Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 17 May 19 May >

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, the article is clearly not what Wikipedia is for. Jamie☆S93 12:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken noodle KD[edit]

Chicken noodle KD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recipe - violates WP:MADEUP and WP:NOTHOWTO. Prod removed by original author.    7   talk | Δ |   23:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Digger (magazine)[edit]

American Digger (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article article fails WP:N. It was previously deleted as American Digger Magazine. The article was created by the webmaster of the magazine. It was previously prod'd but it was removed by a new user with no explanation. This was discussed on the conflict of interest noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#.E2.80.8EUser:Pattysuesmith Smartse (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Well established newspapers and magazines are fairly notable. It's sometimes difficult to find a lot of substantial coverage, but this story [1] and this one [2] provide a good basis for verifiability and notability for magazine that was started in 2005. I think it's enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see how those sources count as "Significant coverage" of the magazine - neither mentions the magazine directly. The first mentions it in passing and as far as I can tell the 2nd doesn't even mention it. For all we know this magazine may only be read by 100 people which doesn't make it notable in my opinion. Smartse (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore "a current circulation of over 2000" further evidence of a lack of notability in my opinion.Smartse (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: It seems well established but fails notability. South Bay (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. As South Bays says, "fails notability". "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." This isn't met by this magazine. I tried to find additional sources and could only find those already in the article. Fences and windows (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per ChildOfMidnight. Only a weak keep because the article may need more work done to it to be good enough for Wikipedia standards. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy-deleted, nominator withdraw (sort of, NAC). American Eagle (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallowack syndrome[edit]

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

Nothing found on Google, probably hoax, but perhaps not. Doesn't give why it is especially notable. American Eagle (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you and I may have been editing at the same time.  :) I deleted it already a hoax/vandalism just before you added the AfD template and warned the user against further creations of this type. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini atomic experiments[edit]

Bikini atomic experiments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is essentially a smaller and vastly inferior version of the Operation Crossroads article, and all material mentioned in the former is also covered in the latter. As both articles cover the same topic, I'm nominating this one for deletion so as to have one well cited article on the subject. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Wow, two articles on the same topic since 2004. Crossroads looks like the better article and title and is more heavily edited, but that can be taken care of with regular editing. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't see any reason not to redirect - *someone* presumably thought "atomic experiments" was a useful title! Shimgray | talk | 20:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Wronkiew. There were several operations at Bikini, there's scope for an overall article across all of them, focussed more on the location and the lasting effects of the tests, more than the individual tests. Needs work though - we don't want to keep this just as a partial duplicate of Crossroads. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is clearly a marge discussion and this article seems the best destination. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried that once and no one saw interested in the proposed merge. I am fed up of having two articles on the same subject here, hence the delete. I am not in favor of keeping both articles, crossroads can comfortably handle everything covered here, including the various atomic bomb tests cited by Wronkiew. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crossroads can handle the 1946 tests, but it can't handle the operations after this, like Castle - Bikini was used for testing for a decade or so. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Taylor[edit]

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

Fails WP:Entertainer

  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Drawn Some (talk) 19:25, 4 May 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, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case we disagree on the meaning of the word multiple. In my dictionary it means "more than one" for which two clearly qualifies. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus seems to be that multiple is at least three. Only a few are insisting that "two" is what is intended by "multiple". If "more than one" or "two" or "at least two" had been intended, the guideline would have been worded that way and I am sure it was well-discussed before implementation. Rarely if ever do people refer to two of anything as "multiple".
The guideline is intended to exclude as well as include. It does give room for judgement on the part of the editors but forcing an uncommon meaning on one word in the guideline makes it difficult to achieve consensus on these AfDs. There are thousands of these unreferenced non-notable biographies and they harm the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are intended to be flexible., Whether multiple means two or three, depends on the circumstances. I am not necessarily talking about this article, which is not in my subject. Even if a guideline said that explicitly that 3 or more were required, it would still be interpreted to allow exceptions. DGG (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC) PS. I unindented this by one level. decltype (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *YES! 22:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The normal meaning of multiple is "more than one". [Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary.][The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.] decltype (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per the guideline. Has had significant roles in multiple notable productions, assuming that her role as the daughter of John Adams was significant. decltype (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Shearer[edit]

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

Withdrawn please close as keep. - I also missed the NZ-er of the year bit. I've rewritten the lede appropriately. never-elected candidate for political office. Looking at his biography, I don't think he would satisfy notability and warrant an article if you removed the fact that he is standing for an election. Therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. This policy was strictly enforced for the 2008 general election. By-election should be no different. dramatic (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support; (meaning delete) as per what I said here. I think if he had been a Special Representative as opposed to a Deputy Special Representative in Iraq then he would be notable, but I guess that's up for debate - do any other Deputy Special Representatives have pages? Mattlore (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I presume we can just get an admin to restore the page if he wins in less than a months time?
I'm going to change to Keep, along similar lines as gadfium. He is a clear front runner, has a background that could be arguably notable in its own right, and anyway we can revisit the issue if he does lose the by-election. Mattlore (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other Deputy Special Representatives with articles are Christopher Alexander (diplomat), Bo Asplund, Oluseyi Bajulaiye, Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, Leila Zerrougui. (I haven't looked at them thoroughly - they may have other claims to notability too.) Nurg (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree he does not meet the notability criteria at present, and am thus compelled to say Delete. However, in this byelection four other candidates have Wikipedia articles because they are current or former list MPs, and my gut-level feeling is that to delete this article is to disadvantage this candidate by some small factor (although the presence of an article is unlikely to make a difference to the byelection result). Accordingly, I would be most interested in seeing solid reasons why this article should not be deleted.-gadfium 01:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • His major opponent, Melissa Lee, said in an unguarded moment today that she doesn't expect to win. I think the rules for by-elections can be different than those for general elections. As Shearer is now highly likely to win, I think the article should be Kept. If something changes by the time of the by-election and he doesn't win, we can revisit the matter.-gadfium 06:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed the bit where the New Zealand Herald named him "New Zealander of the Year" in 1992. Now Strong Keep, regardless of whether he wins the by-election.-gadfium 08:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if those other four articles are turned into electioneering material (i.e. any more than a single line at the end of the article mentioning the candidacy), they need to be reverted. This article is very much an advert and needs a severe rewrite if kept. (I considered {{tl:db-spam}} but wasn't sure if it would get deleted on that criterion). dramatic (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, substanial press coverage meets WP:N - 37 exact matches at NZ Herald[3], 44 at TVNZ[4], 10 at stuff.co.nz [5], 10 at 3News[6], ODT has 20 [7]. If he doesn't win then he may well run again at the 2011 general election? XLerate (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now; if necessary, revisit the matter after the election.Daveosaurus (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has a high probability of winning, especially after Melissa's interesting theories on motorways. Also this is just one article compared to many in 2008.F (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its a good idea to keep an article because someone thinks the candidate will win. In the absence of additional sources showing notability I think delete. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most career details seem to be notable enough and described with NPOV. While it is clear that the by-election has been the impetus for the creation of the article, it would be fallacious to reverse that logic. The by-election is more prominent and thus all candidates are more notable because of the seat's previous MP, PM Helen Clark. 203.97.98.36 (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (per XLerate above) so meets WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN is thus irrelevent. -- Avenue (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per XLerate's argument. Artichoke-Boy (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Just being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" (WP:POLITICIAN). He is not just a candidate for political office and even if he was it would not necessarily rule out notability, it just would "not guarantee notability". Candidacy + UN work + NZer of the Year + MBE + chances of election + number of sources together get him over the line IMO. Nurg (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie☆S93 23:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jalibi[edit]

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

Goes against WP:NEO. Nonnotable neologism, with no coverage found in a google or google news search. The only reference is one to urbandictionary, which does not qualify as a reliable source. ƒingersonRoids 21:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a classic dictionary definition -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I've removed the tag, I'll leave the merge to the professionals. Flowerparty☀ 00:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Star Trek[edit]

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

The article subject seems to lack notability. Alastairward (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that--it documents an old text-based Star Trek game dating back to the early days of computer games. I think it's worth keeping for its historical value.Peyre (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has never been involved in this article; has nothing on the talk page; has not even made any statement that anything is wrong with this article; and has simply thrown up a deletion notice. What matter here are the merits of the subject, not the given grievance of its current state: Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, the universe being a moving target, plus if we did decide based on current state the next major change in rules would bring the place crashing down. Unfortunately we now have a time limit and are in a confrontational environment.

