dictionary, more coverage is needed for being Encyclopedic material. I agree with Niteshift36. Hitro 19:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Manning Bartlett. T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Virtue/Spider-Man/adversaries[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Captain Virtue/Spider-Man/adversaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not your personal web space. mhking (talk) 21:04, 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. Keeper | 76 00:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Madiera[edit]

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

Another gay porn star with no notability Corpx (talk) 20:41, 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. Keeper | 76 01:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Michael[edit]

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

He's married to a mildly notable actress and he was nominated for an AVN award, but lacking any other significant coverage, I find that this is insufficient to meet notability guidelines Corpx (talk) 21:02, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dill[edit]

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

Gay pornstar with no notability established Corpx (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some indications of notability and a short obituary in a local paper, but I don't think there's enough to warrant inclusion based on our notability guidelines (substantial coverage in independent reliable sources). But I think a case could be made to keep the article if we want to include everyone whose marginally notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added some references and some more information to the page. Timothy Chanaud was not only a gay porn actor but also a successful businessman who had been in the spot light more than once in his life and has a substantial amount of media coverage over the years. He also was an advocate of gay and human rights. This information is not all on the page yet but will come with time and I believe it would be wrong to delete the page just because you may not know a lot about gay activists. Msimpson607 (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sun article is an obituary listing and two of the other refs are just copies of the wikipedia page and I'm not certain if the Bay Area Reporter is a reliable source or not Corpx (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Wilcox[edit]

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

Gay pornstar with no notability established Corpx (talk) 20:36, 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 merge to List of xxxHolic characters. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shizuka Dōmeki[edit]

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

I couldn't find any notability to this one. Article lacks references from any source, real world information and anything it would be a reason to keep. Last Afd edit with a keep because there were hopes that this article will be merged. I think that even if this is merged with other characters the result would be an unreferenced list with no meaning. I suggest that we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 20:36, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleš Hanák[edit]

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

Gay pornstar with no notability establisehed Corpx (talk) 20:35, 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. While the contributor did contact OTRS (Ticket:2009062210006211), the release was insufficient and a request to clarify sent on June 25 went unanswered. The article was listed at the copyright problems board for more than seven days without usable verification of permission. In addition to copyright issues, developing consensus here indicates the article lacks reliable sources to verify notability and is promotional. There is no prejudice against creating an article in original language, but a new article must remedy these other concerns. Accordingly, even if the contributor does supply permission, the text is insufficient to meet inclusion guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kikaku America International[edit]

Kikaku America International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Multiple issues the Creator of the article is the is executive vice president of Kikaku America International as per his userpage.The article is copy from the company website a clear copyright violation and whether email has been received is not confirmed.There are no independent references and it is a clearly promotional advertisement for the company.It was earlier marked for speedy by a user and later removed Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - spammy; no assertion of notability, no evidence of notability, copyvios out the wazoo from the COI creator. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is a copyvio then it is a speedy delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if the copyvio thing is cleared up via permission and relentless editing, since there is no notability that I could find. Surely a US company, if notable, would generate more than five hits on Google News. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Clearly this is a PR piece, but as per my earlier Tysabri tirade, this caught my attention, "Teva Neuroscience and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society to create The Multiple Sclerosis Trend Report: " Back when Tysabri was being considered by the FDA for re-intro, someone from a univeristy came out with an abstract something to the effect that "Tysabri is as bad as HIV." Now, I like a little humour and human-side to science too, and there have been cases of Tysabru side effects, and a little hyperbole to jest with opposing research groups is fine but "you had to be there" as they say. LOL...

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:56, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 17:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Danny McKay Project[edit]

The Danny McKay Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film project. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. No significant GNEWS or GHITS ttonyb1 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No reliable sources, info about it we do have indicates some indie project by a nonnotable person. It appears that the sole reason for creating the article was to try to invent a starring role for Mark Hapka (also up for deletion) to try to make him sound more significant than he is. DreamGuy (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a major film coming out this year that stars Mark Hapka, and he is significant, the article for Mark Hapka has been expanded now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RIPMichaelJackson (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Banned user's block-evading sock. Invalid !vote per WP:BAN. DreamGuy (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Future films are not notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. None offered, none found. IMDb doesn't cut it. The argument that this is notable because Hapka is in it (which is not sourced) is circular. The AfD for Hapka is arguing that he is notable because he has a starring role in this film. No one else attached to the project is notable either. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Hapka's notability has nothing to do with this film. His notability is found in his meeting WP:GNG, not for perhaps being in a film that currently fails WP:NFF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no need to bring over same bad arguments you made on that AFD to this one. DreamGuy (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two other editors brought that "other AfD" here first. Your choice to chastise only me is quite telling. When an argument is based upon the properly applicable guideline, calling it a "bad argument" is indefensible. Please cease these continued assumptions of bad faith. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing but an imdb page does not an article make. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and allow return when article can meet WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NF. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation in the event it becomes notable after it is actually released. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:39, 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. Keeper | 76 01:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Employee Ownership Act of 1999[edit]

The Employee Ownership Act of 1999 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. This piece of legislation was never likely to become law, and I feel that it was not notable, because what coverage it had would be inherited from Ron Paul or Political positions of Ron Paul (which is where any coverage of this proposed act belongs, probably in a small footnote.)

Further, this is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia. We should have detailed and in-depth coverage of American politics insofar as it's notable, and indeed we do. But we do not need a separate article for a piece of legislation that has never been and will never be law, and allowing it to exist creates NPOV and coatrack problems in a controversial and problematic area that it will be difficult to police. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete- I just don't see any notability here. Sure, it was attached to Ron Paul, but it doesn't inherit the notability from him. And since it was never passed, the bill doesn't gain any notability that way either. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I just don't see where this warrants anything other than maybe a brief mention in Paul's page. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless by policy all proposed legislation is inherently notable this certainly isn't.--Talain (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN - one of 200,000 bills proposed but never enacted in the last 10 years. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as NN Bill. It isn't an act because it wasn't passed. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regarding Spaceman7Spiff's comment, I've asked this question in several Afds before but never been given an answer. In the UK, with which I'm more familiar, a proposed piece of legislation is called a bill, and only becomes an act if and when it is passed. Is the terminology not the same in the United States? We seem to get a constant stream of articles from the United States with "act" in their titles (and they nearly always seem to have been proposed by someone called "Ron Paul" - is he famous or something?) that don't appear to be acts by the definition of the word with which I am familiar. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, courtesy of your ancestors, my civics education was in Parliamentary democracy, so the Bill vs Act aspect is affected by that. However, if you see Act of Congress. You'll notice that it refers to an Act as something with the finality of the President's signature or inaction, while a Bill is what is discussed in Congress. I'm sure if you search up the US Congress databases, you'll find more technical analysis. That said, it's quite common to call something an Act before it passes, in the media or in conversation where instead of referring to it as HR Bill it is referred to by the proposed name, which includes "act" in it. But the way it would be referred to in the House or Senate records is by the Bill no, with the proposed name as a secondary identifier. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Act is non-notable and has done nothing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 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. Keeper | 76 01:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Carr (Actor)[edit]

Gary Carr (Actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is questionable. IMDB does not list Paul Jennings as a character in Foyles War, and Gary Carr is credited with a single appearance in Holby City. Other TV appearance claims do not seem to be listed anywhere that I could find. Appears to be an autobiography as the article creator has the same name as the title of the article. Was PRODed, but removed, so it comes here. T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 19:06, 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. Keeper | 76 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Carlos Clarke[edit]

Scarlett Carlos Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete non notable Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Referenced mentions seem to be mostly tangential. Relation to a notable figure does not itself automatically confer notability. Placement of the single photograph of her father in a museum doesn't appear to satisfy WP:CREATIVE:
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. JNW (talk) 18:54, 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 merge to Sculpt 3D. Keeper | 76 01:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpt 4D[edit]

Sculpt 4D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. Google search for "Sculpt 4D" -wiki gives almost nothing. Articles has no references at all (tagged with citation request since Sptember 2007). I couldn't find any magazine or newspaper reviewing it. Tagged for notability for almost 2 years. In the "news" section of its site (http://sculpt4d.com/index.php) there are no news at all. Magioladitis (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Sculpt 3D & redirect. This product has some minimal news coverage, but really is just an updated version of Sculpt 3D (which has considerably more coverage) so I feel merging is the best option. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge : I was making a joke comment earlier about using an IBM 1620 in high school. It turns out that there are historical articles on various computer items, including repositories for antique software. Does he have the source code? Even if you merge with a related product, make sure that related product links to the historical computer stuff. I still have a hard time of thinking about 1986 as historical, but I still think my computer has 512k or RAM, not 512M LOL... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sculpt 3D per User:ThaddeusB. JIP | Talk 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: there is such considerable overlap that currently there is more information on Sculpt3D in the Sculpt4D article than in its own. 4D was created four minutes after 3D so it has priority rights. Merge to there to avoid accidental WP:CFORK. Enki H. (talk) 01:13, 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 speedily deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Grasso[edit]

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

Non notable, unpublished writer. I can find no WP:RS Jezhotwells (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I am this author. It looks as if the body of the article has just been taken directly from my myspace page, so the language will no doubt need to be edited for your purpose, but it is more or less factually accurate. FYI, I appear in the books listed below to date, with more in the works this year:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Generation-Hex-Louv/dp/1932857206/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246286504&sr=8-1

http://www.scarletimprint.com/devoted.htm

http://dreamflesh.com/journal/one/

http://www.strangeattractor.co.uk/shoppe/equinox_sell.html

I don't know whether this makes me "notable" enough for this entry to remain on wikipedia, but if it helps, I am a published author, speak regularly at festivals and London occult events, and am reasonably well known in my field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsy Lantern (talk • contribs) 15:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is, indeed, a complete copyright violation of Stephen Grasso's myspace page. I have requested a speedy deletion (G12) to rectify the situation. Thank you Gypsy Lantern for bringing this to our attention. Editors are encouraged to draft articles in their userspace and bring them to a level where they are useful and do not violate policy before posting them on mainspace. Enki H. (talk) 00:48, 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. Keeper | 76 01:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia[edit]

Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All information in this article (what little there is) is already in the article about Ahmed Rashid. If any more information about the book is added, it can be in a subsection of the Ahmed Rashid article. An individual article is not warranted. Otebig (talk) 17:23, 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. Keeper | 76 01:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn and the End of Days[edit]

Saturn and the End of Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails guidelines for future films - "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." IMDb suggests a release date of 2011. Lugnuts (talk) 17:04, 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. Keeper | 76 01:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media literacy and remix culture[edit]

Media literacy and remix culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-sourced essay; original research; violates WP:NOR mhking (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reasons above. Also unreferenced, incoherent and (irony of ironies!) lacking in basic literacy. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no way of salvaging this essay. The references do not support the statements and one is to youtube. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an original essay, though that's being awfully nice. In regards to Daniel's note on irony, weeeeeell, it's "media literacy." ;) Drmies (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 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. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilland Jones[edit]

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

Deleted PROD that stated "Minor actor, fails WP:ENT" NrDg 16:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nearly a speedy, as I don't think the article is even claiming the subject is notable.--Talain (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good-faith claim, albeit weak, was there so I do not see it as being speedy eligible. --NrDg 17:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hence the 'nearly' ;)--Talain (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<Chuckle> - I saw that, just justifying my decline of the original speedy request. --NrDg 18:09, 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 keep. New sources seem to demonstrate notability. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Stedman[edit]

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

BLP article created by a COI account. Other articles the person created have no been deleted, but unfortunately the first time this was up for deletion a non-admin took it upon himself to close it as "keep" despite the lack of any real standards and poor arguments for inclusion (one of the keeps included the phrase "I see no information that makes him worty of a Wikipedia article" -- so how is that a keep?). Primary claims to fame are having created a nonnotable publication and website, and a short indie film. The only possible argument for notability is that this 6 minute art film was awarded one of a group of LGBT awards at a Berlin festival handed out by a jury separate from the Berlin festival, but as notability is not inherited it's at best an argument for an article on the short film and not this person -- but with the sheer number of such minor awards handed out at various film festivals every year, this just seems impractical an not truly notable anyway. It just seems odd that we have already decided that everything this person did isn't notable enough for mention here yet the article on the self-promoting individual is still around for no good reason. DreamGuy (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm on the fence. I've reviewed the clean-up, etc and think there are substantial sources; however, my only concern is that all the projects he has done are extremely minor and they have no notability. 50/50 Keep/Delete. BioDetective2508 (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep to the now improved article. A bit of a pity that the article has not been adequately sourced in the 10 days since its last AfD 'keep', but it just goes to show that guideline is 100% right in not demanding some rush for speedy improvement. The man is an award-winning filmaker, the youngest ever invited to the Berlin International Film Festival, and has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do wish to apologize to the nominator for some of the WP:V sources i had to add. One of the many "fact" tags he added was on a statement that Stedman's film Celebration has been to 100s of film festivals. I stopped adding WP:V of this after I got to 20 and simply edited the claim to state "numerous". If that sourced fact can be accpeted with the proffered proofs, we might then remove some 10 of them to avoid a linkfarm and agree not to re-tag the word "numerous" with a fact-tag. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article appears to meet notability and verifiability guidelines. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is about someone is notable. A quick Google search will provide you with a wide range of sources about his career. I'm skeptical of your COI (conflict of interest) claim. Swampyank (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I find myself also skeptical about this unfounded accusation of COI, as the author has not contributed to the article for over three years... while many other editors have. What seems more troubling is it being sent again to AfD just 10 days after consensus decided that this person was indeed notable. If one disagrees with the oucome of an AfD discussion, a discussion with the closer is what is instructed... and if that were unsuccessful, going to DRV is the policy instructed next step. Perhaps the nom might withdraw and take his concerns inre the previous close to the closer or to DRV? It would certainly be unfortunate if repeated nomination in a quest for a different outcome were to be seen by anyone as shopping, disruption, point, or game. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable director with coverage in reputable newspapers. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the nom found fault with the previous close why not reverse it? Or take it to DRV? It looks like an appropriate close to me. Taking an article back to AfD this quickly seems highly inappropriate, especially as those commenting previously wern't notified. I would call for a trouting, but I rather enjoy trout and would hate to reward this behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw my previous recommendation (delete), no recommendationThis article now gets into gray areas that i dont feel qualified to comment on. yes, lots of media coverage, but mostly for a 4 minute movie. i dont feel ready to decide notability on such an article, but i wont contest whatever decision is made. at least its referenced now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 18:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross[edit]

