Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 29

< 28 March	30 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 05:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qiao Liang (Three Kingdoms)[edit]

I am nominating this article and a bunch of others created by the same user below because I have reason to believe that these are hoaxes. These articles are all unsourced, and anyone with some knowledge of the Three Kingdoms period would not recognize any of the the people and the stories listed in these articles. I have opted to mass nominated these articles since the stories are interrelated, revolving around a fake warlord, with the creator attempting to insert his fantasy into legitimate biographies to make his stories believable.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons stated above:

_dk (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question How can you demonstrate to us that these are indeed hoaxes? Agreed they are unsourced, but as this is not a subject I will be effective in searching myself, I cannot really check if they are unsourceable. DGG (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For one, most of the names do not appear in Rafe de Crespigny's A biographical dictionary of Later Han to the Three Kingdoms. For the ones that do, the biographies in the dictionary are completely different from those in these articles. _dk (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I wasn't able to verify the existence of these with a standard google search (though Qiao Liang does appear to be an Olympic gymnast). Unless the creator or someone else is able to verify the accuracy of the information, the encyclopedia won't be able to use it. Of course, if sources do become available, then I'll change my nonvote. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and give final warning to Themightylubu246 (talk · contribs), who created these articles. I think it's pretty clear to me that these are hoaxes that border on vandalism as the user created links from real personalities' articles to these articles. --Nlu (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Lubu713 (talk · contribs). --Nlu (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also 66.68.247.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --Nlu (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Walled garden of hoaxes. I struggled through the first wall of text, but the content is rambling and unverifiable. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we can't take chances on hoaxes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone - hoax. Edward321 (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this article should be deleted. --!Lee! (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow Took Too Long[edit]

Non-notable book. Fails criteria in WP:BK. No major coverage or awards. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A handful of 3-rd party mentions of this, but not really enough to establish sufficient notability guidelines. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable 3rd party reviews, nothing but book dealers. Curiously, this is the only publication I can identify ever from this publisher. A new dimension to self-publishing. Not in WorldCat. DGG (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:BK. This is the third one-book "publishing house" I've encountered in a couple of weeks. Actually, according to Google books it's published by Lulu.com, i.e. self-published. JohnCD (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ah, lulu.com must have devised this in an attempt to overcome the problem that its imprint was getting to be well known to the general public as a sign of almost certain insignificance. Something else to watch for. DGG (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Weisberg[edit]

Delete. A 13-year-old student who won a local spelling bee. Not notable in accordance with WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE! She won the New York City spelling bee, New York being the biggest city in America, and she also won the New York City National History Day paper competition, and she's all over the news and was on national television (google her name and you'll see), and she was in a national newspaper. This is a real page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookworm415 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And we wish her good luck in the National Spelling Bee in May, where she'll be one of many contestants. She's just not yet ready to have her very own article on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Kudos to Talia. JNW (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. If she won the national spelling bee, that would be a different matter, but this is simply not notable enough for inclusion currently. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E Tavix (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been on the national news, I've been on national television (six times so far, in Britain and Portugal), and I've been in a national newspaper. Come to that, I've been in films and music videos too. None of these things mean that I'm notable enough for a Wikipedia article, which is why I don't have one.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is clearly a spinoff of pretty clearly originated here on Wikipedia. This undercuts the keep arguments, which boil down to "this is an important motif, so we should list examples of it." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of the motif of harmful sensation in fiction[edit]

A companion nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motif of harmful sensation (2 nomination) - list of examples to the article which is voted for deletion as original research. - 7-bubёn >t 21:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My keep argument is in the other nomination.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely original research, unreferenced and generally vague.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cool list, perhaps worth saving on one's own computer, but there's no question that it's totally unsourced and original research from beginning to end. The "don't look!!!" theme is fairly common (i.e., don't look or you'll (a) turn into a pillar of salt (b) turn to stone (c) go crazy (d) spend hours typing at a computer, etc.) Mandsford (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say it's the commonness of the theme that makes it worth describing. It's just about rare enough that we can probably list all notable examples, but common enough that there's a clear need to describe it. JulesH (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle Almost all of this would be usable under one or more other article titles, such as Evil eye in fiction, or even added to the article on Evil eye, which has no corresponding list of uses in fiction or cultural references. DGG (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TRIVIA suggests that we don't accumulate things "in popular culture", "in fiction", etc., which are insufficiently notable to be discussed in academia. - 7-bubёn >t 04:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:TRIVIA says nothing of the sort: it is concerned only with how information is structured, and explicitly does not offer any guidance on "types of content".--Father Goose (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing but trivia which is actively discouraged on Wikipedia within articles and as an article it must pass the notability guidelines. As it stands now, the article is nothing but original research on top of original research (since its parent article is also OR). As the motif of harmful sensation itself is currently under debate at AfD the chance that the topic of its appearances in fiction is notable is slim to none. Them From Space 05:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Father Goose has explained why WP:TRIVIA doesn't apply, and I've explained (and sourced) that the original article isn't WP:OR.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any other way of interpreting "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." in a way that favors this article. Them From Space 17:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The facts aren't "miscellaneous". They're a timeline of fictional works that all deal with related concepts, i.e. sensory experiences that can cause harm to those who experience them. This is no more miscellaneous than, say, Weapons in science fiction, which was kept by quite a wide margin when it was brought to AFD. JulesH (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Weapons in science-fiction" is a notable concept, "motif of harmful sensation in fiction" is not. Even if "motif of harmful sensation" is a notable concept, its appearances in fiction is a different subject entirely. If it wouldn't be, it would be within the parent article. Them From Space 18:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT - wikipedia is not a collection nor catalog of various things. We don't have "examples of wearing shoes", "examples of books that describe falling from the 13th floor", etc. Not to say that the article is a spin-off of an original research. Laudak (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider alternate titles per DGG's suggestion. A collection of information on the history of a clearly important recurrent motif in fictional works, chronicling the development of the idea in the form of a timeline. I see nothing wrong with this article. JulesH (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete research + synthesis. Unlikely to come up with a better title - see also arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motif of harmful sensation (2 nomination). pablo_hablo. 12:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you decide to delete, could someone please tell me where I could find a copy, as I teach creative writing and I often direct people to this page. I also need to find the original article which was deleted as it won't be cached permanently. Thanks. Xanthoxyl (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motif of harmful sensation (2 nomination) was closed as delete, so any possible merge/redirect to that page is out of the question. Them From Space 17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a literary theme with an obscure psychology - interesting. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It isn't original research, but common sense. When you list the names of characters in a series, is it original research that you looked up the information yourself in the book to find out their names, they not listed in a third party published review anywhere? The information is fine, and how it was gotten is fine. Use common sense not wikilawyering please. Dream Focus 17:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- there is no such literary term "motif of harmful sensation". Therefore you cannot have definite rule to fill this list. If I go deaf because of the bomb explosion, is it "harmful sensation" ? Y guess very yes. Lets add all books about modern wars here,. then. - 7-bubёn >t 17:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic and title need work but the material is execllent and should certainly be preserved per our editing policy for further development. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please suggest a reasonable title with verifiable inclusion criteria, and I will happily work with you. - 7-bubёn >t 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about List of works of fiction that describe sensory input that is harmful to those who perceive it? Long, but an accurate description of all the items on this list. JulesH (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Way too broad as to the original intentions. How about adding to this list books which describe people who became deaf because of shell and bomb explosions? How about about people sneezing to death after a tobacco snuff? How about peoples got blind after looking into the sun? How about people accidentally touched a hot iron, stumbled and smashed their brains on the mantelpiece? How about I shout you stumble (a quite harmful sensory input it may be)? How about evil hypnosis? (you look at these rotating spirals and next thing you know you are happily cutting your own throat). I may bring much more. BTW pls see and be impressed with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather. - 7-bubёn >t 00:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Strand (bicycle path). yandman 12:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Monica bicycle path[edit]

This is a procedural relist of a bundled AfD (see here for previous discussion). The original rationale (by User:JamesBurns) stated: "Wikipedia is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path." Tavix (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the already-established The Strand (bicycle path) (the proper name, for which the Santa Monica path is only a part of) which ironically was kept in an AfD last year. Is the in-depth subject of secondary sources like the Los Angeles Times [1][2]--Oakshade (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the The Strand (bicycle path). And concerns about tone should have been addressed by means other than an Afd, IMO. Inappropriate content in bike path articles does not make all bike paths non-notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then work on it to improve it. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know exactly how this path related to the Strand; what I do know is that in the hands of a better writer than me, someone who knows this area, this could be a nice little article. JamesBurns, it took me a minute to find a dozen valid references, and a bit more time to add them to the article, and to trim away the empty sections that made this article look like a travel guide. Nominating for deletion is not the way, and you have taken up an enormous amount of editors' time, first with that mass-bundling, and now with these individual AfDs, many of which for articles whose subject is easily found to be notable. And your standard Ctrl+C rationale for deletion bugs me more with every AfD I come across. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Ana River bicycle path[edit]

This is a procedural relist of a bundled AfD (see here for previous discussion). The original rationale (by User:JamesBurns) stated: "Wikipedia is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path." Tavix (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just a quick search brought up in depth secondary sources [3][4] and an apparently the government agency Orange County Flood Control District published an entire book about it.[5] --Oakshade (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. This one does seem to have independent honest-to-gosh notability. (sorry about the strong language) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently notable, with adequate sources. Many major recreation facilitates will qualify for Wikipedia articled. DGG (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a copyright violation from the book Bicycle Rides: Orange County by Don Brundige & Sharron Brundige, published 2000. Tavix removed the copyvio template for some reason. It was listed here back on 26 March. [6]. JamesBurns (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the template. JamesBurns (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what happened. For some reason, the template wasn't showing on my computer and I accidentally removed it with the other AfD template. Sorry about that. Tavix (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete on copyvio. The copyvio tag pretty much blanks out the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete on copyvio. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is rewritten and notability is shown with references --EdgeNavidad (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Copyvio is no longer a concern, as the text that existed has been replaced with a completely rewritten and newly researched version. While I had intended to do so only so that the subject could be judged on its own merits and did not plan to express an opinion here, I found enough information during the process to convince me that this trail may be of sufficient notability. Many of the news hits I found are subscription only and so not accessible to me, but I feel that what I found is sufficient that an article is beneficial, with the hope that interested editors with better access can expand it. (Hopefully, sans copyvio!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Hondo bicycle path[edit]

This is a procedural relist of a bundled AfD (see here for previous discussion). The original rationale (by User:JamesBurns) stated: "Wikipedia is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path." Tavix (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If insufficient independent notability can be merged. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's much better Google results for this trail. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep sufficiently notable, with adequate sources. Many major recreation facilitates will qualify for Wikipedia articles. But I suggest in may nonetheless be simpler and more prudent to do these as combination articles. the information will still be there.DGG (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have List of Los Angeles bike paths Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. There is adequate sourcing. --Oakshade (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD-A3. Mfield (Oi!) 04:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yorba Linda bicycle path[edit]

This is a procedural relist of a bundled AfD (see here for previous discussion). The original rationale (by User:JamesBurns) stated: "Wikipedia is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path." Tavix (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No content that I could find. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Yep, another essentially-content free placeholder. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being and consider later because the article is incomplete. it needs a chance to develop.DGG (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been that way for over 3 years. How much time do you want? Tavix (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this should be a candidate for speedy deletion as it has almost zero content. Article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A3. So tagged. Article is almost content free. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed - article summarily deleted as A3, no content. Creation of an article with content is not prejudiced against. Wily D 13:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Mirada bicycle path[edit]

This is a procedural relist of a bundled AfD (see here for previous discussion). The original rationale (by User:JamesBurns) stated: "Wikipedia is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path." Tavix (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is in fact no content: it's just a place-holder, really. Going back years. Odd. I would have speedied it, per A3. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No content. If someone wants to do a write up that would be okay. Might be best in a combined article... ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incomplete article, just started today, give it a chance to develop. Theis needs tagging, not deletion. ,05:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete: this should be a candidate for speedy deletion as it has almost zero content. Article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 del. Cut and paste copyright violation: a statement of Ghosh, a lawyer in the Calcutta High Court, as evidenced by quotation, e.g., in [7]. - 7-bubёn >t 21:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SOUMITRA SEN[edit]

Legal case; seems to have been created by some automated process. I removed "Submitted by [email protected]/ Advocate High Court'. Can't find an obvious copyvio, but it would be hard to make this encyclopaedic. Chzz ► 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it is made encyclopedic Lets drink Tea 20:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a WP:SOAPBOX issue, possibly copied from a blog. It's an editorial, not an article. 99.184.128.247 (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I guess the author didn't know that Wikipedia doesn't accept editorials. Tavix (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soumitra Sen is heavily covered by Indian media as he is being impeached so the subject does appear to be notable. However the article requires a complete rewrite to be made encyclopedic. The current version is a soapbox. -- Whpq (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 03:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Ausberry[edit]

College football player that doesnt meet WP:Athlete Yankees10 20:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable yet, if he ends up in the starting lineup this season, I'd consider him notable, but he hasn't been a significant player yet like Damian Williams or out-going Patrick Turner. I actually have a good photo of Ausberry, but I haven't added it because I don't see why the article should stick at this point. --Bobak (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet notable, I have no idea he could be notable eventually, but eventually is not now.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable at this point.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 22:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 22:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Psychology Society[edit]

Non-notable student society. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Atheist Society. Wyklety (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:V. No reliable sources. Ghits: "Oxford University Psychology Society". --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pages on student societies need sources that meet WP:ORG and this one does not. TerriersFan (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, no news. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Trafikmagasinet. X clamation point 03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Ingemar Perstad[edit]

This is a Swedish TV host associated with a single TV show. The article appears to have started as a autobiography, later turned into an attack page and is currently a synthesis of these two genres, written in incoherent English. This should be deleted (there is no reason to keep the history), and Carl Ingemar Perstad then redirected to Trafikmagasinet, the show he hosted. There is no reason to have a separate page on Perstad. up◦land (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither notable nor, as Uppland says, coherent, and has some serious BLP issues. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Just redirect already. There's no reason to waste time on AFD when it's clear there is a good redirect target around. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Just redirecting" means that the article may, at any time, be resurrected as an attack page and that the history will be kept and accessible. The history should be deleted and the redirect preferably protected (or at least semi-protected). This is the No. 1 hit in Google for the subject's name but it is still the type of article that easily flies under the BLP radar. up◦land (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to show. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this mess and redirect to the show, as per up◦land. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, non notable and negative, definitely serious BLP problems.—Sandahl (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Carter[edit]

College football player that doesnt meet WP:Athlete. Yankees10 20:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever relevant information or mention into the 2005 Texas Longhorns team or (more likely) the 2006 Rose Bowl game where he made his most famous contributions. I wonder if this article was created during the drive to make the 2005 Texas Longhorns article an FA. His career stats, via ESPN, aren't particularly notable (19 receptions and 279 yards over 2 seasons) --even through the article points out he had a role in a very historic game for Texas (and all of college football), he appears to have been a minor bit player, if anything. From the same USC-Texas game, I could point to USC's Brad Walker, who was the target of Reggie Bush's notorious missed lateral, but in the end Walker doesn't really show need for his own article. --Bobak (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact this stub was created after I tried to deal with WP:COI issues related to the Alan Carter (philosopher) article and found there were incoming links which had nothing to do with the initial redirect. On this AfD, weak keep to avoid the nonsense of a redirect which then gets deleted later. The real problem is Template:2005 Texas football as everyone else there has a proper article. --Rumping (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, never played professionally, non-notable collegiate athlete, easy delete.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mention him on the game's page if he's notable, but he himself isn't notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 22:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 22:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No indication of notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else, non-notable. Wizardman 00:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 07:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Nordgren[edit]

College football player that never played in any professional league and doesnt meet WP:Athlete Yankees10 20:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: it is well established now that a player need not play in the NFL, CFL or Arena league to be notable (call it the Jason White scenario), so simply using the "any professional league" clause as not meeting WP:Athlete is not a valid criteria in college football. --Bobak (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still he shouldnt have an article he never was a starter at Texas, and did nothing to suggest he should have an article. And anyway Jason White won the Heisman, so he is notable regardless if he played in a professional league or not.--Yankees10 21:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, most certainly, I'm not voting for or against on this one. I just wanted to clarify the language in the nomination. --Bobak (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:Athlete as having played at the highest amateur level of his sport. Also the subject of several articles in reliable sources, see here. Oren0 (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oren0, It says about the playing at the highest amateur level: usually considered to mean the OLYMPIC GAMES or WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS, not college football. --Yankees10 22:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously college football isn't the highest possible amateur level of sports, but World Championships and Olympics are only open to professional sportspeople so they're not in the slightest a level of amateur sports either. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, only about 15% of the athletes who participate in the Olympics are fully professional, and those are mainly in the team sports like Basketball, before 1992 you can't even be professional to compete in the Olympics. Secret ^account 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 21:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 21:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable college football player who never played as a pro, easy delete.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO evidence of notability. - 7-bubёn >t 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although he does not meet the WP:ATHLETE exception, it seems he achieved general notability as a high-school player, there is coverage by reliable third-party sources. Once someone is notable, he cannot subsequently lose notability--2008Olympian^chitchat 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Just because a kid was good in high school does not mean he should have his own article, there has been thousands of kids that have been great high school players should they have articles. I dont think so.--Yankees10 01:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notable career.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 07:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Killebrew[edit]