Suggestions on how to make that sound less harsh while remaining firm are appreciated. Anyway. The game predates video game journalism, it predates widespread Internet use, it predates graphical displays and, at first, had to print its output. It was written in the first proper programming language. How do we access the article? We'll need to check works about the history of computing - paper ones, probably - and bug relevant wikiprojects or knowledgeable editors. --Kizor 07:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support a merge to Star Trek (text game). Some moments of digging revealed that this is a particularly prominent version of Star Trek text games and there are a bazillion out there. That article's receiving similar demands for improvement. We should fix it. Luckily Ia 1970s programming book that I have turned out to reference the game (not on hand until term ends, but there are scans). The Star Trek games are also covered in Creative Computing (1974-1985) and the magazine also shows that there are multiple versions in a con report and in a page of ads for nine different versions, including one on punch cards and a board game adaptation. There's also an extensive letter from the definitive version's author, on a website whose author happens to share an unusual name with a Wikipedia administrator. I also have an impassioned argument about how notability, a means to an end, applies magnificently badly to hacker lore, but with these references I shouldn't have to use it. :) I've contacted the admin and will wait a bit to see where to take these articles. --Kizor 08:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are the two games related? I'd be interested to see how the merge would look. Powers T 12:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, intimately, just look at the "screenshots." Markowitz was the admin mentioned above, and before this Star Trek game AfD mess started - Super Star Trek was the first one - we had a chat and he confirmed that there are versions of Star Trek out there that are far more different from it than this one is. I expect that a merge would cover the gameplay of the definitive version of Star Trek (I think that there is one), the extent of ports, and then the defining features of particularly prominent versions such as EGA Trek and possibly Super Star Trek. It'd be nice to cover what are common features not found in the base game - that'd be tricky to source, though. --Kizor 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or stubbify and merge into List of text-based Star Trek games. Unreferenced, no indication of (or even claim of) notability. --EEMIV (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion and little evidence of notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support a merge based on Kizor's argument, but I'm highly reluctant to call for a delete based on current quality and the fact that something of this nature predates the Internet and the video game industry doesn't show up much on Google. -- Sabre (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all text based Star Trek games up for deletion (Trek73, Star Trek (text game), Begin (computer game), Begin 2, Super Star Trek, Netrek) and Apple Trek and Star Trek (script game) into a revised Star Trek (text game) to parallel Star Trek (role-playing game). --Kkmurray (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per above. If that article can't be sufficiently sourced reliably then it can eventually be deleted or individual unsourced parts removed, but let's pull it all into one place for some attempts first. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Ahl's version, of the same name, can be found with solid references all over the 'net. Can we close these now? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide examples of these sources? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? Type "star trek text game" into Google. On the first page of 10 hits you will find several reputable 3rd party sources that clearly establish notability. That's even if one discounts the extremely important considerations that since it (1) pre-dates the internet and (2) is a video game (which "real" publishers pointedly ignored), the very presence of any pages devoted to the program is a clear indication of its notability. Of course there's also the point that it was pretty much the sole reason for purchasing this book, which, as that page notes, is "The classic of the classics".
      • There were millions of copies of this game in the world, perhaps hundreds of millions. The fact that little remains of this enormous history is a testimonial to the impermanency of computer culture, a problem that haunts all retrocomputing articles on the Wiki. I don't know about you, but one of the main reasons I edit on the wiki is because it preserves history that would otherwise disappear as soon as someone forgets to pay their ISP bill. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sources such as? I can see a Kotaku source, although that's generally considered an unreliable source per WP:VG/S, but beyond that I'm seeing mostly wiki-type sources and download links; only the first 30-40 results or so even seem to have any relevance to the game. You'll have to give examples of these reliable sources, because I'm not seeing the significant, necessary real-world coverage. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Amazon review that describes that books as "The classic of the classics" is a user review, try putting that one past the reliable sources noticeboard! And why are we supposed to support a keep on the basis of some ethereal "history" that makes the subject interesting? Alastairward (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Well I've said my bit already. The game was published in a widely read book, is available in hundreds of ports right now on the 'net, and shipped with thousands (millions?) of IBM PCs. All of these clearly establish notability by any definition. It's time to end this, everyone else wants a merge anyway. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why merge? Only one independent source to establish real-world notability has been provided, and even that doesn't seem relevant to the subject matter; the only allusion to coverage of this game in that book is a reference to "that Star Trek(TM) game" by a commenter on Amazon. Frankly, this has been shown to have nothing but extremely trivial real-world coverage, and no amount of ports or sales are going to change that. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I absolutely agree with Maury Markowitz. A very popular book featured the game, it is still widely available on the Internet, it was packaged with zillions of IBM PCs. This game WAS clearly notable by any definition. Notability is not temporary. This is an obvious keep. Varbas (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't even know if the book featured the game. Even if it did, one book is far from enough to establish significant real-world notability; the notability guideline states ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." When all we've got is one book in which we suspect there might be information on the subject matter, it's hard to justify "significant coverage". No amount of sales (the numbers of which are themselves unverified) are going to change this. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you considered asking, when an editor above mentioned that he has it? I own the book as well, but frankly I'm getting out of this discussion until it gets less hostile and confrontational. --Kizor 18:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fundamental issue is, even with the book verified, we still don't have "Significant coverage" as per the general notability guideline. At best, it'd warrant a brief mention in an article of a wider scope; there's certainly not enough real-world context here to develop this into something significant. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Kizor, Sabre and DreamGuy - preserving edit history. Oppose deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, notability notwithstanding, it's been clear from the start that covering Super Star Trek as a section of another article is a better way of organizing information than having it as a separate article. (Incidentally this, a rather unpleasant discussion over what that turned out to not need anything beyond the reach of normal editing, is an example of why deletion is a poor first resort.) A merge of Star Trek (text game) makes the most sense, whether or not there'll be some kind of general Star Trek game article is a is another, later issue, and it's not like the targets of merge decisions are binding. --Kizor 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gjerde[edit]

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

Three sentences. Notability not established and probably can't be established. This man has publications, but this is the rule rather that the exception for university professors. ike9898 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 03:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rochambo Coffee and Tea House[edit]