List of guests on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

trivia, non-notable, listcruft, no reliable sources. D.M.N. (talk) 15:21, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kaczurak[edit]

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

It has been deleted as A7 in the past and recreated with the same content. Only release a digital download via iTunes. Fails WP:MUSIC. Magioladitis (talk) 14:56, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASF Dancers[edit]

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

Non-notable dance troupe. They appear in a TV show, but no notability in their own right, particularly to the level of listing each member of the troupe. Previously listed via "prod", but tag removed without any comment/reasoning by User:Mizsventezinco. Oscarthecat (talk) 13:37, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hettwer[edit]

Jeff Hettwer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment: a show at the Walker would make him a notable artist. However, my understanding is that his widow is petitioning to have his work shown at the Walker [23] and that the one-night memorial "show" may have been privately commissioned since it took place in the Walker's "Skyline Room", a room for receptions and functions within the Walker's restaurant facilities [24]. This is quite something else than a curated retrospective, as the article currently implies. The rest of the references do not appear to support notability as an artist either, being mainly focused on his tragic death. Enki H. (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No WP:RS, non-notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The show was held in the Skyline Room due to the fact that it took place less than three weeks after the artists death. There would have been no time to coordinate a larger show in that time frame. The petition that is being circulated is to have the artists work accepted into the museum’s permanent collection, not just shown there. There are over 500 signatures on the Facebook petition, more than 1,000 handwritten signatures and a separate online petition has just been created.
KARE 11 news, the NBC affiliate in Minneapolis has just conducted a day long interview with the artist’s wife in his studio and at their home which was entirely dedicated to the artists work. This segment is expected to air within the next two weeks.
Minneapolis/St Paul Magazine has also been in contact with the artist's widow to conduct an interview for an article that they are preparing on the artists impact on the art community.
The University of Minnesota is setting up a scholarship in the artists name for new students pursuing a career in the arts. The Jeff Hettwer Scholarship is expected to be live on the U of M website by the end of the coming week.
These items have not yet been added to the page as they have not yet been published.MNartist (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, perhaps you should wait until thias is done then to creat this article. As is artist is not notable. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Numerous media references related to both art and death, major tv network coverage; how notable does one need to be! Also, death and circumstances surrounding it, add to notability in many cases! The amount of petition signatures and hits on memorial website clearly demonstrate "notability"!Beo1231 (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet of MNartist; !=vote struck and both accounts blocked. Blueboy96 20:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment LOL, lots of emotion surrounding the death of such a talented young artist.
In keeping with the terms of use do you feel that the inclusion of the articles mentioned and the Jeff Hettwer scholarship satisfy the standard of notabililty?MNartist (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--the only coverage I could find is directly related to the crash and does not discuss the artist as an artist (or substantiate the claim that he was an "accomplished artist"). More's the pity, but WP is not a memorial. If this is to be deleted, then with no prejudice toward recreation--perhaps MNartist is right and more will come out. Delete, no salt. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. I can't find evidence that Hettwer meets the criteria at WP:ARTIST, or that he has gotten significant press notice for his art (not for his death). However, there have been occasions when an artist has become more notable after his death; no prejudice against creating an article about him if his art later attracts the attention of art writers, or is significantly exhibited in a way that would demonstrate his lasting importance as an artist. There is no deadline. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest wp:snow closeHell in a Bucket (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind leaving it open for a few more days; maybe some art-savvy user will notice something we missed. I'm always glad to see an article saved from deletion... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OMG the world is going to end, you didn't do what I wanted. LOl Okie dokie by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell in a Bucket (talk • contribs) 21:21, June 28, 2009
  • Comment. The creator of this article has been blocked temporarily, but is still making a good-faith effort to improve the sourcing of this article- reviewing editors might find something of use in the discussion happening on his talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep particularly pending the Walker, an important institution...Modernist (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you consider that this appears not to have been curated by the Walker, but a private function on their premises? Or do you mean by "pending": let's see if the petition to get his work into the Walker is successful? Enki H. (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Given the memorial by local sponsors, and the grassroots support, lets see if the Walker collects and/or responds to the petition...Modernist (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Local notability only. Wikipedia is not a memorial. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The memorial show really doesn't impress me as notable. Where were the shows before he died? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:01, 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 withdrawn Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jane Auch[edit]

Mary Jane Auch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article contains no information besides listing one seemingly unnotable book by this author. The only other thing is a link to the author's website, and the page has not been notably updated or edited since November. PasswordUsername (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing this nominaiton – author is indeed notable. I'll look into fixing this also. Thanks, DGG. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A Google search suggests that she has individually, and jointly with her husband Herm Auch, written and illustrated at least 10 children's books. I can't find any in depth coverage about her though that would provide reliable sources for a Wikipedia article. It is possible that one or more of her books is notable, I have not looked. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly notable, published by Random House and Bantam Books. I have added an infobox and citations, haven't done more as have little time at present. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Important childrens author. His novel, One handed catch is actually in over 2200 libraries according of WorldCatIdentities [25], with about 100 reviews in Google News Archive, including Publishers Weekly, NY Times, School Library Journal, etc etc. --the sort of secondary references that establish notability. [26] . Her many other books similarly. 13 books with over 1000 holdings each, and which will have multiple reviews, because that's the basis on which public libraries buy-an extremely strong record. WP:BEFORE should be obligatory to prevent this careless nomination. Of course, it still needs to be done right: a plain g search doesn't turn up the right material specifically enough. GNewsArchive is now the easy way for reviews of popular books--a great convenience.DGG (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG's research. matt91486 (talk) 01:42, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WebHat CMS[edit]

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

contested prod. Not seeing how this product is notable, Article reads like an advert. RadioFan (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I cannot find any review of this product on the review sites, although I can see it in use in quite a few sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, like Elen of the Roads, I cannot find any sources that provide notability to this product. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, software not notable. Not used that much.LouriePieterse 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the author of this article; I've read carefully Sitecore page on Wikipedia before writing this article and honestly i do not see many differences. What should I do to prevent wikipedia admin from delating it? Remove the company profile I bet it is not enough. Why sitecore is still on with no risk of cancellation? Thank you for your info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giaguara (talk • contribs) 16:34, 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. Given the contentious topic, is it unsurprising the amount of discussion that has been spent on this AfD. The delete votes were strong, numerous, and based the argument firmly on WP:NOTNEWS. Some keep votes claimed that due to the nature of this event, NOTNEWS is being misapplied, and that there were adequate source to consitute notability, but I don't believe the amount nor the quality of the keep arguments outweighed the deletes and hence did not change the result. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair[edit]