Non-notable college football player, that doesnt meet WP:Athlete. Yankees10 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability clearly established as a multi-year starter at Texas. Further clarification: it is well established now that a player need not play in the NFL, CFL or Arena league to be notable (call it the Jason White scenario), so simply using the "any professional league" clause as not meeting WP:Athlete is not a valid criteria in college football (at least at D-I FBS). Let's put the size and signfance of college football into perspective, with this sourced comparison to supposedly "qualified" professional leagues worldwide. --Bobak (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because he was a starter at Texas doesnt mean he is notable, if he was a starter at a college like Central Washington would he be notable? The Jason White example does not support the not playing in a professional league notablility card. He automatically has notablility because he won the Heisman and numerous other awards, so it doesnt matter whether he played professionaly or not.--Yankees10 21:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think we can agree that being a starter at a program the size and importance of Texas is much more notable that being a player on any CFL or Arena football team, and they're supposedly professional leagues. The WP:Athlete has been problematic when it comes to top-level College football and Men's basketball, so there have been numerous times where this has come up: see Chris Wells or Terrelle Pryor. The amateur level bar seems to have been constructed to prevent relative nobodies from getting articles, but you can look up a person like Terrelle Pryor or Jimmy Clausen and get plenty of legitimate independent press about them that would establish notability for anyone not in sports, let alone playing at the top level of college athletics which is bigger than German Bundesliga, English Championship League (and only slightly smaller than Premiership). I agree benchwarmers and players with marginal playtime shouldn't be included, but someone who achieved starter-status at Texas (which won a national championship during that period) is notable (as compared to the other Texas players you nominated, which I agree didn't do much of anything to warrant notability). I wish we had further clarification on college players, but right now we're still stuck with these case-by-case reviews. I blame what happens when Europeans and/or non-sports fans write the rules. --Bobak (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to objectively meeting WP:ATHLETE, this individual meets WP:N by a mile, per the many non-trivial results here. Oren0 (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:N due to significant media coverage, which trumps WP:ATH. WP:ATH are inclusive criteria, used to "add" notability to individuals who may not meet it otherwise, it cannot be used to "take away" notability. Additionally, being a starter at a major Division I FBS school seems to me to satisfy WP:ATH anyway, since Division I FBS is the "highest amateur level" of American football. Strikehold (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Never played professionally.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why playing professionally is relevant, both per WP:N or per WP:ATHLETE (Division I FBS is the "highest amateur level" of football, meaning there is presumed notability). Oren0 (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says Olympics or World Championships not college football.--Yankees10 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again. "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." Division I FBS football is the highest level of amateur competition in football since there are no Olympics or World Championships. Also, "usually considered" means those aren't the only two examples. Additionally, what is your response to the fact that this individual meets the WP:GNG per my link above? Oren0 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, since when do college football athletes have articles, I have had numerous articles that I have made either deleted or nominated for deletion for this very reason and they are much more notable and have done more than this nobody of a player has. This guy did nothing as a starter at Texas had no chance of making it in the NFL or any other professional league, which is evident in that not even the CFL wants anything to do with this dud, he is a nobody that was lucky enough to be good enough to be a starter for the Longhorns. I have had articles like Morgan Trent, Jamaal Anderson, Dez Bryant, Amobi Okoye, Victor Abiamiri among others be nominated for the very reason that they are college football players that dont have notablity. These are guys that were top prospects for the Draft and star players in college, which this guy clearly wasnt.--Yankees10 22:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because notability has nothing to do with whether someone thinks a player is "good" or not or thinks he has "done anything" in his career, college or otherwise. Killebrew meets WP:N due to non-trivial media coverage. Additionally, in my opinion, you are extrapolating from WP:ATH something that simply isn't there. Every one of those articles you cited survived AFDs. There is simply no argument that Dez Bryant (for example) isn't notable, regardless of what he does or does not do in the NFL. Strikehold (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Notable college football do get articles. Have you thought about why all of the articles you list were kept, many of them overwhelmingly? Just because people have tried to delete articles you created doesn't mean you should try to delete other articles. Oren0 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah college football players that are notable and are expected to get drafted get articles not players that arent expected to do anyting after college. And I want to delete this article because this guy has done nothing not because I am bitter that my articles were nominated or everything--Yankees10 23:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? By that rationale, only NFL players are notable and no undrafted/current college players should have articles, because notability is permanent (they shouldn't get an article on a probationary basis until they get drafted or signed). This school of thought is clearly flawed, see Nile Kinnick, Beanie Wells, Tim Tebow, etc. ad nauseum.... Wikipedia is not based upon skill level or accomplishments. And this certainly isn't "NFLpedia". Kim Kardashian is only "famous for being famous", she hasn't done anything. She is notable though, because of media coverage, i.e. WP:N. Strikehold (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your just not getting my point, this guy has done NOTHING notable and therefore should not have article just because he was a starter for the Texas Longhorns. And no I do not think that undrafted college players should have articles until they spend time during the regular season on a roster--Yankees10 01:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I assure you that I understand your point. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that it contravenes some Wikipedia guidelines, such as WP:N. Clearly, Tim Tebow should have an article, due to the massive amount of media coverage he has received. Click on the link that Oren0 posted in his "Keep" vote to see the coverage on Killebrew. If there is an argument for deletion, it needs to address that. Strikehold (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You're welcome to have that opinion, but it is not supported by community consensus or policy. This person has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore is notable enough for an article. To give you an example, OJ Mayo had an article when he was still playing high school basketball, despite not having "done anything" yet. He was the subject of coverage when he was in the 7th grade and would have had an article then if Wikipedia had been what it is today. A person's age is irrelevant and their accomplishments are not for us to judge. If sources cover someone, they're notable. Oren0 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you compare Tim Tebow to this guy. Tebow should not be even in this discussion. The reason Tebow should have an article is not because of media coverage, its because this guy won the Heisman and numerous other awards and is considered one of the best players in college football history. And OJ Mayo should no way have had an article in high school, nor should Matt Barkley or any other high school baseball, football, or baseball player, unless they have done something that makes them notable.--Yankees10 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's clear that you don't want to listen to reason. If you think that LeBron James didn't deserve a Wikipedia article until he was drafted, despite being on the front page of every sports page in the country multiple times, then there's no convincing you. I do suggest that you read WP:N though, and realize that WP:ATHLETE is a subset of that policy. Oren0 (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how many national publications has Robert Killebrew been on the cover of?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable college athlete with no pro career. Only guy arguing to keep it has only bad arguments where he brings up Heisman winners to compare.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there were actually three people arguing for keep... I never compared Killebrew to Tebow. I merely used him as an example of the flawed logic Yankees has applied here. "No pro career" is not a deletion criterion. Strikehold (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a flawed logic, its been the logic that has been used since the beginning of my time here at Wikipedia back in June of 2006. College athletes with no significance dont deserve having an article.--Yankees10 04:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its debunked logic that ignores the fact that football isn't like baseball, basketball, soccer or hockey in that it has no minor leagues. Using any non-NFL league (i.e. CFL or Arena) as an analogue is flawed. With high school players required to wait three years before they can enter the NFL, a rule only recently lightly emulated with the NBA's one year rule, WP:Athlete is painfully flawed for a sport that has no Olympics. There is an American Football World Cup, but nobody major plays in it because of the restrictions on professionals. Just compare the revenues: The 44 schools from BCS conferences that played in a bowl game in 2007 had combined revenue of $1.3 billion.^[1], Bundesliga, had 2006–07 revenues of €1.3 billion ($1.7 billion).^[2], UK's Championship league 2005–06 revenues were £318 million ($470 million) (an average of £13 million ($20 million) per club)^[3], and the Euroleague basketball organization has a combined annual revenue of less than $100 million.^[4] Should we then assume no one starting in those leagues are as relevant? I'm sorry not as many people follow football on Wikipedia, but reality is reality. --Bobak (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Appears to be enough coverage to meet guidelines. Borderline case. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many of those Google articles have you guys read through? All the ones I hit only had one or two passing mentions of Killebrew. As far as I can tell he nowhere near reaches WP:N yet, no matter what level he's playing at Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

References[edit]

^ Ohio State beats LSU, CNN Money, December 31, 2007.
^ Prudent Bundesliga pips EPL in profits, not revenue, ESPN, May 29, 2008.
^ Analysis of 2007 Deloitte Annual Review of Football Finance, The Political Economy of Football, June 2, 2007.
^ The glory of making the pilgrimage to NYC has its price, Haaretz, November 10, 2007.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big wave point breaks[edit]

Article is unsourced, and I can not find any reliable sources documenting this. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it should be moved to point break (surfing), which is what this really is. See wikt:point break for a definition. I'm undecided as to whether this can be more than a WP:DICDEF or not. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. The Ogre (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and move as LinguistAtLarge suggests above. There are plenty of reliable sources available, for example: 1 2 3 4 (you just have to wade through loads of sources about the film). Article does need re-writing but it seems to be a widely used, notable term in surfing which can be expanded to more than a WP:DICDEF. ascidian | talk-to-me 17:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (since I didn't explicitly say that above) - I just moved the article to Surf break, and rewrote it from scratch with sources. There are dozens more sources to be had for "surf break", "point break", "reef break" etc. Essentially, this is no longer the same article that was nominated. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 03:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Atheist Society[edit]

Non-notable organization, fails WP:V. Ghits: "Oxford Atheist Society" --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 19:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no 3rd-party sources. Only G-hits are from the organization it belongs, it's own website, or mirrors of Wikipedia. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 20:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several articles on student societies from Oxford, including religious student societies, have their articles on Wikipedia. Most of them are not less famous than Oxford Atheist Society. I have nominated Oxford University Psychology Society for deletion in response. Wyklety (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it; and if there are others equally non-notable, feel free to nom. those as well. If an article fails WP:V, it shouldn't be kept, plain and simple. Do you have any other thoughts on why you feel this article should be kept? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pages on student societies need sources that meet WP:ORG and this one does not. TerriersFan (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:RS and WP:ORG standards. Nothing personal -- or professional, in my case! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city^‽ 05:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lajinaa[edit]

This has been in for over two years, but cites no source, and I can find no reliable one; it is probably a hoax.

There are lots of Ghits, but all the ones that say anything substantial use the same curious phrase about "Spaniard pirates" - either they are mirrors or (less likely) the article was copied from one of them. I have found nothing that could be considered a reliable source.
The word is not in the big Oxford English Dictionary, nor in the index to the Encyclopedia Britannica, nor in Collins' Spanish dictionary.
The text says "All through the history of the Lajinaa it was widely accepted and sometimes referred to as a pirate spear". A Google search on lajinaa "pirate spear" finds only obvious WP mirrors.
Nothing from searching forums like knifenetwork.com and knives.at
I found the word in one passage of Finnish and one of Dutch; in neither case could Google Translate translate it, but neither passage seemed to be anything to do with pirates.

The word does occur in one or two lists of knives, and this passage from a blog refers to a "a Lajinaa paring knife" along with real knives like Laguiole and Puukko; but a paring knife is a very different thing from a pirate spear.

The article was input in three stages: the first two paragraphs, including the image, by Piratehunter13 (talk · contribs) in Feb/Mar 2007. The image was removed by Orphanbot but replaced by Querthouse (talk · contribs) in June 2007. The last paragraph was added by Canhistor (talk · contribs) in Nov 2007. None of these has many other edits; in particular Canhistor's only other contribution is currently at AfD as a hoax (which is what led me to look at this).

Conclusion: there may be a kind of knife called lajinaa, but we have no reliably-sourced information about it; all the picturesque detail about "pirate spears" in the article is probably a hoax, and certainly fails WP:V. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any sources, but I'm inclined to be careful with this—it may be a hoax, but if so it's a plausible one. The item depicted looks like a knife blade that could be attached to a pole as a spear, or detached to use as a separate knife, like a forerunner of the bayonet, and there was a tradition of multipurpose naval dirks. The word "lajinaa" doesn't look Spanish, so check obvious mis-spellings (I've checked "lajinna" and "laginna" already). If anyone has a copy of ffoulkes' Arms and Armour, that would definitely be worth checking.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible mis-spelling is a useful idea; I've tried "lagina" and "lajina" without finding anything. I also tried Googling pirate spear to see if that threw up a name, but the result doesn't suggest that "pirate spear" is particularly a recognised concept (certainly my mental image of a pirate is swinging a cutlass). JohnCD (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly a hoax. It seems to have been copied far and wide. There are a couple of references in blogs, but these people may well have learned the term on Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should get some experts in from WikiProjects like Military history or Ships (is there one on Weapons?). They're more likely to know where to find info about pirate weapons than the general layman is. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am having a hard time finding any sources that aren't Wikipedia mirrors, and as a consequence, I'm leaning towards a delete right now. I think it's important that we try to enlist the help of some experts on the subject and we don't close this discussion early. Note: I also tried searching for several different variants on the word "lajinaa", but still couldn't find anything. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force for advice. JohnCD (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found. Edward321 (talk)`
Delete as a probable (and rather successful) hoax. Given the combination of no reliable sources -- no clearly independent sources for that matter -- and the involvement of single-use accounts that are linked to other hoaxes and sockfests... smells like mischief. In any case, the article can be deleted on the basis that it contains no veriable content at all. --Shunpiker (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the history of the article's original creator, a hoax seems likely. But, even if it isn't, it's unverifiable by any outside source, so I think it has to be deleted. Anaxial (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:RS are added. I have no specialist expertise here, but the basis of the story is highly improbable. The pirates infesting the Caribbean and surrounding areas were (as I understand it) largely renegade Europeans, who would have had access to muskets and pistols, and so would hardly be likely to use spears. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 03:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for Me (Moby album)[edit]

Album is not scheduled for release for over two months, and article lacks references. No information about the album can be found except a small blog entry about it from Moby's website [8]. This is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL as there is nothing to say about the album except its title and its expected release date, which lacks any citation. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. Also remove the reference in the {{Moby}} template. Nsaa (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is empty, except for an unsourced release date, and per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 20:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreleased album with little or no media coverage of significance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pure advert. As DGG says, "I do not want to say that an article on this particular program would be totally impossible to write and source, but this one is not really usable as a start." yandman 12:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Field-to-Pump[edit]

Seems like advertising to me, severe and unfixable POV, everything here also seems to be covered in the articles linked within. Creator removed prod notice (thus proving again why prod is useless), and I can't be bothered to fight with him over it. roux 16:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Advertising. T-95 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roux,

You state, "Nominating an article for deletion IS asking for a discussion." If so, I would appreciate your participation in the discussion. Please answer my previous questions.

19:48, 29 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Field-to-Pump ‎ (What specific issues are you trying to raise? Why do you believe the Field-to-Pump article is merely advertising? At this point, why don't you request a consensus? Simple: delete or don't delete!)

17:26, 29 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Field-to-Pump ‎ (Vandalism under the guise of an improperly proposed deletion is still vandalism. If Roux would be specific, I would be happy to address any issue she raises.)

16:44, 29 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Field-to-Pump ‎ (Improper Procedure: Policy states, "Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again." Deletion requires notice and discussion, not baseless opinion.)

11:55, 29 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Field-to-Pump ‎ (The proposed deletion is without merit. Field-to-Pump is not an advertisement. This article addresses the most recently developed strategy, employed by the Louisiana Legislature, to produce ethanol.)

Again, your proposed deletion is without merit. If it does have merit, please answer my questions or request a consensus. Is that perfectly clear? BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is here. Go there to discuss it. This is the last time I will explain this to you. //roux 21:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrianJDonovan127"

Roux, you are starting to get a little testy. Please just support your proposed deletion. If you are not capable of supporting your position, either retract or request a consensus. I will be happy to explain this to you as many times as necessary.BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion for this article's deletion is being held at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Field-to-Pump. Please discuss it there. It's unlikely anyone will view the talk page of this article when considering whether or not the article should be deleted. Rnb (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Field-to-Pump"

Rnb,

Thank you for the suggestion. I would appreciate it if you would also support your position.BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. My only position at the moment is that the procedure for AfD must be followed, as I haven't read the article. Once the article has been brought to AfD, the tag on the page indicating such must remain on the page until the AfD process is complete. Rnb (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To address your points one by one:

What specific issues are you trying to raise? Why do you believe the Field-to-Pump article is merely advertising? At this point, why don't you request a consensus? Simple: delete or don't delete! - I'm raising the fact that the entire article reads like pure advertising. And for the nth time, I did request a consensus BY NOMINATING THE ARTICLE FOR DELETION.
Vandalism under the guise of an improperly proposed deletion is still vandalism. If Roux would be specific, I would be happy to address any issue she raises. - is beneath contempt. Your single-purpose article was nominated for deletion. That doesn't give you the right to make bad-faith accusations of vandalism to an editor who has, in over fifteen thousand edits and nearly a year of work on Wikipedia, never vandalised a single thing.
Improper Procedure: Policy states, "Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again." Deletion requires notice and discussion, not baseless opinion. - And if you had paid attention in the first place, when you were told where the deletion discussion--that's what this is, by the way--was, you wouldn't have so thoroughly misunderstood what that policy states.
The proposed deletion is without merit. Field-to-Pump is not an advertisement. This article addresses the most recently developed strategy, employed by the Louisiana Legislature, to produce ethanol. - And it reads like pure marketing hype from the Louisiana state government.

There. All done. Now, I suggest you familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia actually works, particularly with how this page works, and contribute accordingly. //roux 22:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would BrianJDonovan127 please declare any interest that he has in the company involved or the State of Louisiana or any other interest that he has in the 'Field-to-Pump' strategy. Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roux,

1. Consensus - I believe the rules provide that if consensus is difficult to gauge from discussion alone, it is possible to conduct a survey of opinion to clarify the issues in the discussion. Moreover, correct me if I am wrong, but Wikipedia policy and guidelines also provide for Requests for Comment which is a process for requesting outside input. These procedures are in addition to merely nominating an article for deletion.

2. Vandalism – This is not a bad-faith accusation. Before nominating an article for deletion, an editor must read the article to properly understand its topic. Here, that was not done. The article was proposed for deletion without the editor having any understanding of the topic. A notice stating “This article is being considered for deletion..” was then arbitrarily and publicly placed on the article. No notice was given to the author. After five days, the article would have been deleted. This may not fall under Wikipedia’s definition of vandalism, but it is surely lacking in merit and, in your words, beneath contempt.

3. Improper Procedure – I believe Wikipedia policy suggests that an editor attempts to edit, or requests the author edit, prior to proposing deletion. Here, again, no notice was given the author prior to proposing that the article be deleted nor was a discussion opened prior to publicly placing a deletion notice on the article. Maybe this policy should be reviewed.

4. “Pure Marketing Hype from the Louisiana State Government” – What precisely do you believe the Louisiana Legislature is marketing? If it is job creation and rural development, I would agree with you.

Roux, please be civil. Your testy responses detract from the discussion.BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oy gevalt.

AFD discussions are precisely how we generate consensus on whether to keep or delete an article.
Of course the notification was publicly placed. That's what those notifications are for. And yeah, sorry, it was badfaith accusation of vandalism. The fact that you don't agree that the article should be deleted (gee, I wonder why? And I note you haven't yet responded to the question from Malcolmxl5, above) doesn't mean that it was vandalism. Please see here for what vandalism actually is.
Wikipedia policy suggests no such thing.
Oh come on.

//roux 00:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a politically-motivated ad to further someone's agenda. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Vanispamtisement. Them From Space 00:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey,

Notice is not required. Let me understand - any anonymous Roux, Gumbo, or Ettouffee may propose an article for deletion without knowing anything about the topic. After 5 days, the article would be deleted. If the article’s author does not live on Wikipedia, he or she would not have an opportunity to defend the article prior to deletion. This sounds like a fair and equitable policy.

Publicly ridiculing any article, especially anonymously and without proper notice, is vandalism. You need to sign-off Wikipedia more often.