Rochambo Coffee and Tea House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Thin business listing for a local coffee-house. The article contains no suggestion at all why it should have an article, nor does the padded list of 'sources' help clear up the issue, all but two being local newspaper articles--and one travel-guide listing--which mention but do not cover the subject. CalendarWatcher (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Might as well list the phone number and driving directions, too; it's a lightweight promo piece lacking even a whiff of qualifying notability. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes the general notability guidelines. Here is a source from and an article from OnMilwaukee.com. There is also a two paragraph mention at Nation's Restaurant News. I disagree that being only "locally" notable means that the article should be deleted. I agree with Iridescent (talk · contribs), who said in another AfD debate that ""Only local importance" doesn't wash as a deletion reason; many if not most of our articles (in some cases like transportation and geography, close to 100%) are on topics of only local importance." Cunard (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it doesn't pass the General Notability Guidelines, as the very first item requires significant coverage. More to the point, the last listed item notes that the GNG 'establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion': rather than noting what merits mention in a true encyclopaedia article, you've instead scraped together whatever low-quality references you could find and bombarded the article as cover for its lack of merit. And your assertions regarding local importance aren't even coherent: 100% of what? As the local notability guideline has it, 'In order for a local interest to be notable, it must be covered by multiple, independent reliable sources away from its immediate locality'. Bluntly, why should anyone outside its immediate neighbourhood give a fig about this place: THAT is the question you haven't even attempted to answer. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "local interest" does work for a single coffee shop. See WP:CORP. Many reasons in there, specifically "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability". Most sources in the article are local. One is an incidental sentence in an article about the area it's in, and one is a listing in a travel guide (See WP:NTRAN - "Travel guides" cannot be used to establish notability, but information published in a reliable travel guide may be used to verify information. Self-published or other homemade travel guides are not considered "reliable" by Wikipedia guidelines..") 1 out of the 4 sentences is "Rochambo's closing time is at midnight." That says it all! An effort has been made to cite, but the sources are not sufficient. Bigger digger (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Local coverage is still coverage. the local notability guideline is a "proposed Wikipedia policy guideline". It carries no more weight than an essay. WP:NTRAN is "in the brainstorming stage". Neither are guidelines, policy, or pillars of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur, if we take away WP:NTRANS and WP:The locality one, we're left with WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Hopefully you're happy with these as guidelines to one of the pillars?
The coffee house has no significant coverage. Taking the sources as referenced in the article:
1. Is a travel guide, it's not doing it's job if it doesn't mention it. Trivial.
2. Is an article on teenagers too young to stay at home and too young for bars, so they go to coffee houses. Rochambo is one amongst many that is listed, and is certainly not the subject of the article.
3. Is about coffee sales in Milwaukee with comments from many proprietors, again, Rochambo is not the subject and there is no depth to the two paragraphs that mention it.
4. Is an article about the renewal of the area the coffee shop is in. Rochambo mention is, again, trvial and without depth.
5. I can't view properly, more here. I'd suggest it's an article about tea that again happens to mention Rochambo.
6. Is an article about it being redecorated. An article about a coffee shop being redecorated does not make it notable. There's also a mention about people meeting and getting married. Shock! People meet in a social environment and some of them get married. Again not a reason for notability.
I've copied this from WP:CORP as it's the part that this article is falling foul of.
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability.
This article would probably fit into wikitravel, but there's no reason for it to be in wp. It can't be expanded as there is nothing more to say. The creating editor has obviously worked hard to find sources but I'm afraid they don't add up to notability. Bigger digger (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the sources are passing mentions, but two are not. Those two prove that this coffeehouse meets WP:CORP. This article is about kids, but it also devotes much of its space to discussing this specific coffeehouse; more so than the other coffeehouses. The depth of coverage in this article is enough to be "significant". This article is about the renovation of Rochambo Coffee and Tea House, but that doesn't mean it's an unreliable, insignificant source. This twelve-paragraph article is solely devoted to Rochambo and its founders. Cunard (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that first news story isn't actually about the subject of the article? That would take it off the table, it seems. Which leaves you, at best, with an article about architectural renovation, which, even if you accept that logic, means that you've failed the 'multiple' part of 'multiple, significant coverage'.
In all your efforts to scrape up every possible mention of this non-notable local business, you seem to have failed to ask yourself the most basic question: why is this particular local business worth mentioning? Mere existence is insufficient, as Wikipedia is not a business directory or city travel guide. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your cogent arguments have shown me that this local coffeehouse does indeed fail WP:CORP. I wish I could find more sources to establish this coffeehouse's notability, but I can't find any more. As a result, I agree that this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No objection to a redirect being created, though. Jamie☆S93 12:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Dew[edit]

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

Non-notable Pokémon thingamabob. The article fails the notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability, and no reliable secondary sources exist. TheLeftorium 19:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somaya Reece[edit]

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

Article was properly deleted two years ago, but for some unfathomable reason the recreated article was restored after a speedy deletion despite there being no effort to address the issues that led to its deletion. Now, as then, this person simply does not pass WP:BIO or WP:N. She is a bit part actress who has a lot of friends on MySpace. That's it. If she ever actually lands some significant roles beyond "Harlot (uncredited)" and "Video Ho #2" then great, good for her and bring on the article. For now, she is not notable. Suggest that this be salted since obviously her fanboys will continue to re-create the article unless prevented. Otto4711 (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "unfathomable" and "fanboys" aren't helping here. Editors who !vote "keep" are no more necessarily fanboys than editors who !vote "delete" are haters. The article was shortened and an additional source was referenced, and the only thing substantially the same as the previous version is the Infobox. I'm not sure why all the nominations for deletion have come from you, but I still don't see any reason for deletion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I guess. You could make a case that this meets WP:N by virtue of the exclusive coverage in the OC Register article alone. [8]. The exclusive coverage, as opposed to merely significant coverage, could make up for the fact that it is only one reliable, independent source and not multiple sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that article is that it is entirely about her charitable work. Her career is only mentioned. It might be used as in-depth coverage to support an article on her as a notable philanthropist. Otherwise it contains no pertinent information. Drawn Some (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
charitable work can be as notable as a formal career--not that I really think this is in this particular case DGG (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One has to be notable for something to be notable. She is not. It isn't even ONEVENT, its Zero Events., just minor acting roles. DGG (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editor who created the newest incarnation of the article mentions on its Talk page that the notability is not from her acting roles but from her internet celebrity. I added another reference for that to the article just now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now I see the claim "The 20 Hottest Women of the Web", I must admit that I deleted the article before as not addressing the last AfD, but it seems to have developed some more claims to notability that should not be discounted. Google has 630 unique hits, or 101000 non unique. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do we really want every aspiring actress with a website who is easy on the eye and gets a couple of mentions in lads mags in WikiPedia? NBeale (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not really an argument for whether or not we want this one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notabe - mention on a random list does not notability make. Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Article asserts the subject's lack of notability: "best known for her MySpace presence". Hairhorn (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hairhorn's reasoning. She simply isn't notable. When significant in-depth coverage of her MySpace celebrity becomes available in reliable resources or when she gets multiple significant roles in notable films or plays or what-have-you then by all means let's reconsider her notability. Drawn Some (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie☆S93 23:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Bliss[edit]

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

This wholly unreferenced BLP has been tagged for notability and references since June 2008. Also appears to have been written by the subject. لennavecia 18:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Nicholas' Priory[edit]

St Nicholas' Priory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete unsourced one-liner about an "ex-Catholic" priory. Does this mean it still exists but is no longer Catholic (Anglican perhaps?) or it no longer exists? Any way, without sources feel free to substitute your own WP:OR, I guess. Any way, and regardless, there is no indication that this institution is notable; failing WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some form of notability can be demonstrated.Strong keep - grade 1 listed building status probably makes it notable in itself. Has potential to be developed into a strong article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've added some detail on the priory and a stub notice in hopes of getting some more knowledgeable editors to jump in. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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‽ 08:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Gudge[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable myspace/facebook user. Production company has made no films. Wperdue (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this needs to be removed? Simon Gudge is a notable MySpace user for creating the biggest Bournemouth Group on MySpace. Living Dead Productions is a Production Company started by Simon Gudge which is in the process of making films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.56.219 (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Until a subject has received enough coverage by secondary reliable sources to establish notability it does not merit an entry on Wikipedia. If either the MySpace page or the production company were to receive media coverage of a non-trivial nature, then it could be sourced properly and added. I hope this information was helpful. Wperdue (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, lacks significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he does something notable that's picked up by reliable third party sources. I'll remove the link spam as well... Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to verify notability. As a note, the one source cited [9] seems to fall under WP:SPS, as users upload their own films and descriptions. He sounds like he may be interesting, but let's let someone independent decide that. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1995 Kidnapping of western tourists in Kashmir. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Hasert[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E. Notable only for having been kidnapped. لennavecia 18:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 03:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this result was amended to delete with the consent of User:One at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_26#Cal_Con. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Con[edit]