2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The conspicuously non-notable article is about an extremely minor and very brief media flurry about a group of young soldiers who printed up T-shirts that were in execrably bad taste and wore them while off-duty.Historicist (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is exactly what WP:NOTNEWS refers to. It is a comically unimportant affair which, for about a week in March 2009, was in some newspaper articles, all of which were based on a single article in Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Since then it has disappeared from serious sources, remaining only in some anti-Israel blogs. All in all, Lindsay Lohan's latest outfit received more media attention than this. The first AfD occurred while the newspaper articles were appearing, so some editors innocently fell victim to recentism, but at this point it's fairly clear what the motivation for keeping the article is. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear This is why I stay away from I/P articles usually. Though there are probably good arguments to delete, Jalap's saying things like "remaining only in some anti-Israel blogs" and "at this point it's fairly clear what the motivation for keeping the article is" makes me just.. sigh. Oh dear.... Count this "Not really a vote" any way you want. Dendlai (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if people like me create a sense of despair in you, you may find that they are reasonable people and that dialogue with them is possible and even fruitful. My statement about where this issue does and does not remain is a verifiable fact. You can check for yourself. As for my opinion on the motivation to keep this article, perhaps my greater involvement in I/P articles (and in this particular article) has made me more cynical than you. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge This is clearly a minor blip in the I/P history, or in the history of the IDF for that matter. There is already a large paragraph about it in the IDF article, this page should either be deleted as insignificant or it should be folded into the existing IDF page's paragraph (which could also use an editors pen...or scissors). Fuzbaby (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator may downplay the significance, in reality it is serious enough to keep. [richardsilverstein] draws the bigger picture on morality: "this is what the Occupation does to Israel". Re nom: it is not "extremely minor", "non-notable"? - notables it is, the papers are serious. Just "a group of young soldiers"? Well, it is a widespread practice in th IDF, "bad taste" is your sweet word for offensive and hate-inciting. -DePiep (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge information into another article. I agree with DePiep that the episode "draws the bigger picture on morality". That is why it needs to be in a larger article dealing with the impact of the occupation on Israelis - perhaps Anti-Arabism#Israel, or in the IDF article (it is there already). Outside of that context, it is flimsy and unimportant.
There was, incidentally, a similar article in the Haaretz magazine section a couple of weeks ago, about instances of Israeli border guards humiliating Palestinians. And Gideon Levy publishes a weekly column there about really execrable incidents in the occupied territories. Are we going to write a Wikipedia article every time Haaretz publishes one of these miniscandals? --Ravpapa (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's merged (and I have no opinion about whether it should be) the article should be kept as a redirect as the easiest way to preserve editing history (see WP:MAD) and since the title would not be an unreasonable one for a redirect. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not about an "affair", but rather about a Haaretz article and its limited local response. Chesdovi (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would say to merge to the IDF article, but all that needs to be said is already there - see Israel Defense Forces#2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt controversy. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is so minor, it should be completely deleted and not even merged. --GHcool (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As WP:NOTNEWS.--Talain (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—as was predicted last time, this story has no follow-up, it's just a news piece that somehow made it to Wikipedia. It has little to no encyclopedic value, and should've been deleted a long time ago. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete- per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NTEMP. It was suggested that the topic would remain popular or notable as far as IDF-history is concerned, and that clearly is not the case. The IDF receives an unprecedented amount of attention for everything it does so if we were to make an article each time an Israeli grunt decided to act out of line wikipedia would likely crash for lack of bandwidth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:NOT#NEWS Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - It is not just a single newsitem by a single paper. The article has been related to war-conduct in general by multiple sources. Expanded into new section. -DePiep (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the new weasel-word studded section sourced almost entirely to blogs? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not here. Please go to the article's Talk page, not here. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First AFD irrelevant? How does someone know? Most arguments there still valid. Also: more argumentation there, not just counting votes. Interesting. And relevant. -DePiep (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment True, arguments from prior AFDs can be relevant, but at the time it was implied the story would remain notable and not simply fall under the NOTNEWS policy. Plenty of articles have been deleted on the 2nd, 3rd, and 10th AFD. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re: Thank you for changing (I suggest striking your bold "irrelevant"). Indeed the arguments there may be relevant. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If "Pallywood" deserves an article this surely does. Halfacanyon (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet User:Halfacanyon has now been banned as a sockpuppet.Historicist (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Halfacanyon's highly suspect pattern of behavior for a new editor, i.e. a new editor who immediately wades into edit wars and AFD's always taking aggressive positions, reveals him as very probably a sockpuppet. Historicist Historicist (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently I'm a sock-puppet too. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first AfD on this article may have been premature, but as a bit of time has passed this has turned to be a un notable minor news event. If wikipedia applied the same standard to every country, and every minor news story, we'd have thousands of articles to things that are not notable but for only a short period of time. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re: 'premature'? There are no comments on the first AFD-procedure. And since a bit of time has passed, new relavant facts have appeared: e.g. another reaction of the IDF command (March 31, Haaretz). btw: the habit was going on since 2007. And of course, the linking with IDF-morality, esp in the Israel-Gaza-war. So the newsflash has reverbed. afterwards and wider. -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Single event from only one media source (albeit RS), all other foreign outlets merely reposted the same news with no follow up and very peculiar that the other Israeli media did not pick up the story at all. No evidence of phenomenon among Israeli soldiers. Oppose merge as well, no similar article or mention in other armies of dumb 'military humour'. --Shuki (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While truly despicable, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and even if it was, this is old news. As reference to the event exists elsewhere, there is no need to expand it into an article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unpleasant, but not a large incident. Do we catalogue every time a paper writes about similar things that happend in Palestine (Gaza/WB)? No, of course not. Looking the writers of the articles, and the way it is written, this article seems to be an attempt to push a certain viewpoint/bias in order to support it on other pages too. Gtadoc (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CloseI think at this point it is clear the consensus is delete, so can an admin close? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a news piece not an encyclopedia piece. I don't even think one would put it in the I/P or IDF articles as it is such a minor incident. Soldiers have poor taste when it comes to humour at times shocker. Up next, an article on Wales about how their sheep have wool. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should Snow Close this.Historicist (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let it run. I'd rather see a definitive consensus on the issue rather than accusations of a premature close. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable single event. This may warrant mention in an Israel-Palestine related article, as an example of how some people treat others, but it's not enough to stand alone on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. seicer | talk | contribs 13:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Appears to be a relevant, on-going controversy. While I understand the not-news argument, I'm not convinced it applies here since this isn't just a quick news event but something is apparently having longer term fall out. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence to support the assertion that this is " having longer term fall out"?Historicist (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re Historicist: Why not read the article as it is now. Multiple sources relate this 1:1 to the morality etc. of IDF. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "multiple sources" referred to by DePiep are radical blogs, some tinged with what can only be called hate-speech. DePiep, please try to understand the Wikipedia concepts of notability and reliable sourcing.Historicist (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which old version have you read (missing Haaretz twice, BBC, Jewish Chronicle for starters)? Anyway this should be on the Talk, not here. -DePiep (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth pointing out that DePiep believes there is a massive zionist conspiracy in action on wikipedia, according to his essay page. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you User:Narson. How very interesting. Turns out User:DePiep is something of a conspiracy theorist. The essay on his personal page opens by alleging that there is an organised, agenda-driven pro-Israel lobbyism (his italics, not mine) operating on Wikipedia. It is a remarkable assertion. This conspiracy involves "All pages, and a lot of editors, all with the same agenda." It is organised', ' "secret," and "ugly." But, never fear, User:DePiep is our guardian against the Zionist conspiracy. His advice: "learn and recognise the tricks used." and if all else fails, stick it to those trick Zionists by leaving "the much-needed template 'Page in bad condition due to pro-Israel lobbying'" That'll learn'em. Dear User:DePiep, do try to at least encounter the idea, the possibility, that a great many people may perceive Israel in a different light than you do, and that they may have some facts and evidence on their side.Historicist (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not worth pointing out, and has no place in this discussion. If you wouldnt mind raising your concerns about a specific user at the appropriate place (the user's talk page, an/i, whatever) it would make these discussion less acrimonious. Nableezy (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America#Wikipedia campaign Pro Israel lobbies tried some serious hidden lobby attempts on wikipedia, so try not to accuse other editors without knowing the cases fully. Kasaalan (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I can count numerous clearly Israeli sided editors in these vote, but why they may so easily offended by pre-stated opinions of other editors.
I can clearly state "an organised, agenda-driven pro-Israel lobbyism" do exist in wikipedia, too which I also find a clear danger to accuracy of articles, as a general guide of course "pro-Arab" editors and acts also exist in wikipedia, yet they are generally unorganised, so not agenda driven and not lobbyist and remain as personal attempts. Kasaalan (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Slimvirgin, as an experienced editor, would any material like this be allowed on the American and British Army pages? --Shuki (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never edited any of those pages, but I should imagine that if British soldiers had these T-shirts made up about pregnant women in Northern Ireland, say, there would be an unimaginable uproar, and almost certainly a Wikipedia article (not to mention senior resignations). Ditto if American soldiers did the same regarding Iraqi women, for example. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remain doubtful that this event is really that significant. Soldiers from quite a few nations have been objectionable in the past. I mean, do we make reference to the anti-german and anti-hitler songs in the British army page? Some of thos were quite objectionable. Troops being dumb ass in their own time is not remarkable. At best this is 2 lines on the IDF or 2009 war page. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you show me anything comparable from the modern (or any) British army joking and rejoicing about shooting pregnant women? What is quite noticeable on this page is that those of you who seem to want to defend Israel are actually saying you expect no better of the IDF, which is something of a contradiction: you support them but you think less of them than their critics do. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only comparable case that comes to mind was the "joke" car built by paratroopers after they'd killed two teenage joyriders. This isn't mentioned in the British army article and not even in the Lee Clegg article. Not sure if that is much help as a comparison. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that User:SlimVirgin will put some of her boundless enthusiasm for recording the misbehavior of uniformed troops into creating an article about United Nations peacekeeping troops raping African children.Historicist (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please feel free to expand that article, but although I know the history quite well I don't tend to edit articles on the Northern Irish conflict, since it would be a struggle for me to maintain a NPOV. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Curious. "Historicist the nom" wrote above it should not be on Wikipedia at all. -DePiep (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is always best to test assertions about what would have appeared against actual cases. The military of Pakistan, Morocco and Nepal were accused not of wearing offensive T-shirts, but of raping women and very young girls (children) while serving as peacekeepers in the Congo. There was enough documentation to satisfy the Washington Post and many other newspapers. Each army has a wikipedia page. The incident is mentioned on none of these pages. It gets a mention in the UN article in a single sentence referencing "various peacekeeping missions, starting in 2003, in Congo,[58] Haiti,[59][60] Liberia,[61] Sudan,[62] Burundi and Côte d'Ivoire.[63]" I have not checked on the armies involved in the Haiti, Liberia, Sudan, Burundi and Ivory Coast incidents, but I'm willing to bet that even actual rape by serving soldiers doesn't get the attention Israeli boys for bad judgement in designing T-shirts.Historicist (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Historicist the nom, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So what? -DePiep (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to User:SlimVirgin's unsubstantiated assertion that if the soldiers f other nations printed up derogatory T-shirts there would be an uproar, buy pointing out that soldiers form other nations actually rape innocent young girls without arousing an uproar of inspiring User:SlimVirgin to write wikipedia pages about actual incidents of rape by uniformed soldiers.Historicist (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There is already MORE than enough of this article in the main page for the IDF. My guess is what is there right now is an over representation of this content, however, it looks like the main IDF page could use some of this page's references. Fuzbaby (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article appears to have good sources. Reseaunaut (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another sock puppet Reseaunaut is the second sock pupet who has voted keep and subsequently been blocked form Wikipedia.Historicist (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but mention in anti-arabism and idf articles. article is well written, well-sourced, but it has turned out to not have been picked up as a more major event than what the initial reaction to it was. Nableezy (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"to not have been picked up as a more major event than what the initial reaction to it was" is sorta kinda the definition of non-notable. i.e., it was a news event. This is exactly the kind of one-story affair without legs that WP:NOTNEWS refers to.Historicist (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
did you notice the note was preceded by "delete" or is it just fun to argue with everybody? Nableezy (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again please note that the article is, since a few days, also describing a wider view, connecting T-shirts directly to IDF-behaviour (esp. in the Israel-Gaza-War). This might be new to readers who skipped some days. Users are invited to review their vote. -DePiep (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Delete This article is about a trivial incident. Expanding it to other topics is just that, adding information that could be (or already is) on other topics. Reading it again, it now reads like an article whose sole raison d'etre is IDF bashing, it has lost much of the more neutral tone it originally had and now forks off onto lots of tangents. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fuzbaby, I don't think "second delete" adds much to the discussion. You can always revise your original advocation of "Delete or merge" based on the changes in the article you mention, or simply add more comments. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jalapenos, I wanted to specifically point out that it was a response to DePiep. And, if you would notice, I did add comments after it, I'm sorry if you disagree with them :-)Fuzbaby (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with your comments at all. I just thought "second delete" could be misunderstood as meaning that you're voting delete after having voted delete in the first AfD. Anyway, it was just a simple misunderstanding. Sorry. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commennt I have looked at the article again following DePiep's comments and my delete !vote above still stands. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the article is actually worse now than it was when the AfD opened, becuase it contains some coatracking, such as the Breaking the Silence statement, and some content unsupported by the cited sources, such as the Anshel Pfeffer statement. In any case, none of this has to do with the question of whether this is an important, encyclopedia-worthy topic or a single news article that was restated and commented on in some other sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, nothing you write here has to do with the AFD here. Same for your delete-motivation above. -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is about provocative clothing and how angry it makes some people. Is that the defining bar for "Affair?"

Agree with Jala, the new section adds nothing to the notability and simply proves editors are willing to do anything except recognize the truth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep For various reasons keep the article
    • WP:NOTNEWS cannot be applied here. Editors suggesting WP:NOTNEWS are seriously mistaken or did not even read the guideline. Not News refers to "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." as a guidelines, not serious human rights violations by armies.

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.

    • The Vehement of the events The T-shirts contains aiming of pregnant women, killing of children, and homosexual rape. The T shirt controversy is a serious and certain human rights violation, and cover up attempts of the event by deletion from wikipedia only indicates POV issues.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/03/20/idf-t-shirts-boast-of-killing-babies-pregnant-women-sodomizing-hamas-leaders/ Homosexual Rape T-Shirt worn by IDF soldiers. This shirt wearing in Israel army, is a serious human rights violation, wearing these t-shirts, letting lower rank soldiers wear these, and defending these as "humour" is also in the same league.
http://www.notes.co.il/idanl/54276.asp Original Hebrew version with more violant t-shirts.
http://www.notes.co.il/idanl/user/racist%20t-shirs%204.jpg A clear human rights violation that depicts Homosexual rape to "enemy soldiers", shooting of babies
No further comment needed. Kasaalan (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some editors claim if the news, would be kept for US army pages, but they claim is not helpful
      • First the t-shirt controversy is added to the IDF page by POV attempts
        • User tried to remove the T-shirt page completely without any discussion, redirected into IDF page, and put a paragraph of the article to IDF page to trim it
        • Any human rights scandal, who is attempted by vast number of personnel deserves a page when the event is covered by reliable international 3rd party sources, and any attempt to delete the event or trim most possibly fall under censorship of COI or POV parties

I will add more rationale, and proof here in similar style. Kasaalan (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think you've demonstrated the flaw in your position excellently. You start out by assuming that the affair was "a serious human rights violation by an army", and proceed from there. It would be interesting to know how you reached the conclusion that wearing offensive shirts is a serious human rights violation. The conclusion is clearly false, and any argument dependent on it is baseless. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI agree with Jalapenos here. The idea that wearing a T-shirt is a human rights violation is pretty ludicrous. What they depict may be but the shirts themselves? Far more likely they'd fall under laws to do with decency (at least in the UK. I'm not aware what Israeli law has to say about it). I have serious doubts there much of a CoI exists here, the odds of one of those soldiers being on wikipedia and being in this debate are slim. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I too have to agree here with Narson and Jalapenos. As has been pointed already, this is a minor incident and to claim it is a major human rights scandal is ludicrous. While clearly in bad taste, I don't think that is surprising nor unique in regard to young men in any military. Fuzbaby (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
The kid who wore "Bush is a terrorist" t-shirt was disbanded from his high school in America.
In the same manner that is why I readded [27] the removed "Cartoon describing attacking Anti-Defamation League" section. Any Cartoon does not make violance acts less important or more pretty.
COI does not limited to army personnel who currently wears such t-shirts (the number is not so low as you claim by the way). IDF calls for any Israeli citizen to the Israel army (which means millions of people), so the chances of previous or current members of IDF or their relatives who edits similar articles are actually pretty high. Don't try to make up statistics out of your mind.
The army scandal which you call as "minor incident" is your own claim, and does not reflect any universal standard.
I don't have to agree with any of you, since you make your point on your human right standards clearly when it comes to IDF.
Homosexual Army Rape or civilian, child or pregnant women slaughtering by soldiers are never funny. Neither t-shirts that depicts these acts, nor the army personnel with heavy arms who can easily commit these acts easily may never be successfully covered up so easily [they already accused by various reliable international and jewish third party human right organisations' numerous reports on committing such acts over the years]. I don't have to tell you anyone who wears, enjoys or consider these shirts as "humorous" should immediately get serious psychological help, and likewise should get disarmed from any army on the spot. If they are "teens" why are they under arms, if they are under arms, how they can wear such clear violent shirts while they are within the army training. Claiming any similar scandal would be covered up or ignored in Europe or even in America is what you should depict as "ludicrous" if you seek something funny. You cannot just tell this is "bad taste" and "unsurprisingly" normal among "young army men" and remove the scandal from wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.notes.co.il/idanl/user/racist%20t-shirs%204.jpg A clear human rights violation by universal standards that depicts Homosexual rape to "enemy soldiers", shooting of babies
No further comment needed. Kasaalan (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't speak for other editors, I think people are arguing that the IDF should be held to the same standard as any other army, not a special standard set by their adversaries in a conflict. Its no surprise that this incident is not on the front page (or anywhere) here | Human Rights Watch or here | Amnesty International. No mention of freedom to not have ugly t-shirts made of you here | Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In looking at the history of the I/P conflict, human rights violations on both sides are easy to find without manufacturing scandals. Equally, I would argue against including distasteful, but non notable events that are portrayed in the media about Palestinian fighters. In regard to militaries, I wonder why wikipedia editors do not document the shocking human rights abuses of other militaries (for example Military of Pakistan or Military of Cambodia). Perhaps those countries and peoples aren't considered as important to some.Fuzbaby (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This event is WP:Notable for wikipedia by reliable third party independent sources with enough coverage The Observer, Haaretz, The Independent, Sky News, Jewish Chronicle, BBC News, CNN, Al Jazeera English, so you don't have to invent new personal standards for other editors in wikipedia to dictate deletion and cover up of notable army scandals.
I don't care what you wonder much, but personally I don't add "shocking military abuses" for Military of Pakistan or Military of Cambodia simply because I don't have any expertise or knowledge about those countries. However I do add for any human rights violation attempts by governments on armies I read by reliable sources recently or previously on any country yet mainly for Britain USA Israel Palestine which I have the most knowledge.
On the other hand when I add [28] Human Rights Watch report against Hamas noone objects
However when I add critical Human Rights Watch reports against IDF some POV parties try to remove reports by sugar coated and "policy based" systematical bias
Such attempts has gained some acceleration recently, by remove this remove that chanting, as my main area of expertise and interest of International Politics-conflict area articles are mainly israel-palestine ones, I can easily tell the Israeli sided editors has clear attempts on removal of reliable Israeli critical coverage from wikipedia, which I cannot tolerate by any means. Kasaalan (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being of Pakistani decent, I have some knowledge and expertise on the abuses committed by its army; however, I couldn't honestly write such a section in a neutral manner. Having read through only a few dozen articles on the I/P conflict, I can see no systemic bias, but I do see clear pov pushing by people on both sides, with no attempt to maintain neutrality but instead an attempt to "win" by getting in information in or posting personal attacks on each other (this article, and this AfD are just on example). Outside editors with knowledge to contribute avoid the articles because anything they add will immediately label them "Israeli sided" or "Palestinian sided" by editors whose personal motivations cloud their objectivity. The lack of decorum demonstrated by editors on these topics, imo, is more of a systemic problem on wikipedia than any "conspiracy" to cover anything up. Fuzbaby (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what neutrality is and what systematic bias is and I know what I am talking about.
Haaretz Publishes Border Police Abuse Israeli troops humiliate Palestinians - and put it on YouTube Dead Palestinian babies and bombed mosques - IDF fashion 2009 this is by Haaretz posted in Breaking the Silence (non-governmental organization) [Israeli sources] Israeli Border Police#Palestinian abuse controvery IDF human rights abuses are vast, and IDF is one of the leading human right abuser armies in the world along with USA, Britain and others. And I cannot tolerate any human rights abuse in the same manner by any party. Hamas human right violations also vast, however as a state army IDF should be held accordingly stressed.
On the other hand the case is not trivial by any means, and anyone claims the case is trivial should go and look to the dictionary definition for the word again.