I suggest you re-read Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Moreover, asking for a third opinion, requesting a comment, or conducting a survey of opinion to clarify the issues in the discussion are acceptable procedures.

“Oh come on.” In other words, you are not able to support your position or answer my questions.BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Anyone may nominate an article for deletion in good faith. At that point a discussion ensues, and after five days someone uninvolved in the discussion weighs the consensus, and decides whether to Keep or Delete the article. If no clear consensus is found, it defaults to keep. And kindly do not tell someone with over a year of experience and deep policy understanding to go re-read. You are the one that has no clue how things work here, not me. //roux 02:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The COI is clearer after looking over his blog in which his comments all show a clear bias towards percieved environmental benefits of the Jindal administration. He even comment-spammed this article onto another person's blog. None of his comments do anything other than praise the environmental policies of the state of Louisiana. Clearly this is using Wikipedia for his own promotional good and this is not acceptable. Them From Space 01:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I do not want to say that an article on this particular program would be totally impossible to write and source, but this one is not really usable as a start. Weak delete instead of delete because someone might be willing to rewrite it.DGG (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roux, Good faith requires the person to explain, with a degree of specificity, his or her reason for nominating an article for deletion. You state, "And kindly do not tell someone with over a year of experience and deep policy understanding to go re-read. You are the one that has no clue how things work here, not me." Roux, please re-read guidelines for nominating an article for deletion and the need for civility. Personal attacks are childish. This is a common problem with self-anointed "Editors."

The purpose of the "Field-to-Pump" article is not to promote Louisiana or Renergie. It is a clear definition of a comprehensive strategy to locally develop and market non-corn ethanol. The only opponents to the strategy are oil companies and their affiliates. Try reading and understanding the article rather than merely attacking the author.BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete A "strategy to locally develop and market" anything would be an advert. Which is what this article is, an advert, I can't see why there's had to be such a big discussion about it. Wikipedia isn't the Free-Ads section of the internet, this article needs deleting. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that a "strategy to locally develop and market" anything would be an advert." is absurd. The emphasis is on strategy, not "market." Who precisely would place, and benefit from, such an advert? Dylanfromthenorth, please explain to me: (a) how ethanol is curently produced and marketed in the U.S.;(b) why large U.S. ethanol companies are filing for bankruptcy; (c) the purpose of the blender's tax credit; (d) the CBI loophole; and (e) the need to produce ethanol from feedstock other than corn. If you are able to do that, you will understand the uniqueness of the "Field-to-Pump" strategy. By the way, "Field-to-Pump" may be freely used by any small advanced biofuel manufacturer. I suggest an expert opinion is required in this case. Roux, what do you think?BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withhold judgment for the moment. I do think this article is more promotional than informative as it stands (featuring a number of very prominent mentions of Renergie, Inc, among other matters), but I'm with DGG that it could potentially be improved. I also agree that the article's primary author bears most of the hallmarks of a single-purpose account with a WP:COI, but I'd note that a conflict of interest is not grounds for deleting the article, particularly if it's disclosed. It's also no sin to be more familiar with writing for marketing than with appropriate encyclopaedic style.
When I come back and look again, I'll be looking for a succinct treatment of the subject of less than half the current length, in an accessible, summary style that doesn't feature laudatory references to any particular companies or individuals.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand on that: the lead section of the article contains a number of "red flags" of promotional writing. (An encyclopaedic article would begin something like this: Field-to-Pump is a Louisianan environmental intiative concerned with biofuels. It arises from the Advanced Biofuel Industry Development Initiative of 21 June 2008... and so on.)

My advice would be: first, cut every single adjective and adverb. Second, cut every single mention of a company or individual. Cut everything about Renergie's history and development; if Renergie deserves an article, write an article about Renergie. Cut most of the stuff about Act 382; if Act 382 deserves an article, write an article about Act 382. In any case where you absolutely can't avoid mentioning Renergie or Act 382, get a reference from a high-profile reliable source and quote what they say about it. Do not under any circumstances write anything about Renergie that doesn't appear in a reliable source, because it will get the article deleted. Make sure everything you write is directly related to the Field-to-Pump initiative. Including some sourced remarks that are critical of the initiative will be very helpful in getting the article kept.

Wikipedians are very sensitive to people who may appear to be using Wikipedia for promotional purposes and it's vital to avoid making the impression that you're doing that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can go with what S Marshall says, I'm going to watch this debate and see where it goes. I still think it's a delete, but fair play if a suitable rewrite is forthcoming.

On a side note, I know it's difficult when your article get's flagged for deletion, but lets try and keep this page civil and to-the-point. I'm not answering the a-e questions up there because I dont see their relevance to this articles debate..... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear S Marshall,

Thank you for your helpful advice. It was appreciated.

I published the “Field-to-Pump” article for the purpose of opening discussion. I believed “Field-to- Pump” would grow through thoughtful editing and constructive criticism by the Wikipedian community. Unfortunately, I do not believe that is possible. I have decided to delete the article for the following reasons.

1. Lack of Proper Notice – I do not have the time to constantly monitor the “Field-to-Pump” article to defend against future nominations for deletion. The article could be deleted in five days without me ever knowing about it. Wikipedia may address this issue by directly notifying a contributor that his/her article has been nominated for deletion. This could be done automatically by sending an e-mail to the contributor.

2. Anonymity of Editors – The vast majority of volunteer editors prefer to remain anonymous. This makes it impossible to tell if their editing is unbiased or a deliberate attempt to place misinformation in an article. Since the volunteer editor is unknown, he/she is not accountable for his/her actions. One result is that vandalism appears to be fairly common throughout Wikipedia.

3. Lack of Meaningful Discussion – It appears that many volunteer editors merely rely on conclusory, self-serving allegations, rather than thoughtful discussion, to express their opinions. Furthermore, there is complete lack of civility between volunteer editors and contributors of articles. The following is an excerpt from of a recent exchange between very experienced volunteer editors:

S Marshall, thank you for your professionalism. It was refreshing. As author of the “Field-to-Pump” article, I would like to voluntarily delete the article as soon as possible. Please advise as to the proper Wikipedia procedure. Very truly yours,BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a prime example of how AfD discussions shouldn't run. It's descended into a shouting match on personal terms instead of a considered debate on the article in question. If you have issues with other users, keep those issues to your own talk pages please, AfD is NOT the school playground. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BrianJDonovan - I have again removed that material from this page. It is not relevant and does not belong. As Dylanfromthenorth said, keep it to your own talkpage. Not here. Final warning. //roux 18:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dylanfromthenorth and Roux,

Please stop deleting portions of my original message to S Marshall. I am sure S Marshall will respond directly to my request as soon as possible. He does not require your assistance. I realize Roux's quotation is embarrasing to the Wikipedia community. However, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." Again, my original message to S Marshall stated the following:

Dear S Marshall,

Thank you for your helpful advice. It was appreciated.

I published the “Field-to-Pump” article for the purpose of opening discussion. I believed “Field-to- Pump” would grow through thoughtful editing and constructive criticism by the Wikipedian community. Unfortunately, I do not believe that is possible. I have decided to delete the article for the following reasons.

1. Lack of Proper Notice – I do not have the time to constantly monitor the “Field-to-Pump” article to defend against future nominations for deletion. The article could be deleted in five days without me ever knowing about it. Wikipedia may address this issue by directly notifying a contributor that his/her article has been nominated for deletion. This could be done automatically by sending an e-mail to the contributor.

2. Anonymity of Editors – The vast majority of volunteer editors prefer to remain anonymous. This makes it impossible to tell if their editing is unbiased or a deliberate attempt to place misinformation in an article. Since the volunteer editor is unknown, he/she is not accountable for his/her actions. One result is that vandalism appears to be fairly common throughout Wikipedia.

3. Lack of Meaningful Discussion – It appears that many volunteer editors merely rely on conclusory, self-serving allegations, rather than thoughtful discussion, to express their opinions. Furthermore, there is complete lack of civility between volunteer editors and contributors of articles. The following is an excerpt from of a recent exchange between very experienced volunteer editors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roux “Warning for your another personal attacks in March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Roux. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Roux, we all know your relentless incivility and habit of making "personal attacks" (quite amusing because those descriptions that you produce are just showing "your character" very well) are nothing new, but I want you to behave yourself like constructive editors. Please do not try to behave inappropriately even if on your user page. Good luck.--Caspian blue 10:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this clear: you are calling his comment in the section above this a personal attack? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 13:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that sounds not personal attacks? Read WP:NPA.--Caspian blue 13:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars, please. Do you know how much more seriously I would have taken a polite, hand-written note? –Juliancolton | Talk 13:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Rules and policies have a superiority than essays that may contain "minority" view. I only respect editors acting respectively. If he desperately wants to keep the "hell away from me", he should not make this vicious comment behind my back; I am simultaneously singularly uninterested in anything Caspian Blue does, and very specifically interested in keeping the hell away from his shotgun blasts of incivility and personal attacks. So, no. --Caspian blue 13:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Behind your back, was it? As far as I can tell, it was right on-wiki... –Juliancolton | Talk 13:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, you have to remind that Wikipedia is an open place. That's why I can see his another disruption. --Caspian blue 13:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, mate, what are your intentions here? Are you simply trying to start a battle? If so, I suggest you have a cup of tea and be on your way. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All I intended was to give him the warning for what Roux said about me. --Caspian blue 14:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

NO, Caspian blue -- in this specific context, your posting is recidivist, undeserved and unjustifiable. Please STOP now. --Tenmei (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck is this bullshit? Caspian blue, you have a long and well-documented history of attacking the hell out of anyone who makes the stupid fucking mistake of calling you on your bullshit, which is why I try to stay away from you. Your bullshit is NOT worth the stress it causes. Stay the FUCK off my talkpage, do not post here, any further posts here will result in me finding an admin to permanently block you from editing Wikipedia. That is it. I am sick and fucking tired of your bullshit. You first started attacking me when I was trying to mediate a dispute between you and someone else. Why did you start attacking me? Because I fucking told you to fucking stop attacking someone else. You are a net loss to this project and you shouldn't be here. For some reason that I cannot understand, you were allowed to get away with abusive sockpuppetry--proved by CheckUser--and you are continually allowed to get away with random personal attacks against any user you feel like, whenever you feel like it. Well that stops here. You will stay the fuck away from me, permanently. That better be clear enough for you. STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM ME. //roux 14:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Roux, calm down please.... :-/ We all realize that Caspian is not standing on firm ground with his accusations; don't escalate this into a random shouting match please...no one wants more drama... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a random shouting match I am sick and fucking tired of his bullshit being tolerated around here for the sole reason that anytime anyone tries to do something about it, he makes using Wikipedia a living hell for them until they give up. It is time something permanent is done about him, and if he posts here again that will be the final straw. He is to stay away from me, permanently. He is to not comment here. He is to not talk to me anywhere else on Wikipedia. He is to stay the flying fuck far the fuck away from me forever, because I am sick and fucking tired of dealing with his goddamn bullshit. //roux 14:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Howdy Roux. Try my method, for dealing with unwanted visitors at one's Userpage. Give their postings the ole' deletion treatment. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey buddy, long time no see. I hope you're doing well? As for deletion.. no. I want his ridiculous behaviour displayed for all and sundry. He's gotten away with it for far, far too long. //roux 15:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been semi-retired since late-Februay (2-hrs a day on Wikipedia, is my limit). GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)”

Vulgarity and childish behavior such as the above is unacceptable.

S Marshall, thank you for your professionalism. It was refreshing. As author of the “Field-to-Pump” article, I would like to voluntarily delete the article as soon as possible. Please advise as to the proper Wikipedia procedure. Very truly yours,BrianJDonovan127 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close as mistaken nomination. This article is the one that used to be at Suspension bridge - if that's the consensus title, this should be moved back there, not deleted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended deck bridge[edit]

Move to Suspension Bridge and Delete on the basis of WP:No original research.

Suspended deck bridge is not a bridge type. This can be verfied by searching google and google books for the full string. Most reference entries that come up refer to arch bridges with suspended decks. Some (like the first one in google books) refer to truss bridges with suspended decks.
The article was created by an editor who took text in a hatnote from the article on suspension bridges (fixed version here) to mean that this was a bridge type of its own. Text was moved from the article to create this new article.

Since no verifiable reference can be found that says a Suspended deck bridge is a type of bridge, it is therefore original research to create a Wikipedia article about it. The only question is where to move the material.
A move discussion has been started, but I have elevated it to here so that the page is deleted upon completion of that discussion. Three editors have already commented there to move the material back to the suspension bridge article. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm able to google and find verifiable sources (not derived from Wikipedia) which do use the term. For instance. Tedickey (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site you provide is likely considered a questionable source under the WP:Sources policy. The site is tourism related. The subject is engineering and technology related. Can you provide any scholarly sources? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Move" is a vote to keep, so in conflict with "delete". --Una Smith (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. The article is named Suspended deck bridge. Not one reliable source has been produced to say that this is an actual bridge type. That means that the article is original research. The article needs to be deleted. This is so that we do not have a bunch of third graders running to their teacher saying that "the Golden Gate Bridge is not a suspension bridge, it's a Suspended deck bridge and Wikipedia says so!"

"Move and redirect" will not prevent this from occuring. Only "Move and delete". That is my nomination. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; there is no original research here. --Una Smith (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no sources to prove that this is even a valid type of bridge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOR is hardly a reason for deleting an article about a type of bridge. Figure out what you want to name the article, and redirect if this is not the preferred name, but deletion is not part of the equation. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't see any problems with this Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be a modern type of suspension bridge according to this and this. I found several more as well. Wperdue (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Both of these sources is derived from WP. ;-( --Salix (talk): 19:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Ok. I'm an idiot. Wperdue (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Merge back into suspension bridge This seems to me a case where there definitions of "suspension bridge" is fuzzy in the real world. The lay usage is to mean suspensions bridges which have suspended decks, however a more pedantic definition would include the various types of suspension bridge, not all of which have suspended decks, (Britannica). "Suspended-deck" is defiantly a common term in bridge construction[9]. However it is not synonymous with suspension bridges as you can get suspended decks on arch bridges.

Following the principal of least surprise when someone goes to suspension bridge they probably want to read about those with suspended decks, but it does seem necessary to include the other types.

If we are to keep it as a seperate article I would prefer it to be Suspended-deck suspension bridge which does define it well and distinguishes it from suspended deck arch bridges.--Salix (talk): 20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but Rename This is a valid and distinct sub-type of suspension bridge, but the article name is wrong. These bridges (from the description) are like the Severn Bridge in that they use a catenary (chain or cable) to span between towers, then suspend the deck from verticals below this. In contrast, the nearby Second Severn Crossing is also a "suspension bridge with a suspended deck", but this type is a cable-stayed bridge and each supporting cable runs directly from the towers, without the single large catenary and the vertical suspensors. Re-naming the article to reflect the crucial nature of the catenary should make this clear, and show how widespread the topic's subject is. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. There are two related move proposals:

Talk:Suspended deck bridge#Requested move, to move Suspended deck bridge to Suspended-deck suspension bridge

Talk:Suspension bridge types#Requested move, to move Suspension bridge types to Suspension bridge.

--Una Smith (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a related proposal to delete Category:Suspended deck bridges, here. --Una Smith (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In light of the recent moves of these articles, and the recent requested moves on the article talk pages, deletion is clearly not the answer to this content dispute/article title dispute. It seems to me the article talk pages are the place to decide the correct titles and distribution of the content in articles. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your keep means that it is okay to create article titles that do not meet WP:Verifiability as long as they redirect somewhere? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for nomination as delete: In addition to creating a new type of bridge out of thin air, this editor seems to refuse to listen to concensus on the talk pages. Only one user agreed with the changes that he is making throughout the project pages: User:Tedickey, someone who has not listed himself on the WikiProject Bridges page. FOUR users that are listed on that project page have given the input to revert and move the material back to Suspension bridge (currently a redirect based on the changes made to create this article). They are SamuelWantman (here), Trulystand700 (here), Leonard G. (here), and myself (here). A four-to-one ratio is pretty much concensus by any standard. However, User:Una Smith continues to propogate this change throughout the bridge articles.

Since Category the title Category:Suspended deck bridges and the article title Suspended deck bridge do not meet WP:Verifiability and were therefore original research, I considered this forum to be the quickest location to come to a resolution on the matter, i.e. DELETE the new title and MOVE the material back to Suspension bridge, where is was for years until just a few days ago. The Suspension bridge article is listed as a top priority for the WikiProject and I considered it vital to get to this resolution quickly. I would gladly listen to any advice from administators or experienced users on a better process for resolution. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "suspended deck bridge" is not the correct page name for this article, but as others have said deleting the article is no solution. The solution is to move the article. I propose to move it to Suspended-deck suspension bridge. See Talk:Suspended deck bridge#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Suspended deck" in any form would still be a problem, as that's not a widely used term for them, hence the claims of "fabrication" and WP:OR from those whose only reference is a single Google search. All suspension bridges suspend their decks (even ribbons do, they just manage it in the same horizontal alignment), the difference is in how and what from. Even regarding vertical suspensors as the differentiating factor would be a problem, as suspension arch bridges (Tyne Bridge form) may also them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article belongs under Suspension bridge with a redirect from Suspended-deck suspension bridge. This is the format that it has been in for several years. That is this request, DELETE Suspended deck bridge and MOVE back to Suspension bridge.

The suggested solution (under WP:PRECISION) to place content under Suspended-deck suspension bridge is not acceptable under WP:PRIMARY. Before it would be considered acceptable, the editor needs to find the references that support this name as primary for the subject. He will not find that in the bridge engineering community. Even though the term Suspended-deck suspension bridge is more exact, it is EXTREMELY RARE for a bridge engineer to use the term. For every one time he might find it used, I can locate one hundred scholarly papers that simply say Suspension bridge. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY applies to sources; the relevant guideline that applies to article titles and page names is WP:PRECISION. Wikipedia is not a textbook on road bridges, for which suspended decks are the norm so need not be specified. Because Wikipedia deals with all types of suspension bridge, the article about this type of suspension bridge needs a more precise name. --Una Smith (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for keeping (not deleting). The hatnote on the article the first time I read it (version):

This article is concerned with a particular type of suspension bridge, the suspended-deck type.