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

Aside from the promotional tone (which can be fixed), and the potential copyright violation (which would also be fixed by a rewrite) in the first two paragraphs, text originating from the program guide, my GNews search of:

Which leads me to believe that the convention does not pass general notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and their search efforts. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Huh? You only searched Google news; nerdy cons are not the sort of thing that get a lot of media coverage. "Calcon Calgary" in Google ([11]) brings up the con's webpage, links from gaming forums, a Facebook page, and so on. Not a stunning number of hits, but this isn't the sort of thing I'd expect to get a huge amount of attention. Hairhorn (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaming forums, blogs, Facebook pages etc do not usually qualify under the reliable sources guidelines as they are all user generated content. For a convention to be notable by Wikipedia standards (in my opinion at least) there should be at least minimal coverage in local papers, such as the Calgary Sun or Calgary Herald, but nothing came up, not even behind a paywall. --kelapstick (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree there is only a weak case for this article. My only point was that I don't expect the Sun or Herald to cover this event, no matter how significant it is. It's more likely to be covered in, say, Fast Forward Weekly, who unfortunately for this article, don't cover it either. Hairhorn (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - gaming convention with no coverage in reliable sources. Note that geeky nerd conventions do get covered in reliable sources when they are notable such as the San Diego Comic-Con International. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is probably in your best intersts, since otherwise wikipedia comes of as elitest. Also we were in the Calgary Sun as well as JackFM, FAN960, and Lite96. Posters and flyers across Canada and the largest games convention west of Ontario. Been around since 1988, and have had Presidents from SJGames, Mayfair Games, Game Stuff Inc., and Maple Leaf Games Inc, not to mention working closely with Hasrbo/WotC on major DnD and Magic: TG events. Jgbaxter (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that the article is basic at the moment obviously and I only had time to cut/paste something quick. The reason for the article was that there are several new board, card, and role-playing games set to be released at the convention over next year and beyond. Jgbaxter (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide specific cites for this coverage? -- Whpq (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper obviously Calgary, the radio stations are the Calgary market (not sure how far they extend out). The posters and flyers are primarily Western Canada; BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, though Games Workshop stores caried posters east. Jgbaxter (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Magazines have also promoted the convention, noteably Dragon magazine, and the Canadian Wargamers Journal (defunct). Jgbaxter (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I was surprised when I didn't find anything in the Sun or Herald, if the convention has been around since 1988 I would have expected to find at least one article at a minimum mentioning it, but there was nothing. Being the largest games convention in Western Canada may be enough to establish its notability, but again I didn't even find anything that mentioned the convention. At all. Also if you are in the Sun, and on Radio stations is that coverage of the event or advertising of the event, because they are two different things, coverage of the event can be used to establish notability, however advertising of the event can not.--kelapstick (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CalCon hasn't paid for advertising as of yet. Jgbaxter (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question though, even free advertising would not qualify. Regardless, any coverage has to be verifiable.--kelapstick (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that searching the Calgary Sun here and here brings up no results.--kelapstick (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Comments above by the author pretty much admit that this is a copyvio ("I only had time to cut/paste something quick"). Author makes clear that they are with the convention (refers to it as "we"). Article text is absurdly promotional, referring to the organization in the first person. So, it's a blatant advertising and copyright violation. It's possible a good article could be made on this topic, if good sources are found, but deleting this advertising copy, won't prevent a good article. This could have even been speedied, instead of AFD'd, it's so blatant. --Rob (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that sure comes out as rude and condecending, not elitest at all. Jgbaxter (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been gathering historical information from the convention, sure doesn't appear like some people really care about it. If I have time before there's a pre-emptive deletion I'll add it. As for copyfight violation- it appears with permission from the convention until I have 5 seconds in my 3 jobs to do something more to the article. ;) Jgbaxter (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not rude, condescending or elitist. It is Wikipedia policy. Also there is a process for using copyright material on Wikipedia, you saying that it is used with permission from the convention isn't enough. Keep in mind that even with permission from the convention to use the material it is still promotional and written in the first person, which is a tone that is not appropriate for Wikipedia, keep in mind this is an encyclopedia. Jgbaxter I suggest that you restart the article at User:Jgbaxter/Cal Con, but not just "copy and paste" from the program, write it using the proper tone and citing reliable sources, and using no original research. I would be more than happy to help you with this if you would like. Also keep in mind that deletion of the article does not prevent its recreation in the future.--kelapstick (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagree with your response to my comment, and further to that 'tone' is clear in the message. Wikipedia tries to be an amateur encyclopedia, sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it doesn't- mostly not. There are many tens of thousands of articles here that are much less relevant- and less noteworthy. I could waste my time further but it's obvious it's a pointless exercise. It's laughable to think that wikipedia is a promotional avenue for anything, too much pomposity if you ask me. Kelapstick thanks for whatever help you may have offered. Jgbaxter (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 03:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of extraordinary diseases and conditions[edit]

List of extraordinary diseases and conditions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a list of the "extraordinary" (title) or "unusual" (lead) or of "unique cause, presentation, symptoms or treatment" (lead) diseases and conditions. The list makes no attempt at providing an objective criteria with which we can judge if an entry is extraordinary and provides no sources for any of the list entries that enable us to verify if an entry is extraordinary. There are sources, but they verify the prose, not that the list entry criteria have been met. This list is currently 100% original research.

The subject is not merely those diseases that are rare, for that is served adequately by Category:Rare diseases. Such a list of rare diseases can have an objective criteria (commonly defined as rarer than 1:2000 of the population) but since there are estimated to be between 6,000 and 8,000 distinct classified rare diseases[12] it would not be useful to attempt to reproduce such a list in one article on Wikipedia -- the category is adequate as it lists only those for which we have articles.

The current contents of this list includes extremely common conditions (e.g., Guinea worm disease, Pica and Supernumerary body part). One is left with the distinct impression that the list merely contains the gross and the weird, such as appear on populist medical programs like Extraordinary People.