According to the Chronicle Herald, soldiers wore the shirts to celebrate finishing basic training. It’s an interesting/repulsive example of dehumanizing the group defined as the enemy (they aren’t people, they’re “kills”), as well as how women’s reproductive capacity is often seen as a threat or potential weapon–by reproducing, women create more enemy soldiers. [29]

Ex-soldier and campaigner with Breaking The Silence, Michael Maniken, told Sky News Online this week’s revelations suggest a pattern of immoral conduct in the army. “The army keeps on saying we’re talking about a few rotten apples but it seems the army doesn’t understand there’s a norm in this kind of action,” he explained. “We’re hearing about this time and time again and the army seems disconnected from reality.”[30]

You may read more on the case if you like. [31] [32] Yet try not to belittle the case. Kasaalan (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical comment: For clarity, I have struck through the comments by the two sock puppets on this page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Another suggestion for strikeouts on your talkpage here. -DePiep (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have no confidence that, if this article is deleted, the material will in fact be merged anywhere else. Any article it is added to, it will either be removed from, or repeatedly reduced as "undue," until it disappears entirely from the project. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorical deletion attempts for the article per IDF side claims
    • Previous keep by no consensus decision after AFD in 28 March 2009 [33]
    • Removal of article into redirect without consensus or any discussion that I reversed 26 June 2009 [34]
    • A big trim after redirecting the article page [35] into a paragraph within IDF article [36] 26 June 2009, while 5 references by 3 parties at that time [Haaretz, Independent and Sky News], trimmed to 3 references by 2 parties [Haaretz and Independent], article currently uses 8 refences
    • AFD request per "non notability" and various other wrong claims 1 June 2009 [37]

"The conspicuously non-notable article is about an extremely minor and very brief media flurry about a group of young soldiers who printed up T-shirts that were in execrably bad taste and wore them while off-duty"

"The conspicuously non-notable [ WP:notable by various international reliable 3rd party news sources] article is about an extremely minor [major international news sources Haaretz, The Independent, Sky News, CNN, Al Jazeera English were available at AFD nomination date [38], while The Observer, Jewish Chronicle, BBC News added during AFD] and very brief [not brief by any means] media flurry [respectable news and criticism for a serious human rights abuse which contains "dehumanisation"] about a group of young soldiers [who are heavily armed and trained to kill in war, including snipers and air bombardment personnel] who printed up T-shirts [pays for vulgar T-shirts that depicts illegal acts including murdering of civilians and rape of "enemy"] that were in execrably bad taste [depicting illegal acts cannot be tolerated just by bad taste] and wore them while off-duty [didn't they also wear as a graduation ceremony in military area]"

    • A clear repeated misuse of WP:NOTNEWS during AFD, which actually refers tabloid news, not serious human rights abuse or attempts per dehumanisation.
    • Categorical trimming attempt of the article into nothing, and early blocking for article improvement about a recent case, per IDF sided claims.
  • However do not forget the party which reveals this scandal is also another Israeli newspaper Haaretz in the first place, and it has various coverage internationally, so this is not about being against or pro Israeli, but directly related to IDF cover up. Jewish human rights organizations in the field and some Jewish newspapers accomplishes highly respectable works, and neutral research about human rights abuse of both Hamas and IDF, therefore their works are credible internationally. Kasaalan (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, if I can follow the various arguments you've presented here (Apologies, I'm having some trouble following parts of it), I'd like to bring up part of the general notability guidelines you suggested. "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability". The nature of wiki guidelines is that interpretation is required and accusing other users of 'misusing' things or absolute wrongs is perhaps not great. Taking block quotes of other peoples texts and inserting your own comments is also fairly passive aggressive and poor form. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article seems to me a clear keep given the coverage it has had and the interest it has aroused. Deleting would seem to me to be to be pushing a point of view and removing useful information for our Encyclopedia's users. The articles existance I can see might be viewed as pushing a point of view but the articles tone seems to me to avoid that. The affair is now very well known in both Palestinian and Israelis circles. On the one side it is viewed as showing something important about the culture of some those involved in the conflict and on the other side about how any story no matter how apparently trival is blown out of proportion by those wishing to criticise the protagonists. Whichever side one takes the event is well known and in my view the article is worth keeping rather than deleting. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartlight (song)[edit]

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

The article is 99% trivia, hardly any content at all, 1 reference, this article serves very small importance anyway, If someone believes this article is needed then they can recreate it with more referenced content ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 12:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The song charted and thus passes WP:NSONGS. Both the chart history and "trivia" regarding the ET influence can be referenced to the Billboard artist biography. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A song that charted at #5 in the US is difinitely notable. Deletion rationale is decidely flawed.--Michig (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets required notability criteria. Rewrite it if you don't like the way it's written.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NSONGS. Whereas I have great sympathy for deleting articles with poor/no references or mostly trivia it's not the WP way. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this article is kept, it will need a stub notice, and all content that requires references that weren't provided will be deleted, It's going to need major improvements. Let me see what I can do right now ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 15:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I did some improvements to it ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 15:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The improvements look fine to me. It's good to see an editor prepared to improve an article after nominating it for deletion.--Michig (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Special thanks to Scarce. Many articles aren't keep or delete, but "improve" which Scarce has done. It's a pity that I, or one of the others that said keep, didn't do it and back our words with actions. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Really? That's odd as I seem to remember hunting for and adding references to support the chart positions and ET inspiration [39]. Perhaps Scarce should have read WP:BEFORE and improved the article before the four keep votes above made it clear that the article was indeed notable. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:36, 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 redirect to Men in Black (film). Keeper | 76 01:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Men in Black III[edit]

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

Explicitly fails WP:NFF; no cast or crew have yet been announced, so principal photography is clearly some way off. An article at this point is premature. PC78 (talk) 12:44, 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 delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Reformed Fellowship Australia[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG miserably, zero coverage in Google news search. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the criteria here is WP:ORG not size of organisation. LibStar (talk) 13:22, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J.K. Choi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Michael J.K. Choi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It was deleted three times with A7. Fails WP:MUSIC. Check edit history to see that at least 2-3 more editors believe it has to be deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that it has been to AfD before and the result was no consensus. I still believe it has to be deleted. The main argue last time was that the article claims that this article has sold 130,000 CDs. First of all, this number is a sum of all 6 albums. This means at about 20,000 per album. Secondly, I can't find any source seconding this information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:08, 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 as copyright violation. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gene therapy for bovine mastitis[edit]

Gene therapy for bovine mastitis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be either a cut-and-paste copy from another source, or, more likely (given the grammatical errors), original research. It was introduced in one edit almost a week ago and, despite a note to the author requesting that he address the issues, has remain untouched (other than bot categorization) since. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as, at best, an unreferenced synthesis of sources that violates WP:NOR. Bits of it are copyvios of this, and other bits are copyvios of this; and I'm sure that someone with the patience to do so could show that all the rest of the content has been copy/pasted from published sources (the citations with no accompanying references are a dead giveaway). Looks like a school paper by a plagiarism-prone student to me, not an encyclopedia article. Deor (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV essay that's one big copyvio. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 19:33, 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 redirect to Driver (series)#Future . The consensus is to merge the article, but as was mentioned, the entire content is all ready present at the target. All that's left is to point the redirect. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Driver: The Recruit[edit]

Driver: The Recruit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Extremely little known about the game at present. Doesn't seem to warrant an article yet. Oscarthecat (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - If it hasn't been released, how do we know if its notable? Jenuk1985 | Talk 11:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third-party sources and, occasionally, other arguments for significance. The same way we know with everything else. Why? There's no rule that upcoming or cancelled games deserve special treatment one way or the other. Duke Nukem Forever is an extreme example. I'm 'neutral, by the way. The nominator's rationale is that the article doesn't do enough good, but that doesn't seem like something we can or should measure effectively. It's not affecting performance, it's not eroding our standards, it's not making more important things more difficult to find, and it could be of help to (say) people checking rumors. --Kizor 14:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Driver (series)#Future for now, removing any direct assertions that the title is Driver: The Recruit. Although the trademark can be mentioned, to claim that it is the name of the new game is original research at this point; none of the sources actually claim that the trademark is for the particular game being developed. This isn't the first time AimalCool has done this sort of thing. Last week, the user took fan speculation of a possible release date for the Dreamcast 2 and decided that it was a definitive worldwide release date,[40] even though there is no credible evidence that the console even exists. Dancter (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt until such time that notability is established. It will just get recreated over and over by different anons otherwise. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No need to redirect the page as the title isn't even linked to anything. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's linked somehow to this weird thing called the search box. Dunno what it is. SharkD (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant subject-wise. "Driver: The Recruit" is just a registered trademark and not yet a game of any sort. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Ha! That's a point for SharkD. It's (hopefully) agreed that the contents of this article could be covered somewhere, even if it's to stop recreation. It should also be uncontroversial that the article's merits are dubious. Its title may also be a search term. Therefore we should merge to Driver (series)#Future. I see no downside to this. --Kizor 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the relevant section per Kizor, though it seems the information is already present and correct and no merge is necessary. Someoneanother 19:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nom Withdrawn. Fingerz 13:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Order of Vikings[edit]

Independent Order of Vikings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is eligible under A7, but the reviewing admin was reluctant to delete, because this article has been around for many years. I've taken it here to generate more discussion. There's no claim of notability in the article, and nothing to suggest it passes WP:ORG. A google search came up with no sources. Fingerz 11:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's interesting, when I searched for it on google news I came up with nothing. Fingerz 05:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to use the archive search, otherwise it will only show results from the last month. :) TheLeftorium 09:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy. To think of all the other pages I've nommed/!voted for deletion because of empty google and google news searches...nom Withdrawn. Sorry for the inconvenience guys. 13:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment for the record, this explains my rationale for not speedy-deleing the article. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems like one of the few web cites for an organization people might want to know more about (when seeing their buildingds, when buying insurance). No obvious reason to delete. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:36, 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 redirect to Ralf Dahrendorf. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christiane Dahrendorf[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited, and this lady's only claim to fame seems to be that she was married to a notable person. Previous PROD (not by me) removed by page creator on the grounds that the subject "has received sufficient media coverage." I'll admit my German is crap, but all the google hits I'm seeing are either referring to her husband, or are directories of medical practitioners. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect to Ralf Dahrendorf, as nominator of the proposed deletion. I concur with the article's creator that there is indeed media coverage available, however as already mentioned by the nominator, only in connection with her former husband (mostly obituaries) or with her surgery (adress and location). Note that even the German Wikipedia does not have an article on her.
    ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 13:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, one off. Wife of a notable person. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:22, 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 delete. Keeper | 76 02:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knuts[edit]

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

Unreferenced, unencyclopedic. Not of any significance.  Cargoking  talk  10:51, 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. Despite a fairly comprehensive search for sources by several participants, it seems to have become apparent that this band is distinctly under-reported even beyond what would be expected for a moderately-obscure band of this age. Consensus seems to hold that the band is therefore insufficiently notable. ~ mazca talk 16:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Collegiates[edit]

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

This group seems to fail WP:MUSIC as no sources could be found besides trivial local ones. Last AFD closed as no consensus due to the fact that after a relist, the only !voters were the nominator and his socks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me somewhat strange to characterize the source that I added as "trivial" when it verifies that The Collegiates opened for such 1960s music acts as Jerry Lee Lewis. The source calls the lead singer of the band "a one-time rock 'n' roll star" due to his association with the band. The article also refers to a Billboard review of one of their records—has anyone checked to see if this can be better sourced? While I am not able to say for sure, I suspect that this is one of the cases where the lack of easy access to the print sources of the time (the 1960s) is skewing the deletion discussion. I suspect that a band that opened for Jerry Lee Lewis had enough sources writing about it to meet our notability guidelines. I would lean towards keeping the article if a more extensive search for old sources has not been done. It could be stub-ified in the meantime. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 10:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This group seems to have left remarkably little trace on posterity. Nothing at allmusic, just an apparently unrelated backing band for Dickey Lee. A search for band and lead singer's name yields a couple of posts to a newsgroup, the Daily Herald source that's already cited (seems to be a woolly human interest piece: local man is secret former rock star), and wikipedia mirrors. That's it. This seems to be another unrelated band. Not all reliable sources are online but there should be some trace if this band were as significant as the article makes out. All we can say at the moment is that the band probably existed and the lead singer was called Larry Ascough. I guess these guys have fallen cruelly through the gaps of history. It's not wikipedia's job to fish them out though, so unless someone can turn up a better source I don't think we need to hold on to this. Flowerparty☀ 11:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your attempts to find some sources. In light of what you are saying, I would re-cast my comments above as neutral. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Flowerparty's excellent reasoning. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:13, 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 redirect to Predator (franchise). –Juliancolton | Talk 02:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Predators (film)[edit]

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

Release date aside this project has merely been announced and does not as of yet have a director. As principal photography has not yet commenced, the film does not meet WP:NFF and an article at this point is premature. PC78 (talk) 10:00, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Hugo Chávez[edit]

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

This was always basically a WP:FORK of Hugo Chávez. With useful content increasingly moved to the appropriate articles, what's left has no purpose beyond attracting WP:COATRACKery. It remains irredeemably a WP:FORK. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I think you mean WP:POVFORK. The WP:FORK you link to is something different. --maclean 23:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, of course. Thanks. Disembrangler (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There has been an effort to incorporate specific criticisms into respective articles. Anything of value which remains can be merged. Dynablaster (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article contains relevant information properly sourced, about Hugo Chavez stance on human, civil and political rights. Besides, editors sympathetic to Chavez make impossible for criticism to stand in Hugo Chavez's main entry.Alekboyd (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all useful info with main article Hugo Chávez (that has not already been spun off to other locations and linked from the main article), then delete (or redirect if the main article has a specific criticism section that this page could redirect to). Awickert (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I was waffling on the redirect idea for that very reason, and do not hold that suggestion strongly. As long as any good info is pulled out and put where it should go, deletion is fine by me. Awickert (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteInappropriate fork. The extremely unbalanced presentation of the material shows its purpose to be a POV fork, not an expansion. What else can we think about an article that contains unreferenced sections such as this, copied in full:
During the Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004, Súmate and other political opponents made unproven allegations against Chavez of electoral fraud.