(Bold in the original.) See? The article is about suspended-deck suspension bridges. The hatnote was added in February 2007 (diff). The article formerly was at Suspended-deck suspension bridge. It was unilaterally moved from there in 2005, and since then has been subject to ongoing additions and deletions of content about suspension bridges of other types (hence the hatnote; see also Talk:Suspended deck bridge). To me, that instability is good reason to return the article to its original page name and to make Suspension bridge an article about suspension bridges in general, starting with the content now at Suspension bridge types. --Una Smith (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Una, You were asked on Talk:Suspension_bridge_types to provide justification for putting any material under the title suspended-deck suspension bridge. The question is repeated here and expanded:

Is there a reliable source that calls the Golden Gate Bridge or any other suspension bridge a suspended-deck suspension bridge? Is there a reliable source which defines a suspension bridge as anything other than a suspended-deck version? (Please read the section in WP:SOURCES to make certain that the source is reliable and not questionable, i.e. the source should be scholarly and technical, and formally published.)

This is the point. You have not provided any sources that do this. To date, your main assertion for these changes has been the hatnote in the previous version of the Suspension bridge article. Wikipedia cannot be considered a source.

Without reliable sources, you are making this stuff up.

Suspension bridge is the proper term; suspended-deck suspension bridge only makes sense to a small percentage of bridge engineers, and even they don't use on a regular basis (which is why that title has existed these past few years as only a redirect). - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out one, for instance, which you ignored. Rather than following up on it, you've become rather rude (again). Tedickey (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article, under the name Suspension bridge, has existed since 2002.[10] Would someone please close this AfD? This is silly. I hope everyone understands that over a thousand edits spanning the course of almost seven years would vanish if this article was deleted. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article, but rename it back to Suspension bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and do the renaming discussion somewhere else until this is fully decided. "Suspension bridge" is a basic term and a core topic that needs to be discussed in Wikipedia's coverage of bridges. I'm not sure how "suspended deck bridge" came up as a title. Regardless, deleting this article and its history would delete a core topic that we need to cover bridges. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. X clamation point 03:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space logistics[edit]

This article has "multiple issues", but more than that, there seems to be nothing encyclopedic or important about the subject matter. This article is completely WP:OR. The talk page has a banner that says this article was an "educational assignment"; indeed, it is written poorly and not in the tone of a formal encyclopedia. I cannot see how this article should remain. It needs a complete rewrite, to be sure, but its orphan status seems to indicate it doesn't need to belong at all. Finally, the aticle has existed with "multiple issues" for about a year. No one is fixing this article because 1) it needs too much work and 2) nothing relevant links to it. This should be deleted. Timneu22 (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Space logistics", that is getting stuff up to outer space, seems like a notable topic to me. It is called that in a couple of the sources. Is it known under another name? Redddogg (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: but what about this article? That is the question. It is terrible on all levels. If it is kept, it needs a complete rewrite. It would be better to start from nothing. Timneu22 (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AFD is supposed to decide on the topic of an article, not the article in its current state. See WP:DELETION: if it is practically possible to fix the problems of the article, then we are required to do so in preference to deletion. What reason is there that this article cannot be fixed? (I have no opinion either way, myself) JulesH (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article's topic doesn't convey any actual meaning; it's more a title of a high school paper (which it appears to be) rather than an actual encyclopedic topic that someone would try to find. I don't believe the topic is valid, and the article is pure trash. This is why I have nominated it for deletion. Timneu22 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – The page topic is suitably notable and is worthy of an article. The current content needs refinement and citations, rather than deletion. I suggest raising the issue of this article's improvement on the appropriate WikiProject talk page.—RJH (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...and then do some work on it to improve the article to a reasonable standard. Anaxial (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW after 6 days total DGG (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Set Sail for the Stars[edit]

Novel that seems to fail WP:BK. No coverage (either trivial or substantial) in third-party sources (Ghits, zero hits in Gnews and Gscholar). Also, I couldn't find any information on the publisher (Photon Communications). A Google search on the publisher's name brings up mentions of this book and no other, so it might possibly be self-published. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BK. A self-published novel lacking third-party coverage. The creation of a single purpose account. Victoriagirl (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photon Communications, Inc. is primarily a developer of medical publications and educational monographs for physicians. While Set Sail for the Stars is the company's first venture into the field of science fiction, Photon Communications is a legitimate corporate entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.210.115 (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Set Sail for the Stars website aside, the only listings I've found for Phototon Communications, Inc. indicate that it is a "supplier of Electrical and Telecommunications equipment, material, supplies & tooling" located in West Grove, PA. I add that, according to on-line directory listings, one of the authors has a phone linked to the address provided on Set Sail for the Stars website. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photon Communications, Inc. is a New York corporation and has no connection to the electrical supplier in West Grove, PA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.210.115 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I can find no reviews of this book. The publisher my be Photon communications, but it seems to have gone through a print service at Catawba Publishing to get the book printed. -- Whpq (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BK. Worldcat shows no copies in libraries. Per Victoriagirl, article may be promotion by publisher or author. JohnCD (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the anon editor above was trying very hard to give the impression that this book is not self-published, I'll note that Walter H. Landers, one of the authors of this book, is on file as CEO of the publisher.[11] JulesH (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 03:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhopal Movie[edit]

Article fails WP:NFF. Available sources for this production are all at least 18 months old and do not give any indication that filming ever commenced. Contested prod. PC78 (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFF; agree with nom that such old sources, no actual date, and no further news would appear to indicate it was a failed project and unnotable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything about it since the old stuff predicting it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Pollard[edit]

He's a UK prospective parliamentary candidate (that means he's not yet contested nevermind won a seat) - he's stood at a local city election and lost. An interview in a gay newspaper. There's simply nothing notable here in UK political terms. Contested prod. Scott Mac (Doc) 14:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Jd027 (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 19:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable Dubmill (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BN3374[edit]

Very little 3-rd party mention of this, may fail our notability standards. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a specific course at a specific university. There's nothing notable about it. -- Whpq (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, per Whpq. JulesH (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article is straight from the (linked to) syllabus, and fails N. TNplinko (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a single academic course, which is what i assume the UK means by "module". If it means a portion of a course, even less notable. 22:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- By "module" it means a portion of a degree course that students can elect to take and will be awarded credits towards their degree for. Judging by its module number, which takes a vaguely standardised form in most UK universities, you can tell that it's a course run by the business school ('BN') primarily aimed at third-year undergraduates. JulesH (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Aye[edit]

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER; non-notable. Only credit of possible notability mentioned in the article is a Levi's ad, but the Fashion Model Directory's entry for her is blank, Google Images brings up mostly personal photos, and a Google search only supports that her closest claim to notability is having dated a Jonas Brother. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:ENTERTAINER; Amelia Aye's official FMD page ([12]) lists her details and provides many of her professional photos including magazine spreads and commercial campaigns.

This article on Wikipedia about Amelia Aye also delivers an official link to one of her agencies she is represented by - Models 1 (one of the top Modeling angencies in the world) website including Amelia Aye's specific Models 1 profile ([13]). Many of Models 1's other models like Agyness Deyn and Alex Evans have been allowed a page/article on Wikipedia, Amelia Aye is no different. She has had two major campaigns with Levi jeans and Canon cameras as well as many clothing ones.

When the name 'Amelia Aye' is typed in to Google professional work photos do appear.

All these links justify her being a professional working, successful model and prove her notability.

People come onto Wikipedia to look up people, topics, places etc that they are interested in. As Wikipedia's Notability page states entertainers must have a large fan following. Amelia has a large fan base and many people are interested in her. If the article is allowed to remain on Wikipedia the website will benefit greatly from the number of people looking the model up and reading about her as well as give the fans great pleasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabby C (talk • contribs) 16:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Passes WP:ENTERTAINER; - Notable model. Amelia Aye passes each condition Wikipedia's Notability page states: 1. There are numerous links to back up that she has had a number significant product/modeling endorsements - Levi Strauss & Co., Canon Digital IXUS etc; and had a significant role in popular culture with a song having been written and released about her (Jonas Brother's "Australia" song) 2. Amelia does have a proven large fan base- Thousands of Youtube videos and fan websites have been created using her professional modeling photos. Also, the Jonas Brothers play a huge role in today's popular culture - anything about them from religious beliefs to girlfriends is of valid interest to the public and they have the right to read about Amelia Aye and her personal life and professional career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krissy86 (talk • contribs)

— Krissy86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Both your rationales are deeply flawed. Being signed to an agency that represents models with Wiki entries does not entitle other models to their own articles, and neither does the mere existence of professional photos. For example, how does this photo from the FMD gallery demonstrate Wiki-level notability? It's just an unmarked photo. Notability is dependent on reliable secondary sources, and I see none[14][15]; including words like "Levi's" or "Canon" does not help, and Models.com has no entry for her - there is nothing at all to corroborate the article's claims or prove her notability. As for the fansite and Youtube claims (neither of which amount to much anyway), Youtube returns all of 18 hits - not thousands - and if she has so many fansites, they're certainly difficult to find. The only thing that's easy to find are trivial hits on her relationship with whichever Jonas brother, because that's the only reason anyone has ever heard of her, and relationships don't confer notability, which is a vital tidbit for you both to know now that you've registered on Wikipedia (within a few minutes of each other earlier today, coincidentally). Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 17:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and giving your opinion on some of the arguements that were addressed. It is clear you have never heard of this model but many people in and outside of the industry have and know her work. Amelia Aye passes all the criteria listed on Wikipedia's Notability Page and has had an impact on society, especially in America. However, if the article gets deleted it's not the end of the world! It's good to see there are people who care enough about the article to leave comments. Thank you for taking the time to do so. Well, I'm sure Miley Cyrus, one of the world's most famous popstars, would back up Amelia's justification to keep her page and fashion industry people a-like!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krissy86 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no doubt she is a working model. However, there are no reliable sources covering her to establish notability as defined by wikipedia.-- Whpq (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass notability requirements. I'm sure she is a model, but the only secondary sources I can find are blogs, live journal and facebook posts, and gossip forums. This entry also seems to be full of BLP violations. Wperdue (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verifiability != notability. Them From Space 00:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a model, notability is assessed against WP:ENTERTAINER. Insufficient independent evidence that notability has been achieved. WWGB (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. X clamation point 03:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yaatri[edit]

Google comes up with no 3-rd party sources for this. Thus, fails our notability criteria. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:BAND. No 3rd party coverage, no national tours, no awards, it seems that their "daak" album didn't chart in any national music chart. -Enric Naval (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Enric. Recognizance (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1, insufficient context. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Magic[edit]

Unsourced, Google finds nothing, probably a hoax. Could be speedied, perhaps? ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wikipedia is not the place to publish poorly written fiction. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have an article about Atlantis. THis one doesn't meet any criteria that would allow us to keep it. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sink it to the ocean floor and send the page creator a short book on Greek myths. (Er, delete, obviously, as unsourced speculation.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and if it can't be speedied, snowball it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Soft Drugs. MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Murray (rock musician)[edit]

Very little content, dodgy notability - at most should be incorporated into The Soft Drugs article, at least until more information is available. Colds7ream (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Soft Drugs. If the info on him is expanded with reliable soruces on notable stuff, then he can be unmerged as necessary. As it stands, it fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fail WP:MUSICBIO. It satisfied criteria #1 with multiple reliable sources. It does not pass by a lot, but it satisfies the standard. That is the measure. Beyond that we are in to each individual's belief of how many standards should be met and to what degree, but that defeats the point of having standards. It meets the standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackstevens479 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be merged with The Soft Drugs - I've tried to find more info on the net to provide more references, but there's just nothing out there. On the point of reliable sourced references, one of the links is to a foreign-language website, is this appropriate for english language wikipedia? (Fair enough if thats OK, I'm not sure though). For such a small article, it'd be better served with a merge, then if/when the subject becomes more notable, or more sources found, then it can be unmerged.... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is, it really doesn't have much to do with the Soft Drugs. Yes, he was in the final lineup, and that is an interesting connection. But his music does not belong under a Soft Drugs umbrella. His discography both precedes and exceeds the life of the Soft Drugs. As far as the foreign language review, I haven't seen anything suggesting that language of a source is a factor to be considered.

Hmmm, but it should at least say in the references that the reference isn't in english? Especially considering it's one of only two references. And if he doesn't have much to do with Soft Drugs, then it might just mean that he isn't notable enough. A four year stint in a pub doesn't make anyone notable I'm afraid Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood. He has a lot to do with the Soft Drugs. But his career outside of the Soft Drugs is longer and more prolific, though it can be agreed it has achieved less notoriety. I'm fine with noting that the reference is in Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackstevens479 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and start a merge discussion on the talk page. Per WP:PRESERVE the information on this page should not be deleted; the question of where it is best to present it can be decided without an AFD discussion. JulesH (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 CD reviews does not meet WP:MUSIC. Nothing worth merging in Soft Drugs, which is of dubious notability itself. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4, very similar article. the reception section mentions another review than the current one, but neither can be confirmed. Mgm|^(talk) 22:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babbka[edit]

Non-notable film by non-notable production company (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astriga Film Industry). The article itself notes that the film grossed only $400. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized this film was already through Afd (even though the result was "speedy deletion"), so I'm now tagging the article for speedy deletion following recreation after deletion debate. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no sources explaining any significant impact in cinema industry, culture, etc. Seems to be related to Astrigawood, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Astriga_Film_Industry. The authors of these articles should start gathering newspaper articles on them. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a hoax. TerriersFan (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Star (Avril Lavigne album)[edit]

completely unsourced/fan-made album Darth NormaN (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Before the AfD, this was a redirect to the Avril Lavigne page. Delete it, and the redirect will be restored. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Fan-made album, unlikely redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - hoax. TerriersFan (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Remixes (Avril Lavigne album)[edit]

completely unsourced/ fan-made album Darth NormaN (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search on amazon.com (chosen because you can pre-order albums/DVDs/games etc) has nothing coming out from Avril Lavigne in 2009 - which is when this album supposedly comes out. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 (blatant misinformation). There is absolutely no evidence such an album is in the works. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Pure hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 17:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete make it speedy. Hoax.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KuroiShiroi (contribs) 20:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tala maanam[edit]

http://www.google.com/search?q="Tala+maanam" gives nothing so I assume its not notable or verifiable Habanero-tan (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This was tagged for speedy deletion within four minutes of creation, before the author had an opportunity to expand it or provide sources. It has now been listed at AfD within 15 hours of creation, a classic case of biting the newcomer in my view; we will be lucky if the author has not been driven away from Wikipedia. The author explains on the talkpage that "tala maanam is a simple system of measurement used in designing and construction of temples, castles and, sculpture or religious functions; to understand the iconometry of Indian sculpture, and temple design understanding of this simple system of measurement is essential.", which seems a very suitable subject for the encyclopedia. As for the Google search, this may be a transliteration issue, from Hindi to English, and sources may well be in Hindi not in English, given that this is a subject relating to India. I suggest giving the author more time. I suggest that Habanero-tan might like to collaborate with the author to build an article before making an assessment on whether or not it meets the guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with the explanation by the previous commenter, but just allowing it to sit is not enough. Someone should encourage the user to provide references (in Hindi if neccesary). Perhaps getting some people from the Indian and Architecture WikiProjects is a good idea here. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete - In general, I agree with Malcolmx15, but in this case, it worries me greatly that there are only 4 Google hits for "Tala maanam", and two of them are in Wikipedia. So regardless of whether this is a hoax or not, it is simply not verifiable, unless someone can find references to this is books or other offline resources. For now I have to recommend deleting this. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep while those more familiar with this topic area are consulted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a Sanskrit term - essentially, it refers to a set of normative rules concerning the proportions which different parts of the body should have in relation to the length of the face in representational art. The spelling adopted for this article is rather eccentric - the IAST transliteration is "tāla māna" and the usual Romanisation is "tala mana". As you'll see, searching for "tala mana" produces a much larger number of hits on Google and Google Books. -- Arvind (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename or merge. I've rewritten the stub based on several references. I included all the references as a way of helping someone possible expand the article someday. It might make an interesting article if expanded. The best source couldn't be added because it's a Sulekha blog/article (by a seemingly reliable source, a Dr. Gift Siromoney), and Sulekha is blacklisted from Wikipedia. It's at http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/04/temple-architecture-devalaya-vastu-part-six-continued.htm for anyone interested. This article might best be merged into Shilpa Shastras, since a couple of sources indicate that "Talamana" (which is how it's most commonly spelled) is based on the Shilpa Shastras. Priyanath ^talk 03:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a little patience please from speedy deletionists with regards to articles pertaining to the non-English language speaking cultures. AshLin (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn now that the mystery is solved. Moved to Talamana. Habanero-tan (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madhogaria[edit]

I have been unable to find any reliable sources about this village. This means non of the content is actually verifiable and therefore should be deleted for failing a core policy. Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Possible hoax. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly a hoax, Google comes up with nothing at all to verify this. Sources to verify this will most likely not be found. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 17:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find anything regarding an Indian village w/this name. Skier Dude (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tried all search engines and found nothing. Even Google India turns up nothing. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to verify anything in the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is not about a village, but about a (supposed) community of people hailing from the village/town of Madhogarh. Don't know if it this is true or notable; but hopefully this clarification will help in the search for sources. Abecedare (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. He sems to be on the cusp of notability whatever way you look at it. However, no clear consensus to delete has emerged over the ten days of this discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Kuhle[edit]