I don't believe that this or a similar list can establish an objective entry criteria that could be verified by serious reliable sources. See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Colin°Talk 17:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No objective criteria can ever be established (WP:V). News sources saying "bizarre illness" or even case reports saying that, are mere sensationalism and not scientific. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-objective and inconsistent list violating WP:OR. Supernumerary body parts is a good example given above as a condition included that is not even particularly extraordinary. Perhaps the editor is a fan of "Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine". Drawn Some (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I posed the following question before, who determines what items are "extraordinary"? My feelings are the same as Steven's, that "no objective criteria can ever be established." ---kilbad (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
  • It doesn't have to be original research. Googling "unique diseases", "extraordinary diseases" etc gives lots of external references. Every entry could be referenced, similarly to List of unusual personal names or other articles in the category Category:Lists of things considered unusual. The proper criteria for what to include or not could be expanded as we learn what kind of additional entries are added to the list.
  • This article is not redundant just because there is a Category:Rare diseases. It is the causes, presentations or treatments that are unusual for these cases. Indeed, with current criteria, the disease or condition itself may not necessarily be extremely rare.
  • And it's not some kind of sensationalist exhibition. The entries don't necessarily have to be utterly fantastic, and as long as the list isn't reaching inconvenient length, then it's fairly okay that "less sensationalistic" also are added to the list. I admit that the list may tend to promote facts that are of interest to the human reader, making the inclusions deviate slightly from what would have been included by a review and selection among all known diseases based strictly upon the criteria. But, as long as we are aware of that deviation and keep it from going too far, I actually think that's a good thing.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mikael, you refer above to "with current criteria". I interpret this statement as meaning that some criteria for inclusion currently exist. Please tell me (and at least a dozen other editors that have asked you this): What are the "current criteria" that you refer to? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Kilbad. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Steven, I just can't see the verifiability in this topic and I feel it's made redundant by the rare diseases category, despite Mikael's opinion above. At the very least, this article needs renaming, but combined with the lack of verifiability, I can't see any means for inclusion. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a classic older book on the subject that should have been cited: Anomalies and curiosities of medicine ; being an encyclopedic collection of rare and extraordinary cases and of the most striking instances of abnormality in all branches of medicine and surgery, derived from an exhaustive research of medical literature from its own origin to the present day by George Milbrey Gould & Walter Lytle Pyle, Saunders, [1898], OCLC 249245631 that was republished as Medical curiosities : adapted from Anomalies and curiosities of medicine by George M Gould; Walter L Pyle, Hammond Pub., 1992. OCLC 59921916. -- proof that material can be verified and is not necessarily SYNTHESIS & that there are objective criteria. There are others. It's a topic that has a certain interest: human sensationalism can be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 21:32, 18 May 2009
    • Are you having a laugh, DGG? Sourcing a modern encyclopaedia to a book Amazon describes as "written in 1896 by physicians George M. Gould and Walter L. Pyle, cataloguing the true and the apocryphal (they don't make much of a distinction) from medical literature going as far back as ancient Rome. Some of this stuff is very definitely false, in an "I can't believe Victorians believed that!" sort of way; some is definitely true; and most of the stuff in between is hard to believe, but who knows? Science can be stranger than fiction. Is it really possible for a woman to vomit up fetuses..." You can read the book here; quite incredible. But how can "extraordinary" be determined objectively? Sure you can cite subjective opinions on what this person or that person deems "extraordinary" but there is no objective threshold one can set. If "extraordinary" is a subjective judgement, this list is no different from "List of great paintings" or "List of beautiful people", where one can find opinions to cite but no consensus on what should or should not be contained. Colin°Talk 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment regarding the author of the article being a fan of "Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine" was negative criticism, not a suggested source. I have a copy and it makes for good bedtime reading but it is totally unreliable. The late Victorian period was rife with books about oddities, strange collections, and fake genealogies. DGG I find it hard to believe you have actually seen the book if you are suggesting it as a reference or precedence. Drawn Some (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. About half of all women who have given birth have chimerism (see Gadi 2009, PMID 18845390), so how in the world could chimerism be listed as an extraordinary disease or condition? Anyway, I agree with Colin, Steven and Kilbad. This list is not encyclopedic and can't easily be made so. Eubulides (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there can be a better criteria for inclusion. The word "extraordinary" is opinion and as such there cannot be a neutral, encyclopedic list from that criteria. Another question to pose: Isn't most diseases out of the ordinary anyway? This list could be 100x longer than it is currently with everything possible that could be "wrong" with someone. Tavix |  Talk  02:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The word "extraordinary" is very subjective. --Maverx (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was directed here by a post at Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures. There is nothing wrong with this article in principle. However, in practice, its authors have failed to properly source the claims that these diseases are extraordinary (which I take to mean "rare"). Rarity is not an entirely subjective determination (clearly, certain diseases are much less common than others), though the cut-off between what is rare and what is not must inevitably be determined arbitrarily. As long as that cut-off is defined by a reliable source (say, a medical journal), I see nothing wrong with building a list about rare diseases. If size is a concern, simply tighten inclusion criteria: limit entries only to those diseases for which there are articles (that is, those whose notability has been proven). Or, find a reliable source that identifies what qualifies as very rare (perhaps 1 in 10,000 births--it all depends on what the source says), and just list those that qualify. Even very large lists can be useful if divided into manageable chunks, as was done with List of atheists. And don't forget that lists can be useful in ways that categories cannot. Nick Graves (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A potential List of rare diseases is discussed in the AfD lead and there are accepted thresholds of rarity one could use. However, that is another list really and not a reason to keep this one. This one currently (and by definition) includes common diseases that are merely gross. Colin°Talk 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: discussions on User talk:Mikael Häggström#Incoming links and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#List_of_extraordinary_diseases_and_conditions makes it clear that by "extraordinary" this user does not mean "rare", but rather sensational, bizarre, etc., by that user's own estimation. --Una Smith (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Sensational or bizarre diseases might be an acceptable subject for a list, provided reliable sources are found that identify each listed disease as such. Failing that, the list is, of course, original research and unverified. Nick Graves (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't produce lists that are a result of cherry-picking cited opinions. That's why the criteria have to be objective. Otherwise we'd have lists of "amazing people" or "boring novels" or "sensational films" or "dull towns". Colin°Talk 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete for the same reason I rejected this article's DYK nomination: without some reliable sources to establish that "extraordinary disease" is a real concept and part of a physician's register, rather than just a collection of examples cherry-picked by one editor, then this article is entirely subjective. As far as I can tell, the creator has not responded satisfactory to numerous requests to supply such sources, so there is no longer any reason to keep this article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing concerns: This list's author left messages at about half a dozen somewhat similar lists to seek advice. If you came to this discussion because of reading such a note, please include that information in your comments (as, for example, Nick Graves did above). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Mikael Häggström's messages on those talk pages are appropriate, however annoying. I think the fact that those messages have not resulted in support for keeping this page is useful information. --Una Smith (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
  • The category of rare diseases contains an overwhelming number of articles (321). Therefore, I believe it's helpful to have a pared down list such as this one. It's very readable.
  • The mere expression of the opinion that something is "extraordinary" is harmless and inconsequential. It does not, in my opinion, constitute, WP:original research. I think we all agree that the material, itself, has been verified. As long as that's true, then what harm is there in including it in a list? Not harm, rather, I see a benefit. Again, it's very readable and a useful collection.
  • I'm hard pressed to think of a better place than Wikipedia for such a list. If there were such a place, I would wish that others could contribute, as in a wiki.
  • I don't imagine too much difficulty maintaining the list in the future. I trust that any abuses can be easily dealt with in the course of normal operation and will not result in unreasonable amount of work for editors. Common sense and a show of good faith among editors should be sufficient to police this.