There is no attempt in the entire article to find positive comment to balance the negative, or to cite statements in his defense. I would usually say that an article of the sort can be improved by balancing, but the malice of this article is self-evident, and the group of main articles on the subject provide opportunity for a full statement of positive and negative comment. If there is difficulty inserting negative criticism, the proper course is to pursue Dispute Resolution DGG (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: a closing admin might also skim Talk:Criticism of Hugo Chávez/Archive 1, where repeated suggestions have been made that the article is an attack page, and should be deleted. (And those comments were made before the merging of content to other articles.) Overall, deleting the article can only be an improvement, in removing the remaining duplication (mostly of Economy of Venezuela at the moment I think; but it's a structural problem), and in forcing actual criticisms (as opposed to WP:COATRACKery) to be integrated into the relevant topic articles, where it belongs and will actually be of use to readers. A Criticism article like this satisfies some editors' need to have an obvious outlet for criticism, but is not in the best interests of the readers. (And ultimately, in terms of forcing editors to place valid criticisms in a proper context where readers will actually read it, as opposed to tucking it away in an obviously biased collection of Stuff That Makes The Subject Look Bad, deletion is in the interest of those editors too.) Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it would not be necessary to have such an article if regular editors sympathetic of Hugo Chavez & related pages were not so adamant in allowing criticism to be included in entries. I invite editors commenting in this page to just have a look at the histories of those articles: any criticism is systematically deleted. In fact the entries read as propaganda for Chavez. In this respect Wikipedia is hopelessly biased and this is an issue that goes beyond mere deleting/keeping/merging an article.Alekboyd (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because you don't get to call Chavez a terrorist doesn't mean Wikipedia is biased. Disembrangler (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I get to call the president of my country whatever I want whenever I want wherever I want; it's called freedom of expression, and yes, as far as articles related to Hugo Chavez in Wikipedia are concerned, this encyclopedia is beyond the pale in terms of bias. Any attempt to introduce correctly-sourced criticism is summarily dismissed by editors with obscure identities and questionable motives, who can't tell the difference between a functioning democracy and a post-modern dictatorship. You can have your revisionist history printed here no doubt, you can paint a putschist, a man that supports terrorism as Mother Teresa all you like, but there's a world out there, full of people with discerning minds.Alekboyd (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"At the same time, The Economist opines that the administration's unwillingness to use private sector resources has resulted in a crumbling public infrastructure and a deficit in housing.[51] Critics cite the many public hospitals that lack basic medicine and hygienic supplies."

may have a place in Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government, but in Criticism of Hugo Chávez it is just WP:COATRACKery. "Criticism of ..." articles concerning people (BLPs, like Bill O'Reilly or Noam Chomsky or Vladimir Putin) should be aggressively kept in check and deleted (or stubbed) if they cannot be. --maclean 23:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is also a good example of a point I made above: in the Criticism article, this is just WP:COATRACKery. In Health care in Venezuela, it would be a start for something that might end up useful (eg it might lead to more up-to-date statistics, etc). It's just better to have these things in topic articles than in Criticism. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question related to this: how much has already been forked out, and how much hasn't? If material hasn't been moved to appropriate pages, then I think that either the material should be sandboxed for post-deletion positioning or that the deletion should be postponed until the material is moved. That way, we won't lose useful nuggets (like that above) for other articles. Awickert (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I dont like the guy one bit, but this is a clear WP:POVFORK. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename "Public image of Hugo Chavez", along the lines of numerous other politicians, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, and add the relevant balancing material from the main article. 21:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Not a bad idea to have such an article (Public image of Hugo Chávez), but there is a big danger of ending up with much the same problems as for Criticism, and I think it would probably be better to write it from scratch in order to reduce the risk of that. A few bits from Criticism may be usable, but much of it is Stuff About Venezuela duplicated from elsewhere, and a substantial merge would increase the likelihood of the new article being pretty similar to the old Criticism, just slightly reworded. Also we already have Media representation of Hugo Chávez, which might be mergeable or even renameable for that topic. But yes, if the article is kept, such a renaming and consequent refocussing is definitely a good idea. Disembrangler (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a WP:COATRACK and often pushes the limits of scope when there's no need. I see no problems with a Public Image page (a renamed media representation) but I think just adding to that and the other relevant articles, rather than a merge, is a better idea. RutgerH (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nom. Corpx (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Parker[edit]

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

Another gay pornstar with no notability established Corpx (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It took me less than 30 seconds to find this search result showing multiple reliable sources. Easy flies past GNG. -- Banjeboi 10:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable for his profession per Benjiboi's sources. ThemFromSpace 10:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It might need work on its tone and additional references but very few porn stars are notable enough for a published biography and that makes it a keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:52, 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. Keeper | 76 01:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hart[edit]

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

Gay pornstar with no notability established Corpx (talk) 09:15, 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. Keeper | 76 01:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humayun Abbas[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, gnews and gscholar searches produce next to nothing. This was prodded, prod rejected because of claim that he was head of department -- but he is an assistant professor and was tapped to act as head while real head was on leave, see here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:51, 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. Keeper | 76 01:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Olson (MInnesota Political Figure)[edit]

Bob Olson (MInnesota Political Figure) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)–(View AfD)

Contested prod without improvement. Unsuccessful candidates for minor political office are not within notability guidelines unless they are notable for other reasons. This reads as promotional rather than third party and there are no reliable independent sources. It is like;y that the main author is closely related to the subjectPorturology (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Niteshift36 (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete No indication that he has even held an office, although he was the Democratic candidate in the 1994 election for a seat in Congress against a very popular incumbent. "Weak" delete because there is some merit in being the lone person who chooses to represent the party when everyone else is reluctant to do so. I know of at least one other person who is in Wikipedia for that reason, and whom I will not rat out because it would be a certain nomination and deletion. This appears more to be a repository for quotes from the candidate. My suggestion to the author would be to try to write an article about the American Sustainable Energy Council, and include a small paragraph therein about your kinsman. Mandsford (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to have this information accessible if he ever runs again. He has run 4 campaigns. Leave the page up. There is plenty of media coverage on him and those citations could be fixed up by someone googling around to find the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlakeOlson (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but we don't keep articles on that basis. All information that stays on Wikipedia is presumed to be accessible elsewhere. I'm assuming that Mr. Olson is your father. I consider my late father to have been one of many important persons in LBJ's War on Poverty, although I don't think that he would pass Wikipedia's notability standards. That notwithstanding, a Wikipedia article in "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is the least of honors that one can receive. Mandsford (talk) 20:06, 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. Arguments for and against with no consensus coming through Nja247 08:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New materials (painting)[edit]

New materials (painting) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This term does not appear to be commonly used, and there has not been significant coverage of its use. Despite the word painting in the article name, the article is just a general essay on materials used by painters in the 20th century, in sculpture as well. All of the information here is discussed in the individual artists' pages, as well as pages for 20th century art, and the pages linked in the article, body fluids in art and plastics in art. Conical Johnson (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All painting materials were new at some point and they are (or should be) covered in some form under the articles for painting styles / materials, in historical perspective. A separate article on "New materials" meaning "New in the 20th or 21st century" would be separately notable only IF this term were widely used in exactly this sense. A search in the online version of the Oxford Dictionary of Art finds only two instances of the phrase "new materials": (i) Archipenko, Alexander [...] His work was influential in both Europe and America, notably in the revival of polychromy, in the use of new materials, and in pointing the way from a sculpture of solid form towards one of space and light. This refers to sculpture. (ii) The father of Constructivism was Vladimir Tatlin, who [...] began making abstract Relief Constructions using materials such as sheet metal, wood, and wire. He was influenced [...] by the Futurist sculptural manifesto (1913), in which Boccioni similarly advocated a [...] sculpture that was constructed from various new materials [...]. This also refers to sculpture. Moreover, both uses are clearly not shorthand for a wider concept, but merely describe innovation. Both instances are not relevant to the subject of the article. The term is therefore not represented in this sense anywhere in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Art and not notable. The article should be deleted. Enki H. (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is in fact no requirement at all for the precise wording of a title to be a recognised phrase, and the widespread belief that there is acts as a drag on the encyclopedic coverage of WP. Should for example Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting, Cultural studies theory of composition, Historiography of the Poor Laws, Artillery of France in the Middle Ages and so on be deleted for this reason? We have a much greater number of articles on art than the Oxford Dictionary of Art, so it is not surprising if we cover subjects they don't. The article covers 1900 on, & it would be better if the title made this clear, although the first sentence does. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and these are all good examples, but is "New materials (painting)" separately notable in the specific sense that the article uses it? My abbreviated approach was to check whether the phrase is in use in the ODA, (not whether ODA has an article on it). Another approach would be if there were a book, or at least book chapter on that very topic. Looking through the first ten pages of a Google book search on "new materials" painting does not bring up anything of that sort either - just innovations in Renaissance painting, Acrylic vs. oil, and use in a general sense. Enki H. (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said above the title would probably be improved, but the more important question is "Is the subject seperately notable?", which I think it is. New materials in modern painting/art or something similar would be better. Alteratively an article taking the whole sweep of Western painting covering the takeover by canvas, new 19th century dye colours etc etc would be an equally valid approach, but not what we have here so far. Not all subjects have a distinct term attached to them. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnbod, I think the article can use expansion, a new name, and some deeper inclusions, but should stay...Modernist (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think having a new article (if one, in fact, does not already exist) which deals with materials in painting, per Johnbod is a good idea. My problem with this article (and I realize a retitling is a simple solution), is that this term itself is vague. I can't imagine anyone using Wiki's search function to find this. Could a more comprehensive article on the changes in materials in painting and art in general be more useful? It would also help the uninitiated understand why artists not only brought unorthodox materials into painting in the 20th century, but why artists began to abandon painting outright (or at least, why painting is no longer the dominant medium). Whatever's useful in this article could be merged into that one. There is already a List of art materials and the proposed merge of that into media (arts). Perhaps all of this could be merged into one, with all the appropriate redirects leading there. That way we could have a one useful article on artists' materials. freshacconci talktalk 13:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with Fresh and the possibility of this being a larger article that can help the uninitiated understand why artists not only brought unorthodox materials into painting in the 20th century, but why artists began to abandon painting outright (or at least, why painting is no longer the only dominant medium). A name change is in order; a study in the revolutionary evolution in 20th century art materials is valid, interesting and complicated...We have articles in Acrylic paint, Collage, Neo-Dada, Assemblage, Appropriation, etc. and bringing it all together with a look at materials artists use has far-reaching possibilities. TV sets, basketballs, Michael Jackson statues, diamond sculls, sharks and Spiral jetty's...Modernist (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cray Wanderers F.C. season 2009-10[edit]

Cray Wanderers F.C. season 2009-10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a semi-professional team playing in a regional league, past consensus at WP:FOOTY has been that such teams do not merit individual season articles ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Life[edit]

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

Contested prod. A book for which there exists no independent reliable sources available to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without prejudice for recreation if it becomes notable. According to Amazon the book doesn't even come out until August, so it is not surprising the books hasn't generated any coverage yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: CreationHouse is a vanity press, so the chances of this book ever becoming notable are slim. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tagged for notability when the article was created as I couldn't find anything about the book release. Nothing now either. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:12, 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 02:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consumarchy[edit]

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

The original AfD rationale said "Prodded as protologism, based on coinage of one a single researcher." It was deleted, but the article was recreated anyway. Nothing has changed, though; as best I can tell all the "references" except one really are just talking about the concept in general and never use the word consumarchy anyway. (See http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/against-all-odds for an example of a "reference" given in the article).