Non-notable, written like a resume. Was speedily deleted prior. Previous article was an autobiography written by the subject; it's likely that this one is as well. CyberGhostface (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads not so much like a résumé as like the personal webpage from about 15 years ago. —SlamDiego_←T 15:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:PROF notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the subjects publication record makes clear that they satisfy the first criteria of WP:PROF. Thus, the article should be kept and cleaned up. However, since I am not volunteering to do the cleanup, I cannot vote keep. -Atmoz (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having many publications does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC #1. All academics publish, that's their job. What is important here is whether those publications make enough of an impact to make the author notable. Equally, whether or not this is an autobio is no ground for deletion, either. If it is an autobio, then it needs to be checked for POV (some autobios are actually quite NPOV, even though that's a minority) and cleaned-up if needed, but not necessarily deleted. The only question is whether the subject is notable. --Crusio (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't just look at the number of publications and say "wow that's a lot". I think the quality of the publications is such that it has significantly impacted the field of glaciology. He's not published a lot recently, and he hasn't been cited a lot overall, but my standards for "significant impact" are fairly low for profs. -Atmoz (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many papers published in even the most prestigious journals with the highest impact factors are never cited. I don't think that one than can argue that such papers have impacted the field, solely because they were published in Science or Nature. Editors are human and can get it wrong. It is not up to us here to say "I think the quality of the publications is..", all we should be worried about is notability. For all we care at AfD, the quality of the articles could be abominable, but they could then still be notable. Quality does not equal notability (all too many academics creating an autobio for themselves forget this...). --Crusio (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment: While your principal point is well-taken, it's not strictly true that all academics publish. Some institutions place all of their focus upon teaching. —SlamDiego_←T 14:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how did those teachers get their PhDs if they didn't publish? --Crusio (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they typically published one or two articles along with their doctorate, and probably one or two since then, which would normally be considered sufficient productivity for a non-doctorate granting college in the US, if accompanied by a number of conference presentations and the like. such careers are not notable as researchers, though they may be as teachers if it can be proven. Researchers typically do a great deal more than that--how much, depends on the area. All academics publish. some publish a little, and are not notable for it. Some publish a lot, and are. It's basically a simple f=difference, complicated only by those at early career stages who will publish a great deal, but have just been starting to.Most faculty know very well under which of these classes they fall., though a few do delude themselves. DGG (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The very wide and deep range of publications in his field clearly establishes him as an authority.DGG (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 08:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I continue to think him clearly significant within his subject, based on the number of publications in good journals. DGG (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The subject’s contributions are indeed in a variety of related topics, and suggest some measure of notability, but I could not find enough to clearly establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. Citation impact, while not negligible, seems to be relatively low. Most widely held book in libraries, currently in less than 80 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. News coverage exists, but is not particularly impressive. As noted by Crusio before, the English WP is the main/global WP, so notability should be verifiable through international sources.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the view in the last sentence is entirely at odds with fundamental Wikipedia policy, The enWP is a universal encyclopedia, written in English. it includes whatever might be notable anywhere. If something is notable in Bhutan, with Bhutanese sources, but someone can write the English article and we can be reasonably assured about the sources, it merits inclusion. That national sources work for every other Wikipedia but we want international ones for the enWP is a novel suggestion--or is the intent to say that for the enWP, national sources for topics from English-speaking countries are OK, but for everywhere else we want sources of international stature? That's ani institutionalization of cultural bias, something Wikipedia guards against. I do not for a minute believe that's what Crusio meant. I think he meant that the standard of notability for a researcher on subjects of international interest is world-wide, which is a much more limited statement. I'm not sure about that, but it is certainly at least defensible , and might be consensus.DGG (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is entirely correct about my position. The fact that the news sources given in the article (and below) are German sources is to me not a reason to disqualify them. What does make them weigh less in my point of view is that they only mention Kuhle very briefly, almost in passing. --Crusio (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WorldCat and Google (Scholar, News, Books) are international sources, although somewhat flawed and biased. I think we should strive for sources that are widely available to the participants in AfD discussions. Otherwise we fall into the trap of having to lower the standards of notability for lack of verifiable sources. In my opinion, it is not good practice to justify a keep recommendation based on the assumption that sources of notability MAY or PROBABLY exist, for this or that person. As for their language, it does not have to be English. In fact, recent Google News searchers usually turn up articles in multiple languages, when they exist.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, it looks to me that DGG, you, and I are basically in agreement about this, but just misunderstood what was being written. --Crusio (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete~~Delete~~ per Eric Yurken. I am not convinced by DGG's argument that having an excellent publication record in itself suffices for notability. I feel notability only is established if it can be shown that said publications have had a significant impact on the field. --Crusio (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

expanding on the very brief comment I gave with the keep, no I do not think that volume of publications alone is automatically notable. They have to be in places of decent reputation, and they have to get cited significantly for the field. His field is one I am not familiar with, so ,using Scopus, which is not ideal for the purpose but does cover recent European work fairly well, I find it lists 56 publications of his. Since Scopus is selective, these are then reputable journals. The highest citations are 48, for a 1998 paper in Quaternary International 45-46, pp. 71-108, "Reconstruction of the 2.4 million km2 Late Pleistocene ice sheet on the Tibetan Plateau and its impact on the global climate ",. and over 20 cites for each of a series of paper in Geojournal. Quaternary International is an Elsevier title, the largest international scientific publisher, and the journal is in 260 WorldCat libraries. . It is an international Geojournal is a Springer publication, the 2nd largest international scientific publisher, an international journal held in over 200 worldCat libraries. I think that's substantial impact for geography. Anyway, he is Full Professor at Gottingen, which is either notability in itself or by itself very close to it. In a field i do not personally think myself capable of judging, I trust the collective judgment of the faculty at a university like that more than my own. Is there someone here who thinks himself more reliable? DGG (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure that I agree with this. We usually do not take being a full professor at any university in and of itself as sufficient evidence for notability. I agree with DGG that generally such full professors are notable, but then there is always independent evidence for that. I vehemently oppose (both here and in my professional life) the tendency to judge a researcher's productivity by the journals in which it was published. I only know all too well that editors are human and fallible. A large proportion of articles published in the most prestigious journals like Nature and Science never get cited (not even by their own authors) and I maintain that such articles have no measurable impact and could just as well have been published in the local free door-to-door weekly paper. Impact is not what we publish and where we publish it. Notability is established if other researchers are influenced significantly by our work and/or if our research draws the attention of the general public sufficiently to make an academic notable in that way. I admit however, that I am not too familiar with citation rates in this particular field and for that reason I am "downgrading" my !vote to "weak delete". As for DGG's remark about the "collective judgment of the faculty", I agree with that. However, the standards that this faculty (have to) use are different from ours: to become a full professor at a university like that, one needs to have a solid publication record and do good-quality research. There is no doubt in my mind that Kuhle more than passes that bar. However, I repeat that quality is not what we are looking for here, it is notability, which is not the same thing. That is why (unfortunately) we cannot simply take the decisions from journal editors and faculty to make our life simpler. BTW, with "excellent publication record" in my previous comment, I did not just mean the volume of the publications but also the fact that they were published in journals in good or very good standing. --Crusio (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DGG. From the article and these two news articles:[16] and [17] the theory of ice ages originating from the Tibetan plateau is due to him. This seems to be a minority theory, but important enough that the originator deserves a bio. The best evidence may be the papers poorly cited in the article :( Derbyshire et al. 1991; Rutter 1995; Zheng and Rutter 1998; Owen et al. 2005; Lehmkuhl and Owen 2005) Important enough for many to argue with is significant impact is important enough to be wikipedia notable. John Z (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Close as nomination by banned user. So Why 19:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hübchen[edit]

An unnotable actor. If all actors had articles Wiki would be clogged. I went through the sources and chucked out IMDB, obviously. The NYTimes articles mentions his name, nothing else. Unless reliable sources actually discussing the subject of the article can be provided then I see no reason to have an article about Hubchen at Wiki. Does not meet WP:NOT Bildstit (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

~~I have found a source in German discussing Henry Hubchen:[18] Bildstit (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]~~

It seems like Hubchen is only known for a 2004 film called Go for Zucker in English and nothing else of note. I don't think Wiki is the place for this kind of actor article. An obscure German film with an even more obscure actor. The sources are completely unusable... being unreliable or undiscernable because they are in German. The German Wiki may be the more appropriate place for this article, if at all.Bildstit (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has since been blocked as a likely sock of a banned user. This article is also about an actor who has won the german equivalent of an academy award. Move for speedy close as "Keep" since that award unambiguously crosses the WP:BIO threshold - "The person has received a notable award or honor."Bali ultimate (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no rule that disallows foreign language sources. If you tried a machine translation of the German article with for example Google Translate you'd have found he is well-known for his role in the TV series Polizeiruf 110 appeared in the DEFA's first Indian (the teepee kind) film (and numerous others) and was two-times DDR (former East Germany) Windsurfing champion. His films even yielded him acting prizes: "Schauspieler des Jahres" (1994) (Actor of the Year) und dem "Berliner Theaterpreis" (2000) (Berlin Theathre Prize). Even without the names of the other films and tv series, what I mentioned is clearly enough to meet multiple criteria of WP:CREATIVE and WP:ATHLETE. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he won the german equivalent of the academy award, and has been praised internationally for that performance. Just after the nominator nommed this article, he removed cites to David Denby of The New Yorker, a review from the New York Times and a couple of other inline citations and replaced them with fact tags (compare my last version [19] to his last [20]. That's attrocious behavior. For what it's worth, i started this article.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel F. Herd[edit]

Person notable for being on a board of directors of 9 to 18 people for a 10,000 person congregation, not an organization head or otherwise notable. MBisanz ^talk 08:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Unnotable per sources.Bildstit (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Striking out !vote of a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Google comes up with a few relevand 3-rd party sources; however, there don't seem to be enough of them to ascertain that this individual is sufficiently notable for inclusion. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 17:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there seems to be an Indonesian wikipedia article here, and another in Polish here. Both seem to cite enough references to at least potentially establish notability. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I read the article on the Governing Body, this is the effectual central leadership council for the entire body of 7 million. That's enough for notability. DGG (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses references 10,000 several times, I do not see 7 million mentioned at all. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses--the 10k are just the fraction of the 7M adherents who are heaven-bound, according to their doctrine. Herd is therefore at least equivalent to a Roman Catholic bishop, and hence notable as a religious leader. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news gives one seemingly valid source, and there's plenty of other web ghits. For a non-mainstream religious governing body, that's pretty reasonable. Failing that a merge/redirect to Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses may be appropriate, because I'm not finding much else on the web that's RS'ed about him. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Bäckman[edit]

The page was already deleted per AfD. Now it is recreated ~~by editors who voted delete on the previous aFD~~. I have restored the previous versions so to check if it changed significantly since the deletion Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep the article and merge it with the deleted version. At least the deleted version is referenced. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per the arguments presented in the previous AFD. Nothing significant has happened that would increase Bäckman's personal notability in comparison to last autumn. Bäckman's news coverage is purely in context of the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee of which he is a member, but the membership does not convey encyclopædic notability to himelf.

Even Safka's notability is disputed, as it turns out. Its article in Finnish Wikipedia is currently on deletion discussion, with currently 48 votes for delete and 15 votes for keep. No wonder -- in its largest public demonstration only 14 people showed up, and that includes the committee's own members. The Committee's news coverage has been, shall we say, disproportionate for their actual presence and influence. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been deleted from Finnish Wikipedia, with 78.8% of votes supporting deletion. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the deleted version, he's an adjunct professor at two Finnish universities? He's also published numerous publications? And given citations in scholar in regards to Estonian/Finnish/Russian history, he is certainly notable. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not reason to delete. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple people named "Johan Bäckman". Just at a glance, it is obvious that the first three results in your search are by Johan Bäckman of Lund University, who looks nothing like the Johan Bäckman pictured in this article. As for scholarly citations, the University of Helsinki has had to issue a statement asserting that Bäckman's opinions about history or politics are not endorsed by the University -- they're Bäckman's personal opinions. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that often occurs when people get a bug up their butt about views they don't like; they whine to the university; often they will call for the uni to cut ties with the person; the uni refuses and says that they are his views and not of the uni....it's standard university PR, and you'd probably find that most universities operate in such a way anyway. Of course, the fact that the Uni of Hel has issued such a statement, is only lending him more notability, is it not? About the scholars, there are obviously some about birds and stufff, but I did clearly say above in regards to Estonian/Finnish/Russian history; there are cites for his papers, so he is looking more and more notable. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reputable university has trouble standing behind good scholarship. And no reputable university likes the stain of bad scholarship. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The first version was created – and deleted – prematurely. At the time he was most notable for the advance publicity and hype generated by his upcoming book on the Bronze Soldier. (The article was deleted on September 15, the book only came out September 22.) Sense then he has gained international notability by this controversal book and, lately, as a spokesman for the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee. He has regulary appeared in the news on Russian national television, as well as all forms of Finnish and Estonian media. There is however a language bias here, in the English language media he is most notable for the book review by Edward Lucas. Notability ultimately derives from the fact the by attacking Estonian history he is attacking the basis of Estonian statehood. In Estonia, control of history is a question of national security. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there could be a COI issue here, Petri Krohn may be associated with Johan Bäckman. Martintg (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep So lon as references can be provided demonstrating coverage in mainstream news then possibly this will meet notability guidelines. But having published papers does not mean he is notable.Bildstit (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Striking out !vote of a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The above user was recently indef-blocked for likely sockpuppet activity. Them From Space 22:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He hasn't been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. His notability is based upon WP:SINGLEEVENT, being the controversy surrounding the Bronze soldier. I could self publish some books, create an Australian anti-fascist committee with two of my buddies and organise a protest or two with a dozen other buddies attacking the basis of New Zealand's statehood, but it wouldn't make me any more notable for inclusion into Wikipedia. Martintg (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The books appear notable--and he would be also. Notable in Estonia or Finland is quite enough for notability. The English WP covers the world, as long as people will write the articles in English. DGG (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so that there would be a single place where one could elaborate on the flaws in his writings. Colchicum (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, I find it worrying that the nominator repeatedly fails to discriminate between different editors here and here and elsewhere. Didn't we have enough of this two years ago? The previous AfD has nothing to do with Digwuren, Sander Säde is not Digwuren, Termer is not Digwuren, Martintg is not Digwuren, Suva is not Digwuren, Karabinier is not Digwuren, and Digwuren is not Peltimikko, believe it or not. The idea that the said editors should be held collectively responsible for something is weird, to say the least. Colchicum (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have seen so far it seems that this clown is really notorious. Colchicum (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The flaws are shared with the other members, particularly Leena Hietanen. For this reason, I believe the flaws are better discussed together, in the article of Safka.

As for the remark -- good catch. The source of this misconception appears to be Petri Krohn (diff). I guess it's a symptom of the infamous "us vs. them" thinking, "them" being faceless interchangeable persons. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Peltimikko (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like he has made enough noise to be written about, at least in Hufvudstadsbladet that I can read myself. Would guess the Finnish language newspapers have done the same. Närking (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced, notable enough (although I'm still a [Category:Wikipedians against notability] member. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable indeed. His recent statements have been discussed a lot in both Hbl and HS. ☺ Spiby ☻ 11:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly political maverick but notorious as well - Skysmith (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An IP with a possible COI, who is not familiar with Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing, wording and notability, is messing up the page. Please keep an eye on it. Colchicum (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But what the reason to use characterictic controversial in the lead? Why we do not use such characteristic for historians of the opposite side even heavily criticized?--Dojarca (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? Camps? You mean circuses? He is not a controversial historian, he is a controversial author. He is not a historian at all, he is a sociologist. Colchicum (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello, Dojarca, your question implies it's all only about opinions on the same (reputably verifiable) facts, when it's patently clear that it's not. PetersV TALK 01:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Smell before you step in. With such friends who needs enemies? Well, for an anti-Poetin propaganda campaign it would be great to call him historian (or, rather, hystorian), just to show what kind of people these historians are, but unfortunately he is not one of them. Colchicum (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is famous in Finland, Estonia and Russia, and has published several books. --Dogah (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 22:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GTA Makedonija[edit]

Fan created mod for Grand Theft Auto. Non-notable with no reliable sources likely to exist. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete. A mod? C'mon.Bildstit (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Striking out !vote of a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedily, if possible) - This is nothing but a non-notable fan made mod. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy A7, webcontent). Fan-created games should be held to the same standards as all other video games. There are no independent sources, no noteworthy awards, no records, or anything else that would require an article. Fails inclusion criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 of the CSD. A mod for a computer game is not nearly notable for inclusion. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 17:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I'm just popping in to be irritating and would therefore want to point out that Counter-Strike was a mod for years. --Kiz o r 00:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. I don't know why A7 is being bandied about, as it's not web content, but this might become WP:SNOW. Marasmusine (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic The Hedgehog 3 Music[edit]

Unsourced OR. The talk page for the game has a discussion on the subject of whether Michael Jackson was involved in the soundtrack composition. It's all speculation. kollision (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete It's an unnotable soundtrack.Bildstit (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Striking out !vote of a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear attempt at trying to discredit Howard Drossin. Unless this goes to court and results in a verdict, it's pure speculation aimed to destroy his career. Clearly a BLP violation. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Also attempts to discredit the composer (which does bear verifiability) which is a BLP violation as stated above. MuZemike 18:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant, defamatory original research. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To the extent any appropriate content exists, it can be included in the Sonic the Hedgehog 3 article. For now, it doesn't even appear that non-OR content exists. Rlendog (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I blanked the article due to its unsourced biographical content. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I also request that this AFD be courtesy-blanked upon its conclusion. MuZemike 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have also blanked the MJ discussion on the STH3 article's talk page for obvious reasons. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well Speedy Delete the thing now since it's been blanked. I recently attended a panel hosted by a well-known former Sega employee close to the production of Sonic the Hedgehog 3, and he did say that Michael Jackson was removed from the project due to the criminal allegations coming up at the time. However, no official statement from Sega has ever been referenced in the media, so we can't write that on Wikipedia. Please hide the truth for now. Vodello (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - under criterion G10, as per discrediting and unverifiable information on a living person. --tgheretford (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KuroiShiroi (contribs) 20:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Lake Pool[edit]

~~Subject lacks notability, article lacks 3rd party sources. The one reference here is maintained by the article's creator. Claims of notoriety are not substantiated.~~ Efforts to improve the article by removing uncited claims have been thwarted by the article's creator, taking to AFD. RadioFan (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Conditions - As long as the editor is adding to the article, adding references, I see no problem with the article. If the editor isn't and is just reverting to "his" version, then it should be deleted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 29, 2009 @ 04:26
Keep - The sources like the Charleston Daily Mail and the Charleston Gazette that have written substantially on the topic are independent reliable sources and not the article creator.--Oakshade (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I went ahead and added some references. There are still some unsourced statements that need sourcing or removal. The original editor is having problems with ownership of the article, and they need to come to terms with a community edited project. All in all, I'm convinced this is a notable swimming pool and problems with the article's creator need to be dealt with in other ways, without deleting the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for my argument for keeping-- the subject is notable as established by the multiple, reliable, independent sources I added to the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Clearly a ridiculous article about a swimming pool that was hardly notable at the time and no longer exists.Bildstit (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Striking out !vote of a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article meets inclusion criteria because it is covered in multiple independent sources as stated by LinguistAtLarge. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Significant local coverage of this pool but having coverage in the Fredericksburg, VA paper really puts it over the top for notability. Unreferenced material has been removed. Thanks to the editors who stepped in on the ownership issues with this article. It's got a good shot at being a good quality, notable article.--RadioFan (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Grosshans[edit]