I think strict rules need not apply, here. Not everything in Wikipedia needs to be so deterministic. The world, for sure, is not so nice and neat. Why Wikipedia? There's room for leniency, I think. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for this replacing the Rare Diseases category.... well, this is not a list of rare diseases (a term that has a very specific definition, at least in the U.S., and I think a similar one in Europe). It's a list of diseases that one editor found interesting. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't normally like this sort of article, but this one doesn't seem as problematic as I'd feared; all the conditions listed so far are clearly pretty unusual, and would widely be described as such. I understand there are concerns about sensationalism, but arguably that could apply to many other articles on medical topics; I don't think we should delete an article just because it seems a bit 'tabloid-y'. I would suggest that this article should probably be renamed to List of unusual diseases and conditions, though; 'extraordinary' is a bit POV. Robofish (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If we keep this list, I think a rename is definitely needed. This is a list of "extraordinary" disease. What if I personally find myocardial infarction to be an extraordinary disease process and want to include it? With the current name, there is nothing keeping me from doing so. ---kilbad (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"unusual" is defined as either "remarkable/out-of-the-ordinary" or "rare". The latter meaning is discussed above. The former meaning is no different to "extraordinary" and is subjective therefore not suitable criteria for a list on Wikipedia. Colin°Talk 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being rare could be subjunctive too, unless you put a definite number on it such as "1 in 100,000" or something. Tavix |  Talk  20:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The convention used by numerous government agencies and advocacy organizations is that a rare disease has an incidence or prevalence not higher than 1 in 2,000. There are many thousands of rare diseases, some with articles on Wikipedia: see Category:Rare diseases. --Una Smith (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: just because it's not problematic yet, doesn't mean it couldn't become so in the future in the abscence of clear criteria to define 'extraordinary'. What guideline will we use in discussions about inclusion? Or will we just let expert opinion decide without a reliable definition, is that what we want? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not our job to decide what is extraordinary. This is done by reference to sources which so describe the disease or condition. This is not difficult as I have demonstrated by adding a citation. Per our editing policy, the list just needs more work, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:ASF, which is policy. We are not allowed to assert opinions as though they are facts. That something is "extraordinary" is an opinion, and although that is citable we can't use it as an inclusion criterion for a list. We are forced to say "Joe Bloggs regards XYZ as an extraordinary disease...". We cannot say "XYZ is an extraordinary disease" in the same way (using the example from policy) we are not allowed to say "The Beatles are the greatest band ever". Colin°Talk 13:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see List of mountains or List of rivers by length. It is ultimately a matter of opinion whether an elevation is a mountain rather than a hill, or how long a river is, but it would be unreasonable to forbid mention of them here on these grounds. Being extraordinary, unusual or rare is just a matter of frequency which is a simple statistic of a similar kind and such statistics are commonly collected for medical matters. The list seems fine and my opinion of it remains unchanged. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other crap exists. But those lists could set an (arbitrary) absolute threshold on height/length. As for the river length, just because there is disagreement on how to measure the length of certain rivers, doesn't make a length published by an authority just "opinion". Regardless, you are confusing extraordinary with rare. I have no problem with a list of rare diseases, it would be over-long IMO but I wouldn't AfD it, but that is not this list. This is a list of the weird and not even rare-weird. Allowing this list means List of ugly politicians would be acceptable, provided one could cite a derogatory comment in a newspaper. Colin°Talk 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Look up the definition of the word ordinary and then extraordinary. Plenty of references, and a very good and interesting list. Dream Focus 17:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unclear lines of delineation make this list a cruft magnet. "extraordinary" by whose judgement? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. It's an interesting list. However there is no reliable source to define the scope of the article and demonstrate notability. It's content is subjective and unencyclopedic. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no current working definition (and i can not see my way through to the creation of one) that would adequately define an extraordinary or unusual disease. The list requires an act of original research every time an edit is made. "Extraordinary" and "unusual" are of course highly subjective terms.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's totally subjective. NCurse work 06:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list has no sourcing criteria - "list of diseases some editor thought was wierd that day." Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider a name change to bring it more in line with the "unusual" set of articles. I agree "extraordinary" is vague. There are several books and articles on rare and unusual diseases, and inclusion in one can be a criteria. "Unusual" also appears in JAMA article titles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty much per nom. Lists like this can not have vague terms in the subject, as it disrupts any attempt at a NPOV article. No matter what sourcing one can find to claim a disease is "extraordinary" one can find a counter source to claim that it isn't. In essence, nothing can be verified to meet WP:V. ThemFromSpace 10:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have indeed seen the book I referred to; actually, I've known it for many years as the standard reference of its sort. I don't judge books by what is written about them in Amazon, but the Amazon description includes the whole preface which describes the book correctly as a compendium of about the same status as early versions of Believe it or Not.  : it's not scientific, but it shows the interest in such things, the fact that people write books about them, and the fact that diseases and conditions can be qualified as unusual or extraordinary on the basis of what other people have said about them. A lot of what it reports is poorly authenticated, and I would never use it as evidence for what something is; I certainly would use it as evidence for the view of what people considered something to be. There are many older books of this sort, which don't qualify as real science, but rather as earlier generations views of pop science. They appear weird or quaint today, but they are culturally significant none the less. There is a proper use of t=books like this as there is of the old EB used so frequently and wrongly in WP: to show what people thought about things in a particular historical period. I resent the imputation that I would use something I didn't know in this manner--I do not work that way, and when i refer to something I know only by seeing it in Worldcat--or Amazon--I say so. Actually, I thought of it immediately when I saw this afd, and then went to find the citation. I did not go back to look at a copy,for it is perfectly clear visually in my mind. I do not forget interesting or curious books that I have actually seen and read--or even seen, for that matter. I don't memorize what's in them,. but I remember the general nature--I remind you that this is my profession, and my experience enriched by working for decades as the bibliographer in this subject in a very large library with extraordinarily extensive old-fashioned print collections. When this book had a modern reprint, the reprinters too knew what they were doing. DGG (talk)
  • Comment It seems you're advocating the use of a highly unreliable source even in its day. But what's worse, the source is from a different era when medical knowledge was far, far shallower than it is today. Let's take Tourette's syndrome which was first described as a medical condition shortly before that book was published. Yet for 60+ years Tourette's was seen as not only rare but described with terms like "extraordinary," "astonishing," etc... Though i don't have a copy of this book in question, there's a very good chance it (reflecting many other books from that era that i have seen) describe Tourettes with some synonym for "rare" or "extraordinary." But all those long-ago sources are wrong. Research since has taught all of us that Tourette's is neither particularly rare or particularly unusual. But tourette's would end up in this useless, misleading list all the same because we aren't enforcing basic standards requiring limited subjectivity (in chosing the scope of encyclopedia articles) and inclusion of information with only iron-clad evidence from the most reliable sources. Any book on medical oddities published in the 19th century, while fascinating, should be dismissed out of hand when considering what sources to use to describe the current state of play in the medical sciences. Sheesh.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
right, and the information here is conditions and diseases that have been viewed as extraordinary and the article needs to be explain that. The book was reliable for what it covered, which was, quite explicitly, the popular view of things over centuries. I used it as example--there are other non-scientific discussions to use for this sort of thing. The historical state of knowledge is taken into account in articles on older scientific concepts. The article would need to be reworks to much more explicitly not describe " the current state of play." I think it does it by implication-- "unusual", as everyone has commented, is not a scientific evaluation. Unfortunately, much as I would like to , i do not have time to rewrite the article. There's too much that needs to be defended. DGG (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I guess you're wanting a response since you left a message on my talk page. I think you're just digging the hole you're in deeper with these responses. If you are familiar with the book then you what are suggesting is even less encyclopedia-like. Your reputation as a 30 year Princeton library specialist is not what's at stake, 12 year olds get as much respect as anyone else here, heck, I might have been the head librarian at Princeton for all you know or I might be a precocious 9 year old, no matter. This is just about whether or not this particular article should be deleted as inappropriate for one established reason or another. Please let's don't continue this drama much less keep trying to expand it. Please, let's try to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and not Ripley's Cabinet of Curiosities.
This Way to the Egress >>> Drawn Some (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) DGG: Are you proposing a rename to List of diseases considered extraordinary in the 19th century? Or something of a "history of science" nature like The evolution of medical thought on what is or is not an extraordinary disease or condition? In both those cases, i agree this book would be an excellent source. But those articles are not before us. This article implies that the listed things are really extraordinary. My problem with the subjectivity of the term i've already explained, but a secondary concern i have with these kinds of articles is their inherent vagueness which allows for some people to say "if anything was ever said to be extraordinary, it belongs" others to say "No. It has to actually be demonstrably extraordinary (never mind that "extraordinary" is ill-defined)," and still others to say "doesn't that bug that was put in Kirk's ear in the Wrath of Khan belong?" We have articles on these diseases, where the history of thought about these diseases is discussed along with the silly things once believed about them and the modern state of medical knowledge. This, however, is just a barnacle pole for misinformation, fuzzy-headed additions, and daily neutrality and OR problems.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)([reply]
I accept the book could (perhaps even should, if it is as notable as it appears) be used to justify a comment in the lead on the historical "interest in such things". But lists don't get AfD'd because of deficiencies in the lead; we are interested in whether one can define a set of entries for the list that passes our policy pages. That book only contains the outdated opinions of two non-notable guys. We don't make lists of such opinions, and I find it "extraordinary" that some folk here think we do, no matter how interesting the subject is. Colin°Talk 20:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book itself could certainly be the subject of an article. Drawn Some (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Twitter services and applications. Selectively merge any relevant information. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twitterjobsearch.com[edit]