To be sure, the idea of ethical consumerism exists, it's just, uh, at ethical consumerism. If this neologism turns out to have merit after all, this article should be merged and redirected to ethical consumerism anyway, as they seem to be covering the same concept. However, a Google reveals that the only sites talking about this are User:Consumarchy's blog (prominently linked at the end of the article), Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, and other wikis. Yeah, this term doesn't actually exist, so just delete. Again. One paper does not a new term make. SnowFire (talk) 06:34, 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. Well, delete and add to User:Hersfold/Weird Stuff, anyway... Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed by mosquitoes[edit]

List of people killed by mosquitoes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unlikely to ever be complete. Most people "killed by mosquitoes" actually die of something else. —G716 <T·C> 04:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 04:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 04:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quite WP:FREAKY. I'm yet to see a death certificate which gives cause of death "mosquitoes". yes there are mosquito related illnesses but they are various. LibStar (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hah, this is a hoax article. Anyways, speedy delete imo. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mosquitoes don't kill people... No offense, but this is nothing short of ridiculous. Chamal talk 07:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Obvious hoax. "It is estimated that mosquitoes have killed half the people who have ever lived." As much as I want there to be a real, sourced article called List of people killed by mosquitos...
  • Delete After reading the sources, it's clear this isn't a hoax - bad call on my part. But even though many people may be killed by disease spread by mosquito, I'm not sure it would be right to say they're killed by mosquitoes, and perhaps more importantly, I don't think there will be many people who are notable who have been killed by malaria, etc. We'd have to have a list of billions of people. Conical Johnson (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on a world-wide basis, given malaria and other diseases they probably have. For the notable people in wikipedia, given our geographic bias, it will be a much smaller proportion. A preliminary check in our index gives 1420 candidates. I would suggest revising the scope to just malaria, and considering the other diseases separately. The main ones are yellow fever , filariasis, epidemic polyarthritis, Rift Valley fever, Ross River Fever, St. Louis encephalitis, West Nile virus (WNV), Japanese encephalitis, La Crosse encephalitis, dengue fever, and a few others. We can do them separately--they will be smaller lists.DGG (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
then we should have List of people killed by malaria and separate articles for each disease, as this is easily verifiable by a death certificate. no doctor would write "killed by mosquitoes". LibStar (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I aggree with you--this should lead to such lists. Agreed, its not much of a start but I'm glad you agree with me on the principle of the sort of lists that is appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is another one of those lists we just don't need. This information could easily be covered under the article about mosquitoes or the diseases without repeating it in this list. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Funny choice of title (are most bubonic plague victims going to be on a list of "People killed by fleas"?). Unlikely ever to be something we need. --Folantin (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to the best of my knowledge (which is profesionally appropriate) no-one has ever been killed by a mosquito. Killed by diseases born by mosquitos - malaria, yellow fever, and a wide variety of rarer diseases, yes. (See comment above by DGG). But saying they were killed by mosquitos is like saying that people dying of swine flu were killed by pigs! --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 12:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The name is inappropriate and we don't need a list anyway. Categories called something like "Malaria victims" and "Yellow Fever victims" might be acceptable. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia actually has a number of articles about death from animal attacks (Category:Deaths due to animal attacks), but, surprisingly, none about death from an insect bite or sting. My suggestion to the author would be to refer to the many many names from Category:Deaths from malaria and move this to a more sensible title. As others have pointed out, you just don't see anybody keel over dead from a mosquito bite, although they may die from an illness carried by a mosquito. In this case, the "list" is literally an army of one. I'm going to spoil the ending-- it was Rupert Brooke, the English poet. Mandsford (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and don't forget this. --Folantin (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is something so ridiculous I would have thought even the DGG would be moved to vote delete. Perhaps he hadn't considered Anthony.bradbury's apposite comment. Eusebeus (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I can't decide how much merit there would be in having the list, but my gut says that this could become informative and poignant. While caregorizing the various mosquito-borne illnesses, plus non-specific infections at the bite site might be enough as a category of mosquito-related deaths. With strict inclusion criteria and a good base of entries (I added Clara Maass just to give it a fighting chance) and broke into headings based on cause of death, this could become a convenient resource. I'm not optimistic enough to do much more than throw a name or two (if I think of a second well-deserving name) and propose an organizational schema. I do not have sufficient conviction to add a {{rescue}} tag as it could easily grow too big to be useful. The number of deaths related to mosquitoes warrants a well-reasoned discussion. The discussion should center on the merit of the list existing since the title can always be changed. Novangelis (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per what everyone else is saying- people die of diseases that are transmitted by the mosquitoes, the mosquitoes themselves have nothing to do with it- the list is arbitrary (it will in fact include people who have died of many different diseases though I assume malaria is the most common one) and will never be complete. Now, lists of people killed by certain diseases might be slightly better (though that is best represented by the category linked above). If this article was changed to something more encyclopedic like "Mosquito disease transmission" or "Human deaths from mosquito bites" and written with some content (the sources found in the current list are a good start) instead of just a list (although certain notable deaths can certainly be listed), it would be much more encyclopedic. The DominatorTalkEdits 07:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the idea of the list People killed by sneezes shows you how ridiculous this classification is. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unneeded list. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Memorial Ride[edit]

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

No evidence this event is a notable event as described by the inclusion criteria at Wikipedia:Notability. I did a google search, and once one strips out other similarly titled but unrelated events, there is almost nothing out there in terms of reliable sources on this one. It appears to only be referencable to its own website, which seems to me to indicate that, while it is most likely a real event, that really happened, it is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia as an article as yet. There are also some redirects that would need to be deleted if this article is deleted as well. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adding "Ottawa" to the google search term will refine the results. The event is listed on a number of web sites other than its own. It's also briefly mentioned in the Ottawa Citizen[42] and in Legion Magazine[43]. Station1 (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those references do mention the event, but they are single-sentence mentions, and do not appear to represent the depth-of-coverage required by WP:N, namely that the subject of the article needs to be significantly covered in detail by the independent sources, and not just mentioned... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was the first time in Canada that a Cemetery allowed a motorcycle procession into its grounds. That alone makes this notable, that they want us back next year and every year after that is very notable. The event is supported by DND, by Veterans Affairs Canada, Dominion Command of the Canadian Legion, by the Commonwealth Graves Commission, The National Capital Commission and by the 10 motorcycle units in attendance. The City of Ottawa Police Services escorted the riders from the Canadian Aviation Museum to the Canadian Military Cemetery. That kind of support makes this a notable event. It has never been done before in Canada, although many others have tried. The event is already in the planning stages for next year, and it is expected to be even larger in size. Yes there is next to nothing on the internet about the ride, because it was the first of many. Next year there will be more internet hits because it now has a track record of success. Normally, a motorcycle event (in Canada) is considered on its first run if 40 or more show up. That 328 bikes showed up and registered, and about 100 joined in is a huge success for the first year. Unfortunately if I was to write that, you would flag me as advertising. This might not be a big notable event for non-Canadians, but is was and is big event for Canada. - Andrew Davies, GankT19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GankT19 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, unfortunately, that already -has- been written in the article, and it -is- advertising. Anarchangel (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability. I previously nominated this for speedy deletion as a promotional and copyright violation, and noted to the article's originator that conflict of interest is a concern as well. Its mention in several news stories was very short, included as a peripheral part of a larger observance. This year's ride was the first; neither its novelty nor the promise of future events confer notability. JNW (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JNW; violates WP:N --mhking (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information on how many levels of government, different departments, and Non governmental entities that had to approve and work together to conduct this ride has been added.comment added by GankT19 (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorcycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorcycling on Wikipedia--GankT19 (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast characters. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tansuit[edit]

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

Minor fictional character doesn't meet WP:N. Prod declined. —  X  S  G  03:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After closer examination I see that the character is already covered there as its correct name appears to be either Tansit or Tansut. (I thought it wasn't b/c I simply searched for Tansuit.) Thus, a redirect is probably sufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tansut and Tansit already exist as redirects to said article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maliyadeva Scout Group[edit]

Maliyadeva Scout Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Looks to be a college scout group with no notability and it looks like the wiki page is used as their web site Corpx (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's a Scouting unit chartered to this university — essentially what would be called a "Scout troop" elsewhere in the world, a small group with a few dozen members at most. Except for a very rare situation, an individual troop can't be notable, and this one clearly isn't that very rare situation. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD notice was removed from the article on 28 June and I have only just found this and added it back. Also this article was not known to the WikiProject Scouting until I just notified them of it. For both these reasons, I suggest that this be not closed until the project can consider possable merges. I would also add that it is not attached to a university, but to a High School. Neverless, articles on individual Scout Groups are not notable and we have even removed lists of Groups in some articles. This article should be either deleted or merged in part to another article on Scouting in Sri Lanka. It should also be transwikied to the ScoutWiki. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not much to merge, all of local interest only. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Youn In-wan. Consensus seems to hold that this manga is insufficiently notable for an independent article. The author, as well as being more notable, also has a fairly short and stubby article at the moment, so the consensus to merge this article there seems clear and logical. ~ mazca talk 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akuma Bengoshi Kukabara[edit]

Akuma Bengoshi Kukabara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to assert notability and unsourced. Given that it is a one-shot manga, the likelihood of reliable third-party sources covering the work is piratically none. Disputed prod. Farix (Talk) 23:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I just corrected the spelling of the guy's name in the article. He is a notable manga writer, with several notable series. There are a lot of places mentioning him online, and his various manga series. Sorting through the tens of thousands of hits to find one which is considered a notable third party media source, is a rather difficult tasks, but I'd assume some of them would count. If there is no official English translation, then finding a review in English might be difficult to do, however common sense would suggests if the manga creator is famous for having past successful series, then any work they do will get reviewed somewhere. Dream Focus 07:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect into Youn In-wan. The subject of this article isn't notable unto itself, though it seems the author is. —  X  S  G  03:13, 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. Nja247 08:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anabukinchan[edit]

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

Advertising character for a company that isn't even notable enough for an article. An old meme because of a sexual theme in the ad. There are no secondary sources given to prove notability. Reywas92Talk 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Being part of one popular ad doesn't make you notable, and that's the only thing there is to say about this character. Chamal talk 02:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability isn't established and I'm not seeing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She was a popular Internet meme when she came up, but I haven't heard anything from her in quite a while. So she can be laid to rest now AFAIC. -- pne (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, actually. First, Anabuki Construction is definitely a notable company. The Japanese Wikipedia has an extensive article and there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Just nobody had created an article here until I did just now. Anabukinchan has been the recurring advertisement characters since 1999. I see coverage in Japanese about her here and here. My Japanese is not good enough to be sure what kind of websites those are, but they appear to be more than just blogs. The second is for mobile phones and thus very simple. I expect there is more coverage is Japanese advertisement industry magazines that I couldn't find through simple Googling. The notability as an internet meme is entirely secondary, though I did fine coverage in Salon here. I wouldn't mind a merge to Anabuki Construction, even though this would stand out strangely in the current stub. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:44, 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 redirect to Make Me a Supermodel (season 2). Merging may be done as gathered consensus deems necessary. ÷seresin 00:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhurst Tacama Miggins[edit]

Sandhurst Tacama Miggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person who didn't won Make Me a Supermodel. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 15:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge/redirect whatever verifiable info into Make Me a Supermodel. Reason: single-event notability of the person. - Altenmann >t 16:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT - Being the runner up of a show does not make one notable Corpx (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge : the person is relevant only in the context of the show, and runner-up in this context is reasonably notable. Mukadderat (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge take also useful and verifiable info and add into article per Altenmann Nja247 08:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Sport Combat Federation[edit]

International Sport Combat Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article claims notability, but doesn't provide independant sources. Gnews shows no hits. Ghits come back with mostly forums and sites associated with the org. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interestingly, the 2nd link has nothing more recent than 2007 and the first one shows 2008 as the last event. Truthfully, that makes me feel they are even less notable than before. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see nothing to suggest notability. Their MO seems to be to put their name on events promoted and put togheter by actual promotions (and sanctioned by actual sanctioning bodies, i.e. the state athletic commisions) while giving out titles to all the non-notable or barely notable fighters they can get to (because if they were actually notable they would sign with proper promotions whos titles are't meaningless). Seems to me the only reason some promotions are on board with this is because they are so small their own titles would actually mean even less than ISCF's (and I guess because "ISCF" sounds kind of impressive if you're clueless to what's behind it). The sole pro MMA "world" championship title they've given out was to Din Thomas in 2000, and he still haven't defended it even though he's fought 20 times (14 wins, 7 losses) since then because none of the promotions reckognized the title; i.e. none of the fights have been "ISCF-sanctioned"-bouts. Unless sources are provided to show the ISCF is notable outside their own little MMA-bubble I have to go "delete". --aktsu (t / c) 07:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The big number doesnt mean anything (WP:BIGNUMBER). I find the lack of notability the big issue Corpx (talk) 05:06, 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 move to Dave Sullivan (Illinois politician). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sullivan (Illinois politician)[edit]

Dan Sullivan (Illinois politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

person does not exist; the correct person is David Sullivan. Article was apparently created in err. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to the proper name — assuming that you can provide a source for his office, there's no reason to delete this once it's at the right name. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to the proper name if it can be verified (I was not able to do so), else delete. JJL (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most refs are behind pay walls, but here's one. He isn't a State Senator any more, but per the note Zagalejo references above, this was the intended article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:37, 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. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short and Sweet[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:N. Of the references provided 1. No longer works, 2-4. are self written and 5. is a blog and doesn't even mention them at all except in the reader comments. I can't find anything about it on Google that would confer notability. I apologise if I'm wrong. ɪntəsvɛnsk 16:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Short+Sweet (may not have been found as writer was Googling Short and Sweet) is the largest ten-minute theatre festival in the world, runs across Australia and in Asia, involves thousands of artist and audience members per year and thus must remain on Google. I will edit the page to refresh links.[47]Perhaps writer above would consider removing the deletion request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.241.226 (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a discussion of things "remaining" on Google. This is a discussion of whether this Wikipedia article should or should not be deleted in accordance with our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If you want to address that properly to make an argument for keeping that actually holds water here, show, with citations, that multiple independent published works by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy document this subject in depth. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 18:50, 16 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, 21 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 00:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the references are from multiple independent sources, and the organization is active in several major Australian cities and therefore has a national scope. It seems to me to meet the general wp:org criteria, though it is certainly in desperate need of cleanup.--Talain (talk) 03:41, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samurang[edit]