Article about a professor which does not appear to meet the guidelines set forth in either WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:N. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here of any note. Individual may be a pride to his family but not a Wiki article.Bildstit (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user has been banned as a suckpuppet. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. A Professor over 25 years experience teaching. He was a speaker at Mathematical Association of America conferences. At least one publication (Pure Math.) cite a very high number of references in Google scholar. For Pure math articles (Non applied), citations around 10 to 15 are good. Teaching math at colleges in the US is taking priority over research. That is more than enough to call him notable along with other mathematicians on wikipedia.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Perhaps you could add these references and such to the article to demonstrate the article subject's notability. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 03:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. A professor like this (at a moderately-sized mainly teaching institution) is often just "average" (by WP notability guidelines), even if very accomplished, but this guy's work seems well-recognized above the norm. His journal articles, while not many, are mostly published in high class journals (like the American Journal of Mathematics and Inventiones Mathematicae), ones that any pure mathematician would recognize (and in the case of Inventiones, might be tempted to chop off a pinky for). What really pushes him past marginal for me is that he's wrote a couple books, one on semi-simple lie algebras, which is cited something like 150 times on Google Scholar, and another on invariant theory, which has "only" 50 cites, but is not as basic a topic as lie algebras. For math books, these are good citation numbers, even if not amazing. If in addition, as suggested above (but not verified), he has been a frequent invited speaker, plenary speaker, etc. at major MAA conferences, then that would establish his creds in the more math edu oriented circles, which while not as acknowledged by certain metrics Wikipedians like to use, is certainly important too. If it comes down to delete or keep, I would wager on the safer side, which is "keep". --C S (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck out some previous comments. My investigation indicates that Grosshans is probably not a notable MAA speaker and has spoken only at local (e.g. Eastern Pennsylvania) conferences. --C S (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been improved with enough content to suggest notability. Now better than many articles that have been stubs for months or years. —G716 <^T·_C> 08:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Either meets or is close to meeting WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact indicates a certain degree of notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is certainly highly established within his field (algebraic groups and invariant theory), has done some important work on Hilbert's fourteenth problem and, of course, wrote a few well regarded books. But I would like to see a broad and systematic discussion of notability vs academic merit and the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia take place. I have recently raised this issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panos Papasoglu which, unfortunately, was improperly closed before anyone had a chance to respond. In brief, absent secondary sources (prize citations, festschrifts and anniversary articles, interviews), it seems doubtful to me that scientific merit alone justifies the creation of a biographical article. Let us not forget that Wikipedia is not "Who is who in mathematics". Arcfrk (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The discussion you would like to have happen has happened many times before and led to WP:PROF. If you disagree with that, the place to argue it is there not in an AFD. I'm not sure anyone was really interested in responding to your comments in that last AFD, as they sound out-of-place and misinformed as to the existing body of notability guidelines. I, for one, agree with the sentiment you expressed, but found out long ago, that many Wikipedians felt otherwise (see in particular #2 of the "in a nutshell" for WP:PROF). Now I just go with what the consensus opinion is, which basically says bios are ok even if they will only be glorified CVs. --C S (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- My general approach to these AFDs is to make sure the correct information is disseminated and explain how it fits within the guidelines like WP:PROF. That shouldn't be taken, however, as a support for WP:PROF. --C S (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm concerned about using DBLP to evaluate someone is a notable Mathematician/Computer scientist. Check out the site to find how records are added there. Read the FAQ section. [21]. It is one of the tools for some. You may not find the work of the best.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Steven Walling. NAC. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhairav The Band[edit]

Non-notable band. No relevant Google hits. Only external link listed is MySpace. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per CSD A7, no credible claims of notability, per WP:GARAGE Lets drink Tea 02:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: MySpace band. Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a completed transwiki, with no prejudice against a future redirect. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 7034[edit]

Transwiki'd to WikiSource s:Executive Order 7034 billinghurst (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just modified to Speedy as I note that it meets that criteria. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No content whatsoever besides the text itself. Lets drink Tea 02:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Works Progress Administration; rds are cheap. JJL (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G3. Somno (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prediction (film)[edit]

Article is a complete falsehood having no basis in reality. Zachlowry (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quote: "Prediction premiered in New York City on May 1, 2009." No wonder they called it Prediction... Quote 2: "It wasn't Global Warming, it was somehow condinental drift and sees that instead of a month, they had only five days left" (copied and pasted - not my spelling). Obviously either the scriptwriters or the creator of this article have heard of global warming and continental drift, but not bothered to look them up. Perhaps 'condinental drift' goes quicker. Codswallop. Not even Hollywood would be quite that crass. (Perhaps...) (One of the fastest movers in the field, India has been clocked at 15 centimetres per year. Over 90 million years, that adds up. Over a month, it's not going to be noticed on a taxi meter.) Peridon (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the 'atlantic coasts' are around the Atlantic. Very few of them in the rest of the world... Peridon (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Hoax. Pburka (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant hoax Lets drink Tea 02:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prediction premiered in New York City on May 1, 2009. That's more than a month into the future. There are other major discrepancies, such as a F-10 tornado, which doesn't exist (highest level is a five). Google finds nothing at all. Obvious hoax. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 03:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Mind matrix 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Song of the Free[edit]

Transwiki'd to WikiSource s:Song of the Free billinghurst (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete per A5 of the CSD. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 01:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC) changed to Keep. Agree with Letsdrinktea (talk · contribs). ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does not consist of the lyrics alone, they can be removed and there would still be a valid stub article Lets drink Tea 01:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly per above. The lyrics should go, but it would make an adequate stub as there's no place we can viably redirect this. Them From Space 05:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Criteria for films and other creative works suggest that works selected for preservation in archives are notable. Since this song is archived, it appears to meet inclusion criteria even if it is missing some crucial information. It's therefore a valid stub. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: first, let me note that I wrote the article. I can understand the nomination, since there may not be sufficient information to be found to expand this article beyond a long stub. I don't think it warrants deletion though. It can either be kept as a perpetual stub, or it can be merged into any of various other articles. The obvious choice is Underground Railroad. I would have considered Songs of the Underground Railroad, but its focus seems to be about urban legends. (Aside: should it be?) Another option is Slavery in Canada, though that seems inappropriate given the nature of this song/poem. I'll leave it for others to form consensus about this. I've also expanded the article, and removed all but the first stanza of the song from it. Mind matrix 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom. The article had {{Copy to Wikisource}} and it seems evident that it should have had {{Copy section to Wikisource}}. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zappavai02/zappa02[edit]

Some chap from YouTube. Fails our notability criteria. Probably could be safely speedied. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / speedy I agree with the nom. DVD 01:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable web content/bio Lets drink Tea 02:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Eugene2x►^talk 04:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete webcruft Skier Dude (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. This person fails the notability criteria and will never meet them because there are no independent sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominated previously for speedy, which was removed by another editor. - Vianello (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no notability present, no notability claimed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was

Delinquent Road Hazards[edit]

Fictional characters from a video game, article is barely coherent. No evidence of notability. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly redirected the article back to it's original form as a redirect to List of Cars characters. This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 01:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closed. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semiotics of ideal beauty[edit]

This was nominated for deletion in 2005, I can't find the debate but it resulted in "no consensus", and as I recall at that time the article was about the "Semiotics of Ideal Beauty" (capitalised) as a proper name for someone's non-notable semi-philosophical weirdness. (I think it was User:GenderStudies - a since vanished obsessive.)

Since found the old debate, it was here

This current article is certainly better. But I can still see no evidence that there is a field of knowledge about the semiotics of "ideal beauty", as opposed to other types of human semiotics. The few Google-hits on the title mainly yield the same capitalised version weirdness. There's really no sources here - and with no improvement in 4 years, despite some gallant cleanup, all we have, and are ever likely to have, is an essay, synthesising vaguely related sources and common sense. A real article would be able to name scholars in the field and some academic works that gave an overview. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm holding off on a judgement call for now, but at the moment it smells like original research. Google isn't pulling up much other than Wikipedia mirrors. Them From Space 05:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least under this title. I see no evidence that its an actual phrase. DGG (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. Generally no reliable sources after a long time should mean no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an WP:OR essay. The term itself doesn't appear to be notable in philosophy. Them From Space 04:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR/homework essay. pablo_hablo. 06:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure what this article is about, but I don't think it's about "Semiotics" or "ideal beauty". Also of relevance is Geogre's comment in the earlier deletion discussion: "Semiotic analysis as I learned it would never ask if there is an ideal beauty, but would rather ask what the token "ideal beauty" does and how it is applied linguistically and epistemically in all cultures, and it would seek to do this by never asking if a beauty were beautiful, but merely look for all contexts of the beautiful and try to trace the structures behind those uses." -- llywrch (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete The article does not carry out the project indicated by the title, and instead meanders all over the place. It relies on "original research" and opinion. Misuse of the word 'semiotic' in title should be noted - this isn't an article in semiotics. --Levalley (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan Dischords[edit]

Notability? ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence or even claim of notability for this small (sub)group. JJL (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. South Bay (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was a group of discussions on these groups a couple years ago; as there's no 3rd party references, no independent notability - delete. Skier Dude (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was disambiguate. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzada[edit]

This is not an english word. "Shahzadeh, simply is a persian word, meaning son of "Shah" or "Prince" and this is article is not notable at all. Existance of this article is not necessary as only "Shah" is well known in english language. Wikipedia is not a source of dictionary and perhaps if such explanations need to be given, they can be given under "Shah" and not here. Therefore deletion of this page is highly recommended as no useful information is given. Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Shah, surely. It's not usually appropriate to delete something outright if it would mean a plausible search term is a redlink. In this case, Shahzada/Shahzadeh, as unfamiliar words that people might come across, are plausible search terms on Wikipedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - No, I disagree greatly, this article absolutely must remain- in fact there is even an article for "shahzadi" with a stub to make it grow- that article can be merged with this one. Most importantly, shahzada is a unique title that has its own meaning, legalities, and history to it. Wikipedia has articles for Western noble titles, like "prince". There is no reason for Wikipedia not to have an article about a non-western title too. Moreover, this topic will grow over time, with history and added figures who were given the title due to diplomacy with the Shah- Therfore, it is not just a title for the Shah's family alone but for others not related by blood to the Shah as well. This article is very much like "Pasha"- a well developed article now- shahzada will also grow over time too. Just mark it as a stub for growth- that is all that needs to be done. There is also no way to merge it properly, you can't just stick it into "prince" because it has it own unique legalities nad rights and history to it, and you can't just stick it into Shah as well- just stub it and leave it, that's it.63.26.6.166 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzada is a unique title, there were Europeans through diplomatic service who were given title, just like there are Europeans who were given the title of "pasha", such as Hobart Pasha. You can fine someone like Jack Willam Longley Shahzada, a prince by diplomatic service, who is not related to the Shah of Iran. Absolutely keep it.Dmshistory (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - This is exactly my point: Shahzada is not a unique title and here is why. As you mentioned, we have words like "Shah" or "Pasha" but there is absolutely no need for the names such "the son of "Shah" at least in Wikipedia! In this case, we should start have words like, son of the son of Shah, and terms like wife of the Shah, and so on. Such words are not notable and can be given under the listing of "Shah".Parvazbato59 (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - No, you are confused, Shahzada, is a title that has the roots of the word "shahzada" derived from words that mean "son of a shah", a more accurate translation is "brought forth of a shah" or "brought under a shah". There are also many applications of the title, not simply the shah's literal son, thoughit can be used that way in certain instances. The title was/is bestowed upon certain dignitaries- or diplomatic officials etc. You can't simply translate Shahzada as "the word for prince in persia" It is a title unique in itself to that particular culture- and applied in differnt ways, distinctive from how westerners used prince. It may be the photo and caption on the page that is throwing you off and giving the impression that Shahzada simpley is the princely son of the shah. It is more than that, what the article needs to do is grow, have more referencing, and describe its different applications. Stub it, and let it go, or get rid of the picture if that helps you, or if you feel that the caption is swaying the article in one direction.Dmshistory (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Please read texts carefully, respect users and do not use words like "confused" for other users as you may be equally confused. Application of the word, or the root of the word is not a concern here. There are many many many other words that can be listed and translated in depth, with so many applications in Wikipedia, but that does not mean we should have a separate "article" for them! Again, in discussions, instead of attacking the person, try to concentrate on the discussion and not divert from the discussion or attack the user by unimportant subjects. If you have any doubt in the meaning of "Shahzada", do not hesitate to do a little search about it and see what it means or even look at the article itself. In regard to the photo that is provided in this article that you claimed might have threw me off, this is off the subject and please do not do that in your discussions. You and I may disagree, but This page is for all users to vote, not just you to vote or me to talk. Thanks. Parvazbato59 (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the graphics on your personal page, defined by your intense devotion to Iranian subject matter, it seems that you may have chosen to focus too closely on this one article. If anything, Shahzadi would have been a more reasonable concern of merger, but that link was not even added to this page before this conversation started. You seem, truly objectively, to be to hung up on this one topic, and have chosen to focus on it too closely. Names like the "son of a son of the shah" were not political titles that were given out to high ranking dignitaries un-associated by blood to the Shah, but Shahzada was. Therefore, it is incorrect to view this page as simply a "dictionary definition of a word, where as other words could have eequally been defined on Wikipdia and never are". This is a page worthy to be developed like "Pasha" was. If it is merged into Shah of Iran, how can anyone in the future discuss effectly certain Shahzada who were not of blood-relation to the Shah- it would hrow off the structure of the page "Shah of Iran". In my opinion, there was never any reason to bring up a deletion flag for this topic, this page existed for a long time with no concern. Only now, after an image was added recently, do you seem to have gotten very concerned about this specific article's existence. I think people here are starting to get testy because it is obvious that you are the only one who has had a beef about this article, and it is you and you alone who has flagged this article- you are the one that has created this so-called "concern for deletion"- no one else has.63.26.21.136 (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please concentrate on the argument and subject. Just for your knowledge, this is not the only page that I have nominated for deletion and my reasons for deletion of this article are very clear and no need for further explanation. I even made a suggestion of merging this article with "Shah"'s article, If and only if some users believe this article is wroth keeping. This itself makes your argument invalid. Regards. Parvazbato59 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. This seems as legitimate a topic as Prince or Emir. (I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I think we can all agree that those are notable topics.) Pburka (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article simply needs some cleanup to be less "dictionary-ish" and expansion. Eugene2x►^talk 04:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Shah#Shahzade unless it can be expanded into a proper article. Right now it's not. NVO (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with redirecting it to "Shah" as this article already exists under shah as you mentioned! So there is no point of having such a short and separate article. Parvazbato59 (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- restore to a version when this was a disambiguation page. About three months ago someone tried to change this from a disambiguation page to an article about the princely title. This change was, IMO, poorly advised. I am curious as to why our nominator didn't check the article's revision history, prior to making the nomination. Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did check everything and that is why I am asking for a deletion. Please do not just make an assumption and focuse on the subject rather that a person. I have given my reasons above and I do not think I should repeat them. Please read them. Other users and I have also suggested the best article that it can merge with, in case it was hard to notice. Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am glad to hear you think you adequately checked the article's revision history. For three years this article was a disambiguation page. For just three months it was devoted to the Persian equivalent of the Dauphin of France, the Prince of Wales or the Tsarevitch. Given that you did check the revision history I remain mystified as to why you are not addressing the disambiguation issue. I remain mystified as to why you are not recognizing the concerns I have expressed about redirection to section heading being deeply broken. Geo Swan (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Should there be a separate article, like shahzada (son of a shah)? I regard the arguments advanced above that this could be covered adequately in the article Shah to be weak. We have articles on Dauphin of France, Crown prince, Tsesarevich and Prince of Wales. Redirection to a subsection of another article is deeply flawed. Our underlying wikimedia software does not adequately support wikilinks where the link's target is not a full article. The "what links here" feature is not supported for links to sections of an article. If the subsection's heading is edited, even completely trivial changes to spelling, capitalization or punctuation, breaks the link. And the good faith editors who make those changes can't detect when their edits will cause chaoas. Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have encountered the suggestion that articles should be merged and redirected to a subsection of another article enough times that I wrote an essay in response: redirection to subsection heading is deeply broken -- Geo Swan (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Our nominator has noted they suggested redirecting [[shahzada]] to [[shah]]. I am disappointed that our nominator's review of the revision history did not show them that the first three edits were three different redirections, to prince of the blood, Prince and Shah. I suggest that the first three contributors being unable to agree where this term should be redirected is a strong clue that redirection was a bad solution. Geo Swan (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I reverted back to when this was a disambiguation page. I explained why on the talk page. Whether there should be a page for Shahzada (princely title), corresponding to Tsarevitch and other similar princely titles as a separate, and frankly less important question than whether there should be a disambiguation page. Geo Swan (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PhPepperShop[edit]

No 3rd party reliable sources to indicate WP:CORP notability. Prod was disputed. Created by a single purpose account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. No evidence of notability. - 7-bubёn >t 22:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party sources, and no proven notability. Only edits to the page are by a single purpose account, me or nom. Genius 101^Guestbook 23:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS on this article at all and it smells a bit spammy Lets drink Tea 02:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article also seems to only be blatant advertising. Eugene2x►^talk 04:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom.Bildstit (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Striking out !vote of a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete I made this Wikipedia account, because it is my first contribution in the English Wikipedia, that is right. I usually use the German Wikipedia. The Article about the PhPepperShop is not intended to be spam or advertising at all. It describes the project's root and how it evolved. You do not find anything like 'key features', 'latest, best technology...' or such things. Nor do you find any pricing information or marketing text in it. Similar to the wider spread OsCommerce project it is a shopping cart solution also mentioned in Comparison of shopping cart software. After first comments regarding the PhPepperShop article, I brought together many links from third party institutions, which have no relationship to the project PhPepperShop (external links). Of course it is up to you to decide, wheter this article is spam or advertisement. Since I am not an expert in certain fields to write about in the Wikipedia, I am an expert in E-Commerce and thought it might be useful to have some background information on this project, even though it is dual licensed. Fontajos (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Swimming against the current.) As of the current version while I comment, I don't find any hint of spam or obtrusive CoI. I find plenty of ghits, several of which are definitely not promotional (referring to vulnerabilities to hacking in version 1.4, for example). Notability? This is not the sort of software you will find many newspaper reports about unless something goes totally haywire and an order placing for three brown widgets results in a tank regiment crossing someone's border. That doesn't seem to have happened yet. It is easy to demonstrate total non-notability (i.e. 0 ghits even under the alternative spelling suggested would be a good indication) but not easy sometimes to show that a product in a comparatively small and specialised playing area does possess this quality. I've just done a copy-ed including minor revisions to wording. Peridon (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MedicLINK Systems Ltd.[edit]