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

nn website EWJNK (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Twitter. This is just a minor aspect of the other. There will never be much more than one or two sentences to say about it. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Obvious conclusion, unless the domain is released it will never be close to meeting notability guidelines. ceranthor 19:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the domain is released it probably will still not be notable. I hope we don't have an article on every different function of Google and Yahoo. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Could have been speedy, could have been snow. Doesn't matter, has run it's course for a good ol' delete. Valley2city‽ 08:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GetSteady.com[edit]

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

nn website EWJNK (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, No assertion of notability whatsoever. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - non notable and spammy. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Might get somewhere in time. Presumably hasn't yet or there would be more references. A slight flavour of spam, but I feel efforts have been made to try being encyclopaedic. Peridon (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promotional article about a dating website, no showing of notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn w/ WP:SNOW -- samj inout 17:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 one of the debates where it's all based on strength of arguments; the keep !votes were based on WP:USEFUL and sources that were not reliable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optifly[edit]

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

nn website; alexa rank 1,184,642. EWJNK (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful travel site for determining low cost carriers and most direct flight routes; reviewed favorably in numerous blogs and online publications and thus likely to succeed commercially. Dcteas17 (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out some of these online publications? Making a judgment on its likelihood of future success is a bit of crystalballing. -- Whpq (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the crystalballing. Still should be kept in my opinion...
It's hard to imagine any relatively new tool meeting the criteria for an article based solely on its Alexa rank and whether or not CNN has covered it. But people looking at the site seem to think it's a viable alternative to other flight-searching options, and it's certainly novel for its use of the Google Earth/Maps engine. Dcteas17 (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's newness is certqainlty a bar to notability. And when it matures and become notable, then it would be appropriate to have an article. Of the three links oyou'[ve posted, (1) is a travel site without any clear indocation that it is a reliable source, (2) is a user posted comment in an online newspaper forum, and (3) is a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my position. An individual cannot easily be the judge of whether a travel website or press release is a "reliable source." Your vehemence in insisting upon this article's expulsion, as well as your initial demand for a justification of my vote, causes me to question your motivations. This article isn't about someone's best friend or favorite restaurant. Wikipedia will not be any better or reputable without the article. As reporter Andrew Lih commented when criticizing deletionists, "The preference now is for excising, deleting, restricting information rather than letting it sit there and grow." I say let the article expand and grow. Dcteas17 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not vehemently demanding its explusion; I am requesting reliable sources covering the subject which is in keeping with an AFD discussion. And questioning the sources is part of this discussion. Certainly, a press release is not a reliable source when it comes to the establishment of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? So when the President of the United States of America makes a press release, that's not reliable information? What about if GE makes a press release saying they are developing a new engine? Or if a Wall Street firm makes a press release stating they are offering a new class of investments? Your claim requires an extremely slippery slope of "reliability" or "significance" for press releases, with the only possible resolution an arbitrarily made cutoff. But I'm not going to argue this more with you, as it's largely a greater discussion of Wikipedia policy than anything that pertains to this article itself. Let the other users who vote and administrators decide. Dcteas17 (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, really. If I put out 500 press releases about myself, regardless of how truthful they are, that does not make me notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, this is a discussion about greater Wikipedia policy. Not this article. Let's stop filling this page with a fruitless discussion of a much bigger topic. Dcteas17 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only a few opinions, but they are very clear about what to do with this article DGG (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World of football[edit]

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

Stadium of questionable notability. Google shows no significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Original article contained this sentence. AvN 17:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete the article. I love the World of Football and its presence on Wikipedia makes me happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.202.140 (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Uncle G"ed beyond all recognition (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lunarcrete[edit]

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

Google does not indicate any reliable, third-party sources, thus failing both WP:N and WP:V. AvN 16:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clearly WP:NEO, topic already covered at In Situ Resource Utilization. Drawn Some (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have failed to find any references to it, so it lacks verifiability and notability. Also a "hypothetical" material is getting dangerously close to violating WP:NOTCRYSTAL. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you haven't looked hard enough. Simply looking at the article to see the sources already cited therein would be an easy start. Beyer wasn't in fact all that hard to find, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I looked there were no citations in the article, so it would not have been an easy start. At the time I posted the above comment there was what purported to be one citation to the Grand Forks Herald, but in fact it was merely a link to the Wikipedia article about the Grand Forks Herald, and did not give any information about lunarcrete, so it would still not have been an easy start. Since the citations now in the article have all been put there by Uncle G after the time of my comment it is surprising he did not realise this. A Google search now for "Lunarcrete Beyer" produces 3 hits. One of these is this Wikipedia article; the second is an out of date link to a web page which no longer contains any reference to lunarcrete; the third is an archived index to the Space Studies Institute blog archives for December, 1985: it establishes that there was once a blog entry on the topic, but it does not give the content of that entry. Thus the actual information obtained about "lunarcrete" from this search is zero. Perhaps there are other ways in which I could have found information about Beyer in connection with lunarcrete: if so it would have been more constructive to say what they are than making such remarks as "Then you haven't looked hard enough". JamesBWatson (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*very weak Keep There are 3 other refs in GScholar, at [13], That is probably not quite not enough for notability, but enough to not dismiss it out of hand.A broader search is needed. DGG (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • DGG, how can you say to keep it but then in the next sentence say it is not notable? Are you suggesting that we keep articles that aren't notable because they might be? We're supposed to be deciding that here. Drawn Some (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Xe is very probably suggesting that dismissing something out of hand as a "neologism", when it was in fact an idea thought up and published almost a quarter of a century ago, may well be an unwise course of action. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand: nobody has referred to it as a neologism, let alone suggested dismissing it for that reason. this looks remarkably like a Straw man argument. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drawn Some used the WP:NEO argument. Fences and windows (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination said it could not be verified, and that was wrong because I verified it. I then said that if my quick search, a search I knew to be inadequate for the subject, found a few possibly not very strong sources, though this was not quite enough for notability yet, there would probably be more,hence the "very weak keep" And, I see my guess was right, for Uncle G found them. I'm changing to Keep, of course. As he said, I was trying to prevent a rush to delete an article without checking further. I apologize for not having done better myself, but it's so easy to nominate for deletion, that i don' t have timeto save properly even when I think it can be done--there were too many other articles. DGG (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per additional refs. 66.43.117.5 (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More fine work from Uncle G; an example to us all. This would be a case where WP:BEFORE applies. A collective WP:TROUT to all deletion nominators and voters who don't look carefully enough for sources. Fences and windows (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, due to improvements by Uncle G. Wronkiew (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - now much improved into a fine article - well done Uncle G. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsea Asian American Daily[edit]

Goldsea Asian American Daily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Google search shows that Goldsea is indeed an important website/newspaper. However I could not find any objective coverage of it in reliable sources. The article only cites the site itself and one or two blogs that criticize it and consists of mainly a lot of original research about controversies and so forth. If an objective article could be written that would be great, but as it is now I think it is better to delete this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: WikiProject Asian Americans has been informed of this debate. Thanks, cab (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. News hits [14] consist of quotes or citations from their website, not articles about their website. Gbooks hits are a bit better [15] with a short profile of the site [16] and a bunch more citations of articles they wrote, but still not enough to establish notability in my opinion. Blog hits are, of course, ignorable. I don't find any support for their claims to be the "World Wide Web's biggest and most popular Asian American site" or "first Asian American media website". cab (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, if we had an overall article on the topic of Asian American internet forums (you could probably write such an article on the basis of books like Lee, Rachel C.; Wong, Sau-ling Cynthia (2003), Asian America.Net: ethnicity, nationalism, and cyberspace, Routledge, ISBN 9780415965606), this title might make sense as a redirect to a list section there, but not as a stand-alone article. cab (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue that should be mentioned is that the article seems to be accusing the people involved with this site of "yellow supremacy" (if you'll pardon the expression). I think this is a rather serious charge, which could even be career damaging, to make on such poor sourcing. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current article is written badly enough that it's ambiguous whether it's a promotional page or an attack page; whichever it is, it's a website that doesn't make a strong case for notability under the guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy no content since June 08 --GedUK  18:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of technical barriers to the commercialisation of renewable energy[edit]