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

I am bringing this back up for AfD. It is essentially revisionist history and is frequently vandalized. If this topic deserves elaboration anywhere it should be a subsection of Haidong Gumdo. I have taken the liberty to re-add the controversies section and notices of controversy throughout the article simply because of the fact that there is not a single piece of evidence to these claims, and the controversy section seems to be repeatedly removed through vandalism. Scholars familiar with the subject matter consider it an attempt at revisionist history by Haidong Gumdo. Haidong Gumdo is essentially a Korean fencing art which uses Japanese swords and claims them as originally Korean as well as claiming the Samurai caste descended from so-called Korean "Samurang." It must be stressed that there is not one single verifiable piece of evidence to support these claims, and there is no record of the word Samurang even being used at all until the late 1980s when Haidong Gumdo was founded. Also it should be noted that Haidong Gumdo was started by a man who essentially claimed he learned the art from an old man in the mountains. I realize that people think maybe it should remain due to controversy being of interest, but the fact is it's constantly being edited to look as if its verified fact. If nothing else, this should be merged into Haidong Gumdo. If you want more information feel free to leave me a message. --Leonffs 07:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to point out that this has been deleted in the past. Leonffs (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I can see, this was only speedy deleted once as an attack page, it passed the previous AfD. The story is largely unsourced and controversial, but the entry for the most part presents it as such. Hairhorn (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but it was not like that when I found it. I spent a while trying to restore it to previous as well as adding some things. It is being frequently vandalized to appear as factual evidence. I strongly believe this should be a subsection in Haidong Gumdo, since that's the only thing its really relative to, or deleted entirely. Leonffs (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I found no reliable secondary research on this subject, and so far claims on Samurang are either rumors or organizations associated with Haidong Gumdo. I suggest this article be deleted or merged with Haidong Gumdo with a brief explanation of the term. Cydevil38 (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is nothing more than revisionist history propagated by Korean nationalists. Bloodmerchant (talk) 20:56, 25 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 00:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete and salt since it's going to keep being recreated by revisionists. Gumdo is derived from Japanese Kendo/Kenjutsu. This is another attempt to redact Japanese influences from circa the colonization from Korean culture. JJL (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:FRINGE. If we must re-direct, let's make it stick. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Merge Apparently originally started and kept at the last AfD as hoax/propaganda believed by a large number of people. (In which case it's actually anti-Korean, not Korean nationalist, because it was claimed that Koreans at large believe the story.) I asked several Koreans about this topic when I saw it come up last time, and none had heard of it. So delete as nearly totally-unsourced article on a hoax/fringe/cult belief or merge into the article on the group who created the story. The article on the group, by the way, needs a lot more sourcing before becoming even close to acceptable. Dekkappai (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just checked Google news and there are a couple references to the "uniquely Korean martial art", "Samurang warriors of the Kokuryu[sic] dynasty in Korea", etc. Complete balderdash, as far as I know. But nations constantly invent their own national mythologies, and we may be witnessing the birth of one of those here... As a similar situation to the Korean kendo/gumdo situation, I just checked in on the manga article-- according to writers on the subject introduced by Western comics around 1900, and then Japanese traditional elements added... and then nationalists claiming it was their own invention all along. And our article-- a former FA candidate-- gives equal weight to the "pure Japanese culture" crowd. So what do we do with this article? It's sourceable apparently, but pure B.S. Not sure... Dekkappai (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:Fringe: In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. It is certainly not the case here. — Rankiri (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, I consider most of Wiki's rules and regulations to be WP:Fringe, as they are created by a "consensus" of anonymous editors who come to the encyclopedia anyone can edit not to edit, but the build the bureaucracy anyone can play tinhorn dictator at... But anyway, I see two references to the theory-- "Although the Haidong samurang predates the Japanese samurai by about 400 years, ... " at the Arizona Daily Star, and "Haidong gumdo stems from the Samurang warriors of the Kokuryu dynasty in Korea." at 'The Charlotte Observer. And this is just through looking in English. My Korean isn't good enough, and my interest in this topic not strong enough for me to state conclusively that it appears in no major publication in that language. I wouldn't be surprised if it did though. So I'll ignore the Wiki-bureaucracy-- by which, this article has survived two previous AfDs-- and just state, I think it's hogwash, and should be deleted. Glancing through the history, I get the impression it was started as an attack-piece on Korean nationalism, "Look at the ridiculous claims they believe...", but now it looks like it's been hijacked by actual believers. But in any case, it's hogwash. We give credence to equally hogwash-ish ideas here all over the place. Comic books are not a Japanese invention. Within recent history we see what happened-- comics were introduced to Japan by another culture, the Japanese added traditional and historical elements, and now some are claiming it as an ancient, traditional Japanese art, and we give that theory equal weight with the historical facts. The same thing went on with Kumdo-- Kendo came during the occupation, during the post-occupation period it was nationalized by adding real traditional Korean elements with basis in real traditional Korean martial arts and history-- and now Kumdo is called an ancient tradition martial art. But it's not, exactly... Dekkappai (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, if anyone wants to search it: Samurang in hangeul is "사무랑". A couple of quick pages: koreawatcher (Japanese site)-- "해동검도의 역사" (History of Haedong gumdo), and www.mookas.com. Neither look very "reliable". Google books pulls up a couple mentions too. But now, I think I've spent waaay more time on this than I'd ever intended on this particular topic, and will bow out. Good luck :) Dekkappai (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no relevant search results on Google Scholar or Google Books. Most returned results seem to refer to alternative spellings of Semarang. — Rankiri (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may have survived an AfD in the past but it has also failed one, but got remade. This brings further my point of this article being frequently vandalized. If it fails this AfD, which it clearly is so far, I will keep an eye and make sure it gets speedy delete if it comes up again. Leonffs (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the POV entries etc, would a semi-protected redirect be in order? --Nate1481 10:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There seem to be no reliable sources covering the conspiracy theory, making it non-notable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete primary sources only looks like someone using WP as a web host to try & legitimise their version of history. --Nate1481 07:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to this edit it was ok as an explanation, but still of dubious notability. (some of the damage was later undone) --Nate1481 07:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Didn't realize that a previous AFD had just recently concluded. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Renee[edit]

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

Non-notable adult film star. While Renee certainly has a large body of work, her notability is not substantiated through third-party reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:42, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination market[edit]

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

Contested prod (no reason given by de-prodder apart from the prod being "false" whatever that means). A weird mishmash of sci-fci and unsourced conspiracy theory-esque OR. I cannot see a way to make it encyclopedic but here we are Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not supported by any reliable sources to establish notability or verify the content Nick-D (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was any effort made to verify the contents of the article and establish notability per WP:BEFORE?  Skomorokh  02:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much Skomorokh, for this very relevant question. Power.corrupts (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, I've never seen so many citation needed tags in one article. Seems like someone's private soapbox to me. Fuzbaby (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced original research. (Though Nick-D says it a lot better.) Edward321 (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I checked it out a few days ago when it was prodded. The suggestion was indeed made by an anarcho-capitalist and seems to have some currency still among fringe libertarians, but no reliable sources picked up on it and by our standards it isn't a notable idea. It isn't original research, but it's still not worth having an article about. It's basically a schoolboy fantasy about getting your own back on the government. Fences&Windows 01:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Sick? - yes. Disgusting? - true. Professional help recommended? - no doubt. Yet there are sources. A better search term is "Assassination politics" bell because a James Dalton Bell seems to have coined the idea based on an idea of anon. digital cash coined by Timothy May. Found two RS books in Gbooks, and Gscholar returns some scholary mention. Fences and windows, it may be a schoolboy fantasy (schoolgirl), but it is given mention in 3rd party RS. I will add the sources to the article now. Most of the claims in the article can be supported, so many of the cite and OR tags can go, I just dont have any interest in this field. Power.corrupts (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment --- they can go if cites are provided. As it stands the article had/s many totally unsourced claims. As an aside, as to the 'sick' nature of the article --- that isn't my concern at all. It is merely the topics notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Hess' book is copied word-for-word from Thomas and Loader's. I've removed it. Clarke et al. only refer to it without discussing it.[48]. This is a good source:[49]. So we have one book chapter and one journal article. I can't find any more. If this is enough to keep the article, it needs to be retitled as Assassination politics. Fences&Windows 20:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fences, respectfully I re-introduce the ref. Wikipedia's notability guidelines concern multiple indenpendent mention in RS. Two book refs therefore confirm multiple independent mention - sure, one book copies the other, but their infringement on copyright is irrelevant in this WP:N context. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting two books in this way would be like saying you had multiple sources if an Associated Press wire story was used by several newspapers verbatim. Without acknowledging the duplication, it's not honest to the reader. Fences&Windows 00:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on poor process I would like to put to the record, that the AfD nominee Bigdaddy1981 (talk · contribs) has edited the article before this AfD nomination. Before the edits, the article had two fact tags and one reference. After Bigdaddy's edits, the article had nine fact tags and four OR tags, and the reference was gone. This is a concern, as some of the delete !votes above narrowly refer to the presence of those tags, and take them at face value, while in reality, they seem to reflect nominee bias and a lack of searching for sources.Power.corrupts (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The prod was removed for being false in that it stated that the article was "unsourced" and this was blatantly false. I have just added a citation and there seem to be plenty more sources out there for this notable concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wonder whether I'm reading the same article as the delete votes... --Gwern (contribs) 17:01 27 June 2009 (GMT)
  • Keep - Enough notable according to the provided sources Rirunmot (talk) 01:06, 28 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 00:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The provided references seem sufficient, even if only sufficient.--Talain (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A mention in a couple of fringey books doesn't say notability to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many sources available denoting subject matter is important and noteworthy, an interesting subject just waiting for an enterprising editor to spruce the article up.--Gloriamarie (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a very dubious article, reads more like a hoax or draft of fiction than something to be considered for article status here. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment --- I see that my good faith is being questioned without any grounds. Here is one of the totally unsourced passages I tagged as OR or citation needed: "Timothy C. May, Carl Johnson and Matthew Taylor later developed the protocols to implement the concept online to the point that the IRS, the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service investigated their motives for doing so. The US Secret Service circulated copies of 'Assassination Politics' and the relevant Wired articles in 2002. During investigations authorities pretended to be sympathizers in emails and posed as ISP representatives. Does user Powercorrupts REALLY think that this need not be sourced. I think it borders on fringe lunacy that bringes the wikipedia into disrepute. I note that no-one has been able to provide any such sources (I looked -- although the onus of establishing notability doesn't actually lie with the nominator). If Powercorrupts objects to my edits; he is free to add sources or revert them. That might be a better approach than coming here with his sly innuendoes. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable, fringe phenomenon at best. Eusebeus (talk) 21:29, 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. Nja247 08:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butokukan karate[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:MANOTE. Only gnews hit was a one line mention in a long list of local sports related activites. Found one article in google that would qualify as a wp:rs [50], but not enough others sources to establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The opening sentence of the article itself notes that the style's practice is limited to a relatively small geographical area. Janggeom (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a valid argument. First of all, I dont agree that two such large states are "small", then what would you say about many European countries. Second, and that's what counts, if it is notable in that area, then it is notable. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rd to Shitō-ryū#Branches. JJL (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't delete - i don't care what you do with the information as long as the information is not deleted. I think it is useful and may be notable. 99.22.220.61 (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you clue us in on what part you find notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:V. The article is about a school. I do find RS for "Butokukan" in Gbooks as a karate technique that originated in late 1800s, that may well be worth an article, but the present school simply has too little secondary mention, I dont know why it doesnt mention a namesake school in Florida, and the info on the origins does not correspond with what I read in Bbooks. I'm in doubts if the info could be merged as suggested by JJL, it seems that the merge target is a list of techniques and therefore unsuitable for a school. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment those are indeed schools/branches. Usually -kai denotes an organization and -kan is often used to indicate a style or org. too (cf. Shotokan). JJL (talk) 16:53, 25 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 00:35, 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 merge to Odyssey (Magic: The Gathering). Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychatog[edit]

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

This article was AfDed three months after it was created (see discussion here, and there was a clear consensus to delete/merge, but for whatever reason the deletion/merger never happened. Individual Magic cards are likely not notable at all, and if any individual cards are, the bar would need to be set much higher than this one. Some of the most notable cards, the Power Nine, do not have individual articles, but rather a collective one. Put another way, if this card is notable, it's likely that hundreds of other individual cards are likewise notable. This card will never have a major, full-length work such as a book written about it. All but two of the sources cited here are from magicthegathering.com and therefore not independent of the subject; of the other two, one is another wiki's glossary page, and the third discusses a deck that uses Psychatog, not the card itself. Croctotheface (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added a citation to a book which describes the card as famous. Other sources are out there too. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Psychatog is definitely one of the most notable cards in the game. It has been a dominant card in many different Magic formats, and is generally considered the key card in most of the decks that use it. The nominator's statement that hundreds of cards would need articles if this one has one isn't true, as Psychatog is probably one of the top 10 most notable cards in the game (and the other nine are already covered in a single article). That being said, most of the coverage would certainly be about how it is a good card in-game, without the added level of notability of cards like the Power Nine, which are not only good card in-game, but also worth large amounts of money. I'm not sure whether coverage just discussing how powerful it is in-game would be enough to warrent an article. Calathan (talk) 21:46, 27 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) 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Comment Just speedy merge individual cards in the future? Anything notable on this is definitely better put into Odyssey (Magic: The Gathering). SnowFire (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason is given why non-MtG fans could find this card notable. Shii (tock) 00:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Odyssey (Magic: The Gathering). The is probably more detail than is necessary (i.e. can be sourced to reliable sources) but there is not need to delete our coverage outright. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Odyssey (Magic: The Gathering). As a lapsed Magic player I can confirm that this is a very notable card within the context of the game, and there's been quite a lot of coverage of it in connected publications. But it's notability outside the context of Magic is very limited, and I'm not sure a viable article in a mainstream encyclopedia is really sustainable. ~ mazca talk 10:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EBS University Cooperations[edit]

EBS University Cooperations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of schools that may or may not have a relationship with the focal school (all relationship cells are "?"). Unreferenced, unclear, not really notable Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 21 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) 00:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above comment. Wikipedia is not an organization's web page Corpx (talk) 03:04, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TakeOff Creative Services House[edit]

TakeOff Creative Services House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google and Google News searches turn up nothing to verify this company's notability, as per WP:CORP and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:13, 21 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) 00:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Talain (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G11). This one is just a link to their website, and a promotional sentence. There's no content, and per the nomination, it doesn't look like reliable content is forthcoming. TheFeds 06:38, 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. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studio N[edit]

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

Delete another unref'd one-liner about a nn channel Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:06, 21 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) 00:14, 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. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha TV[edit]