Unnotable failed start up company. Fails WP:COMPANY. After extensive searching, only third-party references found are a company direct giving revenue numbers (has all business of Canada), and a single niche magazine for optometrists in Canada. Extensive searching through journal databases result in not even one hit. Searching The Telegram, the local paper of St. John, also produced no hits. It can't even really be verified that the company is out of business other than knowing that the owner himself said so while editing the article before being blocked for using Mediclink as his user names. Article vandals, seemingly disgruntled employees, implied the company was being sued for labor issues and tax evasion, however not even a rumor on a forum was found to support this. After cleaning up the COI and looking purely at what can be found in reliable sources, this company just does not meet WP:N and should be removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar to the nomination for deletion, I also could not find any reference to some claims in the article. The company seems to be defunct (the website is no longer live) and the companies product redirects to a dead link. --HJKeats (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the relevant notability guidelines. This was yet another failed, minor software company making business management software for use in optometry clinics --- good luck at finding independent notice in general interest publications for that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Bildstit (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Striking out !vote of a sockpuppet of a banned editor. MuZemike 05:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the 1 current reference is not enough to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Nammar[edit]

Article has been deleted twice previously—once through CSD and once through Prod—but editor continues to recreate it. Sources are either to sites such as LinkedIn or to the subject/editor's own website. Doesn't appear to be notable. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing any reliable sources on a Google search or a Gnews search that would indicate notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an average nonnotable engineer. - 7-bubёn >t 23:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Camp_Rock#Characters_and_cast. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roshon Fegan[edit]

An article about a 17 year old rapper and actor, who has released a handful of singles on iTunes and appeared in a handful of TV shows and films in minor roles according to IMDB. Does not meet Wikipedia's guidlines for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:ENTERTAINER or per WP:MUSIC. Previously deleted by WP:PROD as "Non-notable performer" in February and recreated. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I understand this is a marginal case...but I am finding sources to back up not only what little material is on the page, but also a little bit more: [22] I say "weak" because none of these sources are written primarily about him, they just cover him in some other context. I personally find it interesting and useful to have pages like this included in wikipedia though. I understand this doesn't really meet guidelines but I don't see what's lost by including this page. I say, as long as we can keep the material on the page adequately sourced, it's fine by me. Cazort (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn. - 7-bubёn >t 23:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing but minor roles, no substantial coverage = non-notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AfD notice was briefly gone from the page. Editor notified (uw-afd1). - SummerPhD (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AfD notice was removed a second time. Editor notified a second time. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly by WP:N. Coverage isn't substantial enough and verifiability != notability. Them From Space 05:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Camp_Rock#Characters_and_cast as a plausible search term. Most of the credits IMDB list for this person are minor bit parts. (Side note: the age of a person up for AFD is irrelevant to the debate, so please don't include it. I've written articles about Notable 10-year-olds, seen articles about notables over 100 years old. What they actually do is what is important.) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no substantial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any reliable sources documenting him -- only MySpace, Youtube and the like. Not notable enough for inclusion. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monday: Impossible[edit]

Initial appearences suggest this is a TV series with a high-profile guest star list. Although the text does strive to point out there is no actual guest star involvement, their inclusion does seem to be an attempt to raise profile. The TV infobox is equally misleading, because this isn't even a TV series. Delving deeper, this appears to be nothing more than a non-notble website. Certainly, there is nothing in the reference list which asserts any notability - all but one of the references are press releases and the one that isn't is unrelated. Delete. I42 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following subpage:

Delete per WP:SOAPS and it do not cover A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. as outlined in WP:NOTFILM. Nsaa (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a usual comment from me. I've just visited their website (and am rather wishing I hadn't). I'm none the wiser from it. Which wouldn't be relevant, except that it is the main external link. I discount all the references as plugging - apart from the fairuk one, which does nothing to establish notability for this outfit. It could be useful info for those liable to be pulled by the plods - sorry, stopped by the police. I am also discounting the alleged blog of the dog. It may in fact contain more accurate information than most human blogs do, but even so it is not independent sourcing. I've not managed yet to find any outside reliable references. I may try again - don't hold your breath. Peridon (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Skipping over all of the plot summaries, this is just a web page with no claim to notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Sarilox (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aireborough RUFC[edit]

Listing for AfD after speedy was declined with simple contradiction given as reasoning. This article is completely unreferenced and includes solicitations and contact information for recruiting players and fans. Completely POV and peacocking. I know: fix instead of delete. Since the material is unrefererenced and strongly POV, it is not slavageable. Further, no claim to notability is offered--referenced or otherwise. There are also neutrality concerns, as people affiliated with the club have managed the article to suit their publicity needs. Mikeblas (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete: According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." There is no evidence of that given in this article. If such evidence can be produced by the end of this AFD it could be kept. Also as an interesting note, the 'club history' on the club mainpage links back to this article, which strongly suggests that the material constitutes original research. Locke9k (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in the article that provides evidence of notabilty. Add to this the fact that the league level they are playing at has not been seen as notable enough for someone to have created an article on that. Unless someone can show that this level of rugby is considered to inherently notable it fails WP:ORG. Nuttah (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Votes" shouldn't be based on just the current state of the article. Before you call for deletion you should make an effort to look for sources yourself per all deletion policy pages. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of notability, and too much slanted to marketing purposes for my liking. In the event that notability is established, prune all of the promotional material. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- What is the policy on minor league RUFCs? This seems NN to me. IF KEPT: Contact info should be deleted. The acknowledgements should go on the talk page.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Buggles[edit]

Non-Notable book. Unable to find substantial references in Google to support Notability ttonyb1 (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Article created by User:Willjust. The book's author is William Just. The publisher is WJ Publishing. And the printer is Lulu (search on Lulu for it as lulu is on the URL blacklist so I cannot post it here). I searched for reviews of the book in reliable sources, and found none. -- Whpq (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as COI/spam. A book written by a redlinked author published by a redlinked publisher alone suggests non-notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with above. JJL (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Recently published.[23] Let it have a chance.Bildstit (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Striking out !vote of a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- A press release isn't a good argument for keeping this article -- Whpq (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant advert due to the lack of reliable sources. Since it was released literally days ago and is by a non-famous author, such sources are unlikely to surface in the future too. It's a shame that promotional attempts like this get sites blacklisted. I know at least three notable Lulu authors two of which already have a longstanding uncontested article. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not advertising, and that's all this is.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCart[edit]

Delete no demonstration of notability and barely any context to know what this software does, and of course no references either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep conditional on finding more sources, otherwise Weak Delete. I found a spanish source that could serve as an independent source for this article: [24] I have been unable to find any other independent sources. However, it does get a very large number (>130,000) of google hits, so I would be hesitant to jump to a delete on this one. Also, do a search for "powered by opencart": [25], over 14,000 hits. People are using this. I would prefer to keep the page but I don't think a single source + the project's homepage would be good enough to justify keeping it, and that's all I'm finding, besides internet forums. Cazort (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - the source is in Italian, not Spanish :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I looked at that too hastily. They look so similar superficially! Cazort (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: I really hate to see stubs AfDed within a day of page creation. Obviously, the article is not enough in the present condition. However, I hope that potential contributors aren't spooked from improving it & I'd encourage a bit more patience before submitting non-spammy stubs for deletion. --Karnesky (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability indicated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dunlap[edit]

Non-notable assistant coach of college level sports. Does not meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Amateur_sports_people. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP nightmare. Current article has one reference, the rest being unverifiable information. Unlikely to find any more information on this minor amateur coach. Also, topic is non-notable as they have not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as evidenced by the lack of references. G News provides sources where this subject was quoted in the newspapers, but nothing about the subject. -Atmoz (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are only deleted based on the BLP policy when they're harmful because of unsourced negative content. I see nothing negative in this article. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true but you also have to meet the basic notability guidelines as well, and as of yet we've seen nothing to say this person does. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt this is a very big american football program, and sources are probably findable. If he was a head coach it would be a speedy keep -- i'm surprised that there has been so little easily findable stuff on him, though, given that he's supposed to be assistant head coach.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The head coach is very notable, but generally I think assistant coaches are not. Rarely do they generate any kind of press outside of a random quote or stat which isn't enough to be notable according to our standards. I agree WVU has a big program, but every big program has a lot of people behind the scenes and not in the spotlight, each of those people doesn't need a page here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on second thought, while i'm surprised that there are no sources given his position, i certainly can't find any. So my surprise is irrelevant. No independnent sources equals no article, particularly for BLPs.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP vio, non notable. — Jake Wartenberg 05:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while college football defensive coordinators was deemed notable via AFD, consensus seems to have changed here. Fails WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wallonia national football team[edit]

fails WP:V and WP:N, no reliable sources except a listing from their league indicating that they exist, no apparent sportive accomplishments, no media coverage to be found. When they have played a match the world knows about, we can restore. Stu.W UK (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if the team really is of any significance, rename to Wallonia football team. Wallonia is a cultural region of Belgium. I lived in Belgium for 23 years and nobody thinks Wallonia is a nation.Alarics (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. I totally agree they're not a nation as stated by Alarics. They're still part of a notable league (Nouvelle Fédération-Board) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article could do with expansion/improvements but I'd say it was notable because of the NF membership. With regards to a rename it is worth pointing out that being a nation (Scotland, for instance) and a sovierign state (United Kingdom) is not the same thing. I think you could find quite a few Belgians who would tell you Wallonia was a nation. Having said that I'm not particularly opposed to a rename. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable, as is the whole of the Nouvelle Federation Board. No verifiable sources that such a team actually exists, let alone multiple non-trivial content in Reliable Sources. - fchd (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like fchd, I don't believe any of the NF Board teams are notable and many, like this one, only seem to exist as theoretical concepts on paper -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any significant coverage in independent sources per WP:N. In fact, I can't find any coverage of any matches that they may have played! Not notable, I afraid. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Casteel[edit]

Non-notable college athlete. Does not meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Amateur_sports_people or WP:ATHLETE. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable amateur sportsman, fails WP:Athlete. Parslad (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Amateur_sports_people. Casteel is a well-known assistant coach, as seen [26] and [27]. In my opinion these links (amongst others) qualify as national media attention. TheMile (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two passing mentions in an article hardly qualifies as non-trivial media coverage. He would of had to bee the focus of multiple independent reliable sources. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I disagree, but that's a matter of opinion, of course. Here's an award he won from another major service [28]. TheMile (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think an "award" from Rivals.com is notable enough for his inclusion here either, not by the standards of the notability policies. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 11:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Rivals has become a huge site (#623 overall website, #114 in the US on Alexa). It's notable enough. As an "award", sure, it's specious. It's nonetheless an article primarily about Casteel from a major media outlet. TheMile (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        After reading that article, which seems MOSTLY about the improvement the team has had in that season and some quotes about it's success from Casteel, it's clear that article isn't about him. It's not a featured article about him. It doesn't cover HIM in any depth. If thats the best source available for him I seriously don't see how he will pass the criteria for WP:BIO... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you delete an article if the only available reference states in passing that the subject is the leader of some country? What is being covered is much more important than the amount of detail it is covered in. If you think this shouldn't exist, you should argue why assistent coach is not a notable position or why the references as a whole (plus potential additional sources) don't support notability (in which case the non-trivial bit will be more important) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But thats the very definition of trivial coverage, passing references. We have notability guidelines in place so we don't end up having pages about everyone and their mothers. The two provided references I don't see how they can be anything but trivial coverage. Your examples are irrelevant because a leader of a country would have more then a couple passing references to back that up. What is being covered is just as important as how and where it's being covered. You wouldn't accept typical tabloid coverage of a celebrity as a reliable source nor should you create a wikipedia article about every person who has ever been mentioned in any reliable source. Unless theres more substantial coverage of this person in reliable sources I can't see how he meets the quoted guidelines. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not a lot of coverage. Buth worth including. Perhaps a merge would be okay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the guidelines trivial coverage does not mean we should keep it. Where would you propose a merger too? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devin DeHaven[edit]

Unremarkable filmaker/photographer. The majority of the article is about his association with notable artists, but references don't back this back up. One reference is about the subject's prosecution for manufacturing fake ids. Obvious COI editing by two accounts User:Devindehaven and User:Fortressdvd. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I should note that the article cites 3 articles published in the Sacramento Bee in 1990. I consider the Bee to be an RS, but unfortunately the links only contain synopses and request payment of US$2.95 to get the whole story. Nom does bring up a good point that the synopsis of one of the 3 RS is about the subject's run-in with the law. Without the entirety of the other two stories, I can't say for sure that the subject's notability is established. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This apparent autobiographical article lacks independent verification sufficient to establish notability. TheMindsEye (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party coverage. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Claudio Silvestrin[edit]

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Alexf^(talk) 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant self promotion, only contributor is the subject. Might have some notability, but this is like an advert. Tagged with nn and ad tags but author removed them. Dmol (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-encyclopedic CV, notwithstanding the blatant self-puffery, complete lack of references, and non-free/fair use images. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News turns up some potential references (the AsiaOne report and the article that states "Claudio Silvestrin has created the interior design and layout for the Stanley Spencer exhibition at London's Tate Modern"), but the current article is too promotional (which hurts Wikipedia) and not quickly fixable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G7 - author has blanked the page ([29]). KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CollegeHumor. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Schneider[edit]

Prod contested without rationale. Only assertion of notability is coauthorship on a non-notable book as part of a notable company. No sources discuss her individually. It would be fair enough to redirect the page to CollegeHumor if the same were done for more prominent individuals at CollegeHumor such as Jake Hurwitz, Amir Blumenfeld and Streeter Seidell Bigbluefish (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I feel she has sufficient notability to deserve a discussion rather than being deleted via the proposed deletion process, but not sufficient for me to take a stand that she definitely deserves an article. Powers ^T 15:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge verifiable and relevant parts to CollegeHumor. That way the TV series is also covered since those articles interlink clearly. I'd be happy to support redirecting the others even if there are no articles for them anymore since their name is a reasonable search term. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold Katzenstein[edit]

This person doesn't appear to have sources other than an obituary. Fails the notability requirements and WP:NOTMEMORIAL Jay32183 (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete Looks like there's something there and the obit, which is a full NYT obit and not a paid-for one (as I understand it), seems to assert notability. But ProQuest can find no other significant coverage of the figure. His wife has a much smaller obit where he's mentioned, and he appears in listings of real estate transactions, but nothing about his life and work so he's unlikely to be notable by our criteria. Which is a shame, really. He looks interesting. JRP (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A full nyt obit is proof of notability by itself. But I added a second reference. Very little in Proquest goes back to his period of activity. DGG (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is an obituary proof of notability? If the only sources are obituaries then WP:NOTMEMORIAL isn't met. Even with the two sources, I don't see significant coverage. Jay32183 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In what way does WP:NOTMEMORIAL preclude the use of an obituary to establish notability? It's significant coverage in an independent reliable source, demonstrating that that one of the world's major newspapers considers the subject notable enough for them to publish an article about his life. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just because it was published by the New York Times does not mean it is significant coverage. There isn't significant coverage. Also, since an obituary is itself a memorial, a memorial is the only article that could result from obituaries being the only sources. We don't actually have any biographical information to write an article, we have a memorial to write another memorial. Half the article is just a duplication of the obituary. Jay32183 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two obits are significant coverage, and provide enough biographical information.John Z (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've deleted the the copied obituary from the article. It's a bad idea to literally copy linked material even if it's out of copyright. This discussion has not addressed several important points:

Newspapers carry two different type of obits; the type written and sent in by family that mourn the loss of their friend and relative and staff-written texts by journalists (often in advance) for people the newspaper deems notable. This article mentions the man's career and says nothing about how fantastic he was or how much they mourn his loss. Nothing that violates the WP:MEMORIAL rules. In fact, if you didn't know what the sources were that rule wouldn't even have crossed your mind.
It's an old source. Newspaper articles of that age are hard to find and older ones (at least from NYT) tend not to be free, so finding other sources written during his life is for people with special access. (We have a page where you can request articles of hard to get sources)
The current lack of sources isn't a direct reason for deletion. First a significant attempt should be made to find more of them, an action I didn't see from the nominator.
If any of the organizations he was a member of had him as an elected member, he'd clearly pass notability guidelines. Who tried looking into it?

I have no access to specialist databases until Monday, so I'll withhold my own 'vote' until I had the chance to look into this. -- Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have access to the NYT archives. Katzenstein is described as head of his own company, located in West Street, NY, and "an inventor and manufacturer of attachments for steam engines" for over 45 years, many of which were "used by ocean steamers all over the world." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC) (I realise now that this was in the text that is now in the history.) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the material Mgm deleted., I think its not right to delete the bulk of an article this way while it is being reviewed for afd. If it's copyvio, of course it would be justified & indeed required, but it is PD. Ideally Itoo would prefer that it be perhaps as a footnote, or divided appropriately, but it is well established that we can use entire PD sources in articles--even as the entire content of articles--if we attribute them properly to avoid plagiarism. As incidental points. The NYT and most responsible papers make a distinction between paid death notices and obits. This is an editorially prepared obit. Every single person with such an obit in the NT not only can, but should, should have a Wikipedia article. Once we've established that, as here, the proper close is a speedy keep. Other reference sources are nice, but unnnecessary. DGG (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter who published the material if there is not significant coverage. Even if the obituary is not written by family, it is still a memorial. That's what an obituary is, it does not matter who wrote it. Obituaries are published for no reason other than to honor the dead. We don't have to find contemporary sources, this guy died long enough ago that if he actually had historical significance, modern scholars would write about him. Jay32183 (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, since "notability isn't temporary" we wouldn't have to find modern sources, but if he was commonly written about in his lifetime as a notable inventor, he'd still be notable now per our guidelines. But, other than this obit, I don't find significant mention in historical sources I have access to, so the matter is moot. JRP (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers obit. By the way, all of the NYT archives outside of (about) 1921-1981 are freely accessible. Obits are generally considered satisfactory sources here and not memorials. The main considerations are selectivity (the NYT is better than a local pennysaver), reliability and length (significance, substantiality) the second isn't in question and these two sources, especially the second, are both reasonably long, not just a sentence or two.John Z (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been saying these sources are not significant the whole time, they do not contain enough information to warrant a stand alone article nor is there relevant place to merge. Obituaries are not acceptable for establishing notability even though they can be acceptable sources for a subject whose notability has already been established, that's why I keep bringing up WP:MEMORIAL. Jay32183 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out that judging by past afd discussions, obituaries have been considered satisfactory sources, not memorials, and acceptable for establishing notability by most editors. The obits contain enough info to write a nontrivial article - that's simply a matter of fact - they're both PD and we could copy them whole even.John Z (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could legally copy them completely, but this isn't Wikisource. They most certainly do not have enough information to write a non-trivial article. The article would be just a lead section, that's not enough. Jay32183 (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google book search and Google scholar, including this source, I think go a long way to establish his notability. I also note that several patents he applied for, apparently individually, can be found on the Google scholar search. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source. Can't argue with that. Jay32183 (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you persistently argue with it above? That source was put in the article in the day it was nominated for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's still no significant coverage. I still support the deletion of the article. Jay32183 (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just realise that I didn't give a bolded "keep" above, and as it seems that most AfDs, despite protestations to contrary, are closed on the basis of voting rather than strength of argument, I want to make my position clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources and discussion above. When an obit details the accomplishments made by the person, it's more than a memorial. StarM 01:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McAlpin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Lack of “notability”. The article is more than three years old, but lacks “reliable sources” that establish notability. When previously nominated (which nomination ended without consensus), those who argued for keeping the article expressed the belief that a little work could find evidence of notability, and/or that McAlpin's significance was going to grow. No one has actually added any such evidence (and, in the subsequent period, the article has been explicitly tagged on notability). The second argument plainly failed WP:CRYSTAL, and, in the subsequent period, McAlpin has basically been fired. SlamDiego_←T 14:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am finding 91 google news hits: [30] Not all are for this man, there's a police chief by the same name who is also quoted. Most of these are about his work with the cruise company. Most of the articles just quote him and mention him in a paragraph or two, in the context of the cruise line. There are two articles about water skiing, is that the same man? There is sustained coverage over a period of several years but I can't find any articles. I would say Keep if we can find even a single reliable source written specifically about this man and not just quoting him in passing (in any capacity, cruise line company president or anything else). But I would say Delete in the absence of such a source. Cazort (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at the previous AFD, and per the substantial improvements since the last AFD nomination. Senior level manager at a number of large and notable organisations, with enough sources discussing him to fulfil our requirements. There are reliable sources linked in the article. I don't see what the issue is here. JulesH (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Your original comment noted that he was mentioned in three non-Disney publications (a short blurb in a travel-jobs newsletter; a brief announcement that he would be speaking at a College of Business; his in-house profile at Make-a-Wish); a small number of mentions, even by “reliable sources”, isn't sufficient evidence of “notability”. And, while the edits subsequent to |the last AfD discussion may have been improvements of some sort, they do almost nothing to address the issue of establishing “notability” with “reliable sources”. If someone says that a building is structurally unsound, one does not point to subsequent improvements in the electrical wiring as if they addressed the complaint. Where are the “reliable sources” that treat him as notable? —SlamDiego_←T 23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep President of a major division of Disney is sufficient. Whether he was fired or not is hardly relevant. DGG (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Whether he was fired is relevant in response to earlier claims that he was notable because he would be in charge of even more Disney ship. —SlamDiego_←T 03:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I commented on the previous AFD and still feel the article should be kept. Why are some editors so intent on removing it? Whether it passes the strict notability guidelines or not, the article is useful to those looking for information on McAlpin. The information in the article is sourced and accurate. What is the harm in keeping it? If space was an issue on Wikipedia, I'd agree that it could be deleted. Many people in history may no longer be considered notable, but in the interest of those doing research in the future, we don't delete their mention in the history books. --Thomprod (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Please read “Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It's useful” and “Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It doesn't do any harm”. I would be about as happy to have this article brought up-to-snuff on “notability” as to have it deleted, but it seems reasonably clear that it's not going to be brought up-to-snuff. If you have a legitimate challenge to WP:NOTE, then I suggest that you produce it, rather than questioning the motives of another editor. —SlamDiego_←T 17:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the act of leaving generated news. Once, notable, always notable. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shadrach (song)[edit]

This Beastie Boys' song does not meet the criteria for notability WP:SONG. PROD was removed with the edit line stating "Prod declined, take it to AfD" Untick (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see any notability. What is this article about? "Shadrach" or the An Evening At Home With Shadrach, Meshach And Abednego EP? Deletion Mutation 17:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shambala (Beastie Boys song). Deletion Mutation 17:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article seems to be confused on whether it's discussing a song or an EP. The Beastie Boys song in itself is not notable (although there is an unconnected traditional gospel song with the same name). No evidence it charted, no covers, not-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rolling Stone once named this as one of the 100 greatest music videos of all time (RS 667, October 14, 1993).SPNic (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Take your pick whether it is wiki#songs or wiki#albums, the lack significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources means it fails at both. If sources show it was voted in the 100 greatest music videos, then that would be nice for a passing mention in the parent Beastie Boys article, but that isn't enough for a stand alone article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paul's Boutique. I don't see how this isn't a plausible search term. JuJube (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Keep per Starblind's excellent research. JuJube (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable single. In just a short time I was able to find a number of sources, including this New York Times article, where Shadrach is preesented as an example of Jewish music for a program at the New England Conservatory. The Beastie Boys biography Paul's Boutique (ISBN 0826417418) devotes 4 pages to the song (97-100), where it is described as the album's "most important track". A book called Rolling Stone's Alt Rock-A-Rama (ISBN 0385313608) names it one of the "20 most influential alt-rock videos". The video is further discussed in a book called Icons of Hip-Hop (ISBN 0313339031), page 105-106. The song gets an entire page of text (p. 227) in The heebie-jeebies at CBGB's: a secret history of Jewish punk (ISBN 155652613X). And even the cover art gets its due in a Japanese book called Hip Hop Cover Art (ISBN 4925112538). Again, these sources were not hard to find, and someone knowledgable about rap could probably find much more. But it's more than enough to justify an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Lenahan. Hiding T 18:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada-China Agriculture and Food Development Exchange Center[edit]

Non-notable organization. I let this article stay up for a while, but I have seen no evidence of potential for improvement. A Google news search returns 0 hits with quotation marks, and only unrelated hits without. A Google web search only returns 3 hits (this article, CCAgr's own website, and a minor write-up about the guy who founded it, only giving passing mention to this organization—it's more about the guy than the org). The article itself is basically unreferenced; the only sources that are actually about the company are from the company's own website, and the rest of the sources that look good at first glance are actually just background information on China and Canada, saying nothing about the company. The article also makes no assertion about why the company is notable, and seems to just be advertising; it was created by a single-purpose account and is now being edited only by an editor with a conflict of interest. Lately it's just a vehicle for spam; the COI editor has been sticking links to it and logos all over other articles that are only tangentially related. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article was in the past declined from speedy deletion (diff), which I believe was appropriate, but AfD is a different matter. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Recognizance (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 blatant copyright violation (http://www.samsung.com/me/products/mobilephones/gsm/sgh_x480.asp?page=Specifications) Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SGH-X480[edit]

Non-notable commercial product; completely unreferenced, no claim to notability. Just cataloging or advertising. Mikeblas (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another mobile phone model, no particular notability. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Stoute[edit]

An article on a self-published author with no evidence of third-party coverage. Prod was removed by the creator, a WP:SPA, who provided two "Additional References": an Amazon listing, and a seemingly irrelevant link to AMICUS. Remaining links focus on Trafford Publishing and booksellers. Worldcat link indicates that books are held only at Library and Archives Canada (as is required of any publication that is issued an ISBN). Fails WP:BIO. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 09:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't turn anything up. Given the sparseness of commentary, maybe a prod might have been better. Closing admin might like to consider deleting this as a "prod"? Hiding T 11:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Non-notable. The topic meets none of the guidelines; a search of the subject brings no coverage from non-trivial sources Mrathel (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Stellenbosch. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eendrag[edit]

Merge or delete per Wikiproject guidelines. Hall is not notable in itself. The sources provided are about a fire, not about the hall itself. TM 02:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, although there are no inline references, there should be some useful content, not to mention the pictures. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to university. Surely we do not normally have articles on individual university halls of residence. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable (not even the fire) and I can't see what value the information in this entry would add to the university entry. 9Nak (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (though not neccesarily the whole thing). Large incidents that cause substantial structural damage to a building are the sort of thing that are important to its history. The fire is therefore relevant to the university's history. Also, the nominator's key words are "not notable in itself" which does not adequately address why they chose deletion over merging any part of it to begin with.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — To main article, with severe pruning roux 16:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. The fire is certainly worth recording. TerriersFan (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Brown[edit]

There is no sourcing here, and I'm stuggling to see how this is verifiable or notable. Mind you, given that he's an artist in "paraphilias, such as pedophilia, BDSM, and other fetish themes" I don't really want to try too hard. I'm sure someone else will investigate this. Scott Mac (Doc) 16:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — He is notable in certain subcultures and it's arguable that he first made notable the genre that Mark Ryden now seems to dominate (though this is totally speculation without citation). I agree the article needs some serious love and attention. Quaeler (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your argument is based on "it's arguable" and "this is speculation", I'm less than convinced. We need third-party reliable attestation of some importance if we are to keep this. Can you provide any?--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to read too much bias into the way you've written your paragraph ('I don't see how he's notable. obviously since his material is of a nature that would offend me, i don't want to determine this anyway'), but even a quick spin through Google returns a spate of links. Were you to want something specific, a few minutes using Google turned up his shared influences with Gottfried Helnwein, a notable musician being influenced by him, his album art work and some interviews with him (1, 2, and all the ones pre-2006 which he links on his website). A couple extra minutes at Amazon or EBay shows the absurdly high price people pay just for his released book runs. … Quaeler (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 March 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, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the couple of interviews linked above. A so-called controversial artist who has excited very little controversy, but just about notable enough for WP.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Needs some better sourcing (NB: anything with 'wordpress' in the URL isn't reliable), but seems to (barely) pass WP:N. roux 16:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has he had art shown in a museum or gallery which has been reviewed critically? Has it been reviewed on the basis of its artistic merits or demerits? I don't think so. We don't see critical review; we don't see his art being taken seriously -- as art. We see notice taken of imagery that represents areas of inquiry that is of interest to a group of people, but we don't see notice taken of the imagery as art. On the basis of the absence of Trevor Brown being notable as an artist I think the article should be deleted. Bus stop (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SureThing[edit]

Lack of Notability and for advertisment Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essentially promotional rather than encyclopaedic in nature. NB: I've added the NOINDEX magic word and nowiki'ed the links in the article, these edits should not be reverted unless the outcome of this debate is keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, perhaps adding more information on parent company. Several 'house brand' labeler programs from CD/DVD manufacturers, such as Verbatum, are using a modified version of this program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.235.253 (talk) 21:05, 25 March 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, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proof proof and more proof. We can't rely on hunches and personal knowledge. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete A CD labeler? C'mon. 'Nuff said.Bildstit (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Striking out !vote of a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article lacks 3rd party references establishing notability. Dialectric (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Come on. No decent refs, no notability, obvious advertising. roux 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the notability guidelines. Here is a review from Information World Review, an article from CD Computing News, and another article from VNU Business Publications. These reliable, third-party sources give in-depth reviews of the subject of this article and are enough to establish this CD labeler's notability. Cunard (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Evans[edit]

Non-notable working actor. No awards or nominations, all roles very minor (his role on Emmerdale is the 790th role listed for the series at IMDb. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Bongo matic 01:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That 790th role listed argument doesn't work. IMDB entries for soap operas routinely list characters alphabetically or in (reverse) order of appearance which directly affects the listing of recent or past cast members. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the listings I've seen, for non-key characters, it's in reverse order of number of appearances (more appearances come first). Bongo matic 13:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not a reliable source, IMDb listings for episodes of long-running soap operas are very incomplete. According to IMDb's current episode listings, Kylie Minogue was only in 5 episodes of Neighbours! DWaterson (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the IMDB entry for Half-Moon Investigations lists in incidental supporting character first, the lead's sidekick second and the lead third. Clearly the order in IMDB credits are nowhere near reliable.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of characters from Shameless. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will somebody please fix link so this discussion page can be accessed from the article. Link from article is currently redlined. Untick (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems OK to me (I have just got here by clicking on the link in the AfD message). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Amongst other roles, a main cast member of a major award-winning show, and a long-term (6 years) cast member of a long-running soap opera broadcast on a major channel. Passes WP:ENTERTAINER easily. DWaterson (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep long-running stints on a couple of shows; marginally notable. JJL (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep. One minor character on a TV series probably isn't enough. I'd say two just about scrapes it. If nothing else, once someone claims notability for two TV programmes, redirects stop making sense. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since no-one was able to provide evidence in the past 2.5 years that this concept has been a subject of research by competent/reliable sources (under this or any other name), the whole article constitutes original research (literally) on the concept. WP:TIND works on the assumption that someone will fix the article someday, but (per the previous sentence) it is not clear that the article is fixable in the first place, especially since the adjournment of the first AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motif of harmful sensation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

An original essay, a smart collection of deaths with causes ranging from seeing the fact of God to epileptic seizures due to flashing light. The term is nowhere near commonly accepted, but slowly creeps over the internet and even in print leaking from wikipedia clones. The concerns of the previous no-consensus AfD were not addressed in 2 years. Time to stop it. - 7-bubёn >t 22:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On re-reading the previous AfD, I'm persuaded by Smerdis of Tlon's cogent argument. WP:TIND applies, I think.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TIND cannot overrule WP:NOR. - 7-bubёn >t 20:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and arguments in previous nom. Besides being a neologism, this constitutes original research (synthesizing separate concepts). While I happen to think the idea itself is quite interesting, it needs to be written about in a research paper or even on a blog, not created in an encyclopedia. Matt Deres (talk) 20:23, 25 March 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, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Ruthlessly vet this article afterwards, but I have a feeling there will be plenty of sources to back up this article.Bildstit (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above user was just blocked as a likely sock of a banned user.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A feeling alone is not enough. To make WP:TIND count, you need to prove such sources actually exist. The original research claim implies they don't exist, so the way to counter this AFD is to prove the opposite. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concept has not been described in reliable sources and as such combining several elements like this constitutes original research. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — One great big pile of WP:OR. roux 16:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Practically all of the article is original research, and the term does not seem to be in widespread usage. Google comes up with only WP mirrors. There are, as far as I could see, no 3-rd party sources to attest that this is anything more than an essay or neologism. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, original research and no reliable sources discussing this, uhm, "phenomon" at all. Clearly an essay. clearly a delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Fine, I co-nominate Examples of the motif of harmful sensation in fiction and Category:Motif of harmful sensation for deletion on the grounds that if this article goes, so should they. (Am I the only person who's looked hard enough to find these things?)
But my position is still keep. This is a real literary theme, though it may not always be called "motif of harmful sensation".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source, for example, "Perception" in the Encyclopedia of fantasy, ISBN 1857233689, p.750.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that encyclopedia made up several terms for extant phenomena. This encyclopedia shouldn't. pablo_hablo. 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and I'd welcome suggestions on how this extant phenomenon should be retitled. We could go with "Perception (Encyclopedia of Fantasy)", but I hope someone with access to a real reference work on literary themes and motifs will chime in with a better name.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this dates from the "sources-schmources" days, the topic has a place in an encyclopedia and it has the potential to be sourced. As Marshall notes, there seems to be no common name for this as a literary device, although the "Don't look!!!!" theme is fairly common and hasn't gone unnoticed [31]. It's not quite the same as forbidden fruit nor a curse, so neither of those would be a good merge target. If it's deleted, it looks like this invented term stayed up long enough to be immortalized in a book [32]. The Wikipedia article is the source for the Webster's quotation, as seen by the "WP" at the end. We should all be so lucky. Mandsford (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding rude "it has the potential to be sourced" - please prove it by providing such sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The material in this article has its place in wikipedia, but not together in this article. ("Evil eye" would do for most of it). The term seems the invention of the author of the article. If someone can find a term for the general concept as used by anyone, then the article could be kept under the new title. DGG (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have notified the person who started the article of this discussion, in the hope of clarification. I see no sign that anyone has tried to discuss it with them. Given the unusual nature of the article, some clarification would help. DGG (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for asking. It struck me, back around WP's 3rd anniversary, that there clearly is such a well-established motif, even if i didn't know a name for it, and i created the stub, and used the most descriptive title i could think of. I communicated with Angela Beesley, with some chagrin, upon its appearance as a DYK, bcz the DYK said "Joke Warfare" was an example "of the motif of harmful sensation", which i regarded as implying the title was an established term, tho i did not recall having heard anyone use it before me. On the other hand, what the title intends is i think made clear in the lead, and asserted as a description of the scope of the article, not as an established term.
  --Jerzy•t 06:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an OR essay. Them From Space 05:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Essay? A list of facts is an essay?
  --Jerzy•t 06:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kp My intention in starting the article was not OR (which doesn't count for anything unless someone makes the claim that i obviously intended to do OR). The descriptions of the effect of Medusa's appearance, and of the effect of the sirens' voices, and so on, make it self-evident in each case that the thing named is an instance in literature of sensations that are harmful by the fact of sensing the stimulus.
The compilation of such clearly similar things is not within what OR means; the explicit exclusion from OR of Routine calculations makes it crystal clear that the even more straightforward and routine compilation of examples of a something is not OR. Discussants who think they've found evidence of OR here sound to me like they have never seen an article written by an editor who read something and thought about it and drew their own conclusion from it. Have we really being deleting objective compilations of well sourced or easily sourced facts, that don't draw conclusions, without the Del advocates being accused of WP:JDLI? Repetitions of the same argument, that doesn't apply to the article, are treated supposed to be treated as absence of any argument.
Since one discussant referred to "synthesizing separate concepts", it is important to consult specifically WP:SYNTH, which focuses on compiling published facts to advance a conclusion. It says in part "Summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing". (Now, if the article has been expanded to say w/o refs that

some of these came into being bcz of earlier ones, or
that there is a fundamental human psychological mechanism that causes writers to invent ways of using such conceptions in their creations, or
that such beliefs are common among psychopathic delusions,

that's OR and i support sourcing or removing those assertions, but that is irrelevant to the retention of the article.)
--Jerzy•t 06:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete An interesting article, but it is original research because it fails WP:SYNTH: the author puts together many various things and creates an apparently new notion, which is not shown to be treated in literature in this form. Laudak (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a fine read, and I like it, but it is a synthesis. pablo_hablo. 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per "make it self-evident in each case". Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — this is an appropriate topic for encyclopaedic coverage. The article could use some work, sure; mebbe this rescue crew can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete original research. Two years since the last AFD and no improvement; WP:TIND doesn't mean "keep crap around forever". ~ Ameliorate ! 04:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of the arguments so far

Delete	Keep
Original research	Not original research
Synthesis	A recognised literary theme
No reliable sources	Source provided
Doesn't come up on google	That's because it has the wrong title
Essay	Not an essay - and so what if it is?

Did I miss anything?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Ohio State beats LSU, CNN Money, December 31, 2007.

[bund-2] Prudent Bundesliga pips EPL in profits, not revenue, ESPN, May 29, 2008.

[uk-3] Analysis of 2007 Deloitte Annual Review of Football Finance, The Political Economy of Football, June 2, 2007.

[4] The glory of making the pilgrimage to NYC has its price, Haaretz, November 10, 2007.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]