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

Delete close to an advertisement - no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 21 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) 00:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but leaning towards delete - There is notability for this, but unless somebody wants to expand the article, we're not losing much by deleting a one line article Corpx (talk) 03:03, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rope Chain (song)[edit]

Rope Chain (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Single from a debut album that does not have an article of its own. No indication it has charged or is otherwise notable as a single. Shadowjams (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The album seems to have an article now. Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 23 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) 00:11, 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 redirect to National University of Singapore#Halls of residence. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King Edward VII Hall[edit]

King Edward VII Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college dorm in Singapore. Although the article states that it was built in 1915, the article fails to explain that it was demolished without anybody much caring, and a replacement residence hall by the same name was built. The bottom two thirds of the article was copied from the dorm's website. Deprodded. There is a Facebook page and other in-house sources on this dorm, but they are not reliable sources. Abductive (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 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. The article has been fairly decisively improved and sourced over the course of the AfD; resolving to some extent the concerns of the delete proponents - though style and formatting problems do still remain. There does not appear to be a clear consensus to delete the article here, though there is equally no strong consensus to keep it - no prejudice against a renomination in the intermediate future if concerns remain. ~ mazca talk 00:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom Brothers Department Stores[edit]

Bloom Brothers Department Stores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible Vanispamcruftertisement. See also Special:Contributions/Rbbloom, admission of COI [51], and unanimous delete consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Dudley Bloom. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • COI issues and a consensus at another AFD are not really reasons to delete this article. This article cites a lot of sources. Some of them are clearly invalid for an encyclopedia article (real estate records, personal interviews, high school yearbooks, etc.) but it does extensively cite six newspapers that seem to actually have existed at some point. However, having done microfilm research on department stores though I wouldn't be shocked if most of these are advertisements. There's also the problem of the apparent lack of any coverage in books or newspapers outside of the immediate area, and no coverage at all since the 1970s (one reference gives only the newspaper name and the year 1984 - not very helpful). I'd lean toward deleting. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain for now. The article seems to be able to support itself without the unpublished primary sources, but I'm still slightly dubious about an article based entirely on ancient local newspaper articles (or reprints of them in books). They are still essentially primary sources... albeit more reliable ones. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this debate should hinge on whether the subject is notable. COI and poor referencing can be resolved if it is a subject the encyclopedia should cover. ike9898 (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Agreed, was merely noting it here as it's likely a form of spam/advertising and not notable. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone advertise a department store that's been out of business for over 60 years? Instead of belittling people's motives I think we should just look at whether the sourcing shows this business was notable or not. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasoning, unless somebody can dig up some hard references that establish notability Corpx (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete there are references, and they might establish notability. They're extremely difficult to verify (the websites in particular are useless as references) and the article is written such that making it encyclopedic would require a nearly complete rewrite. For me it fails wp:duck as a vanity page or pet project. I'd change in a heartbeat if any sources can actually be verified, but I find no hits on the usual google sources.--Talain (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm undecided on it. References are indeed inadequate and the whole story is OR in need of major cleanup, reduction in length etc. But it's a good story! p.s. it appears that there were three unrelated Bloom Brothers companies operating in 20th century (Google books) so take care with those refs. NVO (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Admittedly, most of the article's sources are offline so I can't check them. But if I'm reading the article correctly, this department store never had more than two locations at any given time, both of which were in two nearby relatively small cities, so it's unlikely that the stores' fame extended much beyond their local area. The stores may have been notable to their local areas but I don't think that clearly justifies having an article about them in a worldwide encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently notable in their region, though the article needs to be trimmed substantially.DGG (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author response: It's a far better story than you think....

This article was not written as advertising. No one from this family lives in the area any more. It was written for the local historians--the "old timers"--in the area, of whom there are many, who need to feel connected with the virtual world: there's not much else to do in Chambersburg. I'd been asked to talk about the first department stores in Franklin County, and this came out of it. And of course, many of the sources are ads, although several--that means 5-8 or so--are articles. ALL sources are checkable, but you'll have to go to Harrisburg, the state capital, or the local library and read microfiche, as I did over a period of nine years! Fat chance that'll happen. But just because you don't have a budget for it doesn't mean the articles aren't there. Is Wikipedia a democratic encyclopedia or not? If it's not, you've just lost your raison d'etre. Richard B. Bloom 12:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbbloom (talk • contribs) 12:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a fantastic topic for a historian of some sort. I'm not saying your sources are invalid - in fact they're exactly the sort of thing a good historian would seek out - many of them just are not valid for an encyclopedia article. An encyclopedia is not really the place to put this kind of original, primary-source based history - writing entirely from primary sources is a difficult task both for you and people who need to verify your work, it's beyond the scope of what we do at Wikipedia. 10 years ago, if you were trying to get this material to see the light of day, you wouldn't have sent it off to Encyclopedia Britannica then been shocked when they didn't want it - you'd have found a nice local or state level historical publication, and that's still the kind of place to get this sort of work published for the first time. Wikipedia, like any other encyclopedia, documents stuff that's already been written about in secondary sources (and given the age of these newspaper articles and the fact that we don't even know if they're ads or not, I don't think there's a very strong case that they're secondary sources). --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer was quicker than I thought it would be. I OWN all the sources I used and can email them to you if you like. OF COURSE I wouldn't send this off to Britannica. Wikipedia is a different kind of encyclopedia, full of popular culture, which is what this is, too. Richard B. Bloom 13:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the international nature of this business is lost on the reader unless I make the connections I've noted above overt in the article, which would be difficult to prove unless I could interview the dead. I just had a different impression of Wikipedia. It's not meant to be Encarta--it's people-written. But if you want to limit it to secondary sources, well then "Bloom Brothers" has to go. I agree. Richard B. Bloom 13:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbbloom (talk • contribs)

You can see Wikipedia's policy here at Wikipedia:Primary_sources#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. It's not that primary sources are absolutely off-limits, but unpublished ones are (even if you can e-mail them, unfortunately), and there are serious restrictions on what you can do with primary sources. The wording of that policy also reinforces the importance of at least some secondary sources in any encyclopedia article. While it's unfortunate that following policy sometimes means deleting articles people have put a lot of good faith effort into, as in this case, the only thing to do is live and learn. And of course this debate will be closed based on consensus, so my opinion is just one of many that can be offered. However, perhaps this article would be a good jumping off point for a submission to a publication that is looking for original works of history. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's a nice little (and notable) article hiding in there. - 15:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Summary of my recent edits: I've cut the article in half and added secondary sources--a 3-volume compendium of local history--following Wikipedia guidelines more closely. Unsure whether you think the pictures of the stores and principals should stay or not. I think they add immediacy and historical color to the article but am willing to cut some or all to reduce the article's size. Richard B. Bloom 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Considerably improved--now that the author has seen the need to write an encyclopedia article, not family history. DGG (talk) 00:27, 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 00:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REX TV Pilot[edit]

REX TV Pilot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable documentary. The only attempt at referencing has been reverted by XLinkBot (talk · contribs). Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NY Post is a tabloid, so I'm not giving too much weight to that article and that by itself is not enough to establish notability Corpx (talk) 03:01, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzaga '68[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gonzaga '68 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 21 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, 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 deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Jobs (Led Zeppelin bootleg recording)[edit]

Snow Jobs (Led Zeppelin bootleg recording) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 21 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, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Très bien![edit]

Très bien! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:MUSIC. google and google news search yield nothing. lead member gets very little coverage [52]. I note they're unsigned which probably explains the lack of coverage and hence notability.LibStar (talk) 13:09, 21 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, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thomas Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable film maker. His only credit on imdb is for "Disorder", a non-notable film. A Google search for "'Jack Thomas Smith' Disorder" comes up with only 119 hits, including such non-reliable sources as Myspace. There are two Google news hits for that search, but they're local newspapers discussing using local sites for his filming. The editor who is creating this page appears to be associated with Fox Trail Productions, Smith's production company, which has, according to imdb, only made this one film. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:32, 21 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, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet notability at this time - maybe one day--AssegaiAli (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article was created by his company (see username is his company). With that said, if he's due to have notability, needs major clean-up and formatting. BioDetective2508 (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2009
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Bain[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO miserably. the article is bordering on spam and self promotion. Tony Bain's company gets close to no coverage [53] and [54]. LibStar (talk) 13:36, 21 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, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannes Smárason[edit]

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

Article sites only references in Icelandic which are unverifiable outside of native speakers, therefore the requirements of WP:BIO are not upheld. Gismoto28 (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, article contains a lot of original research or opinions of author which reflect in a negative way on the subject. Needless to say such material in a bio of a living person will have to be rigorously documented by reliable sources, which they are not. Gismoto28 (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the Icelandic sources to english sources, removed the unverifiable sources in english. --Patroiz (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is of course only my opinion, but if you really want to continue with this article, which I don't think is really of notable worth, then may I suggest that all exceptional claims which IMHO include such things as information on net worth and on-going police investigations should require exceptional sources as outlined in WP:V.Just striking through the comment, I still think WP:BIO are not met. Gismoto28 (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see his career as being particularly notable and the criminal issue won't cut it either. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:28, 22 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, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the references seem sufficient for notability. Please note that non-English sources are permitted, and multiple reliable non-English sources, in the total absence of English sources, are still sufficient for notability. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the temporal quality of the news coverage of the subject? I realize that google is not the end all of internet coverage but take a look at the graph produced on top of the page when news.google.com is searched for all dates with the subjects name [[55]]. To me this indicates a possible WP:NTEMP. Gismoto28 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two youtube videos that have translated the news coverage in the icelandic media to english, these videos are biased but gives you the big picture, most of the sources in the videos are from a major newspaper with a trustworthy reputation (Morgunblaðið).
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQrNN0W5_p4
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSZqqnSdw44
      85.220.123.126 (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources are required for WP, not specifically english sources. Fundamental established principle, from WP:RS and WP:V. . Anyway, good English sources have since been added. Chairman of the Board of Icelandair is highly notable. DGG (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I'm new here so I may be completely wrong in my entire take on this page in which case I will gladly stand corrected, but isn't saying that the CEO of such and such company is notable something of an inherited notability WP:INHERITED ? Gismoto28 (talk) 16:12, 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 keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HH Bhakti Svarupa Damodar Swami[edit]

HH Bhakti Svarupa Damodar Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficient notability. Article is an unsourced and unencyclopedic promotion full of unsubstantiated assertions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC) I see the article has been redirected to Bhaktisvarupa Damodar Swami which is an exact duplicate creation of the same article. So that one should be consdered in this AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 22 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, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can find only trivial mentions in reliable sources and article makes no use of reliable sources at all to approach WP:BIO - a vanity page. Hekerui (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete The newly inserted references seem to establish notability Rirunmot (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick note Gnews has 23 hits by his title, there should be more under different spelling variations. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vaishnava News is an outlet of the Hare Krishna movement, not reliable, and what's left is either other people with the same name or trivial mentions. Hekerui (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vaishnava News is not affiliated with Hare Krishna movement. It is an independent source.--Gaura79 (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There're enough independent sources cited in the article to establish notability. Plus for more than 30 years he was a director of Bhaktivedanta Institute, an organization that is certainly notable.--Gaura79 (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I think none of his contributions as an author, scientist, organizational head, spiritual leader are individually enough to qualify him under WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC etc, in totality he does seem to meet WP:GNG and there are enough sources to write a bio. The current article needs work though to emphasize coverage from secondary sources instead of his self-written profile at www.metanexus.net etc. Abecedare (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough religious leader. Article could use better sourcing and neutral writing, as with many of these types of articles, but that's not enough to delete. Priyanath talk 01:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Speedy delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redmond O'Neal[edit]

Redmond O'Neal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet the standard for notability. He gets a lot of commentary in relation to his famous parents, Ryan O'Neal, and particularly in light of her recent death, Farrah Fawcett, but he is not independently notable. He has done nothing that in itself merits an article. Aside from the fact that he is in jail, he is no more notable than any other non-notable offspring of a famous parent. I had placed a prod tag on this, but as it has been removed without comment, I am listing it here to hopefully gain a wider viewpoint for comment. Rossrs (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED - He has no notability on his own merit and is mentioned in relative weight on parents' articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No independent notability established and its not inherited Corpx (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ryan_O'Neal#Personal_life where he is mentioned. No need for an AfD. JJL (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy with a redirect and I did consider it, but to which parent? Farrah is arguably the more famous of the two. Rossrs (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say his dad, because that article talks more about him (Redmond) Corpx (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and it talks about Redmond and Ryan O'Neal being arrested together. Additionally, they share a surname. JJL (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: I feel sorry for the young man, but he is not notable. This article may be well-intentioned or exploitative, but he is not notable in either event. There is info on him at the Ryan O'Neal article and I added whatever salient info was missing (i.e. full name, derivation of first name, etc). It can/should be deleted speedily. [email protected] (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I added the tag as CSD A7. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 02:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and NO redirect Not only do I object to the redirect, but I object to the idea that what is neither notable nor appropriately weighted for his own article is nevertheless notable with no weight issue when inserted into his father's article. What one arrived at Ryan O'Neal to find was a passing account of a birth in 1985 and later a whole titled, two-paragraph section composed solely of two brushes with the law at 23 in 2008 and 2009. Those are bookends without the book. Regardless of the tabloidesque media, he should be free to start his next volume without a search at an encyclopedia leading to an elaboration on that low point at Ryan O'Neal's biography. I've edited it back down to the way it appeared prior to the creation of this article. We shouldn't be telling someone which article to read, we should let a search for his name arrive at the "No article title matches" page, where a searcher will find his name highlighted in brief mentions in both his mother's and his father's bios as are specifically relevant to their encyclopedic notability, and be allowed to make their own choice of which to read, if either. He had no interest in being in the public eye and/or his parents largely shielded him from it; in any event, there simply isn't any public information about his life that is notably relevant to an encyclopedia and it isn't our place to expect there to be. Abrazame (talk) 09:35, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_28&oldid=1142644350"