List of technical barriers to the commercialisation of renewable energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not content any information -- maybe even Speedy Deletion? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's possible that this would fall under G2, as it has the appearance of a test page that stopped midsentence ("These barriers are inherent in the commercialisation of all new technologies and"). I can't forsee that the topic could be written as anything other than an essay. Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone started an article in summer 2008 and wrote 1 1/2 sentences and never came back to finish it. No substance to keep, more of a housekeeping matter. Drawn Some (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied as A3 - Article has no content except for a rephrasing of the title. AvN 17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as A7. Jamie☆S93 19:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitebeak[edit]

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

Contested prod; fails WP:BAND. ~EdGl ★ 16:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie☆S93 13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Keuda[edit]

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

Unable to find any independent coverage in reliable sources. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reliable sources provided nor do I see any. The lead section fairly well states the case for its lack of notability. Looks to be a WP:NEO for the common domesticated house cat. If sufficient reliable sources are discovered somehow please notify me to reconsider this opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the article, which says "Not recognized by any major breed registry". It's hard to find clearer proof of non-notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Yarra River[edit]

History of the Yarra River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article consists almost entirely of the history section of the main article on the Yarra River. Any unique content could easily be merged into Yarra River. Michael Johnson (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response - Any suggestion that this article should be deleted is invalid as it has unique material within it, a merger would be the only warranted case. It is obvious that this article is still under construction, any suggestion that it should be merged or attempts to do so would be counter-productive to the contributions to the subject (being the history of the yarra river) and it should be noted that the best course of action in this case would be further development of the article in question. There is too much information to merge into the one section in the main Yarra River article, thus why it was split in the first place. Let's stop wasting time and start contributing to the history of the yarra river article by expanding upon it, developing it, sourceing information, taking photographs and obtaining old ones from historical societies, etc, etc. Merging and most certainly, deleting, are indeed counter-productive. Nick carson (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the history section of the Yarra river article. As far as I can tell, the article is substantially a copy of the history section. The history section of the main article is large but not unwieldy so there is no need for a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given by the nominators or in the discussion. It remains a mystery to me why anyone would think the article should be deleted (I'm not sure that there is any reason listed in WP:DEL stating that "blatant duplicate material" is "ready for deletion"). Any proposals to merge can be made on the article talk page, however I see no good reason for this either. The article proposed to be merged is 15K and the main article itself is already 42K. The topic is undeniably encyclopedic and there is good reason to expect it can be expanded quite substantially. A plethora of reliable sources are available. A split was entirely appropriate and perhaps even the preferred option in this case; this spun-out article should be allowed to expand and Yarra River#History should be rewritten in summary style. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Comment" The content is for all intents and purposes identical. Merging is not required. The question is why is the article needed? Certainly there is no point in referring to from the Yarra River article, all the infomation is already there. --Michael Johnson (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The content can't be "as far as I know" or "for all intents and purposes" it either is or it isn't identical. The content is actually not identical, there is unique content. Please help contribute to the History of the Yarra River article by helping expand it and improve it's quality. If anyone has issues with any content that is duplicated, we could reduce the scale of the history section of the Yarra River article, which I may or may not have already done after I split it into a new section. Nick carson (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 15:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Copy and paste fork from Yarra River. There is no reason to have a sub article when all the info is in the main article, and the main article is not too large. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a section of existing article. No need for duplication or fork. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment this is apparently a merge discussion, not afd. Personally, i don't see the point of keeping a breakout article with exact duplication of the content of the section in the main article, nor do I see any need for breakout, given the reasonable length of the main article. If the discussion resumes at the proper place, I'll say so. DGG (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. If it's the same as the content currently in the article, it's pointless being split out. However, this could be a notable topic if sufficiently expanded. Rebecca (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine-preventable diseases[edit]

Vaccine-preventable diseases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think this is a decent article. The writing is good, the information is good. My only concern is that it's utterly redundant to Vaccination and Vaccine. Hairhorn (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • WITHDRAWN: this article needed to be discussed more than it needed to be deleted; I'm satisfied that the discussion has ended in its favour. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



  • Merge would be fine if people are satisfied that redundancy isn't an issue. I was reluctant to suggest deleting a good article. I chose AfD because it prompts a discussion. Hairhorn (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I think keep is more appropriate than merge. Browse a few of the more significant resources in the search I linked to. Drawn Some (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a misperception of the importance or notability of this topic simply because in highly-developed nations vaccine-preventable diseases aren't as much of an issue as they are in parts of the world where millions die from them. This health department page on these diseases may be helpful: VPD Drawn Some (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this is a dictionary entry rather than an encyclopedic subject per WP:NOTDICDEF. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off task[edit]

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

A simple definition, original research - deleted yesterday anyway, and includes a talkpage full of bizarre (and in places violent) drivel, seemingly added by the IP of the article's creator. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 14:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little angels school[edit]

Little angels school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

School of questionable notability (asserted but not supported with citations) and questionable verifiability. Declined speedy delete, as CSD A7 does not apply to schools. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - article has been substantially rewritten to an encyclopediac format and is supported by proper references. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable spam Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have made a brief search and have not found any independent coverage at all. If they do exist the onus is on those wishing to keep the article to provide citations. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I did a brief Google search also. The results that I skimmed included the school's own web site (which I duly added) and several non-RS sites -- I think Classmates.com was one of them. Hence the AFD on questionable verifiability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the name, this is a large institution that includes high school and what looks like lower-level university classes. High schools are rightly or wrongly considered inherently notable. The primary issue is verification but primary sources can be used as sources in articles and there may be material in other languages. Drawn Some (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What source leads you to believe the institution exists? Hipocrite (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google search for ("little angels school" + lalitpur) reveals many reliable sources with trivial mentions. No doubt of the existence. Drawn Some (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep with total rewrite. The British Council says you can do GCEs there at this page (html version of a doc) so I imagine it does exist and is at high school level. I'll rewrite and watch it once the AfD closes unless anyone who knows anything about the place wants to. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. First of all there are plenty of sources to stand up verifiability, this and this for example. Secondly not only does this school educate at secondary level but at post-secondary which is a clear claim for notability. We should also be aware of systemic bias. TerriersFan (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn Some says "High schools are rightly or wrongly considered inherently notable." Considered by whom? Not by all Wikipedians. And saying "rightly or wrongly" concedes that it may be wrong. Then from Blue Square Thing we have "The British Council says you can do GCEs there". So what? There are thousands of schools where you can do GCEs. In any case I do not see how taking a particular type of exam relates at all to the Wikipedia notability policy; the essential criterion is significant coverage by reliable independent sources, and nobody has demonstrated that. Even Drawn Some, who favours keeping the article, refers to "many reliable sources with trivial mentions", which does not suggest substantial coverage, and what is more he doesn't even give citations for those "trivial" mentions, but merely asserts that they exist. Finally, TerriersFan says that there are "plenty of sources to stand up verifiability", and links to two of them. The first source linked merely mentions briefly that a person covered in the source made a speech at the school. I suppose TerriersFan does not intend this as irony, but I am bewildered how anyone can regard this as substantial coverage of the school. The second one gives a 3 sentence press release from the school which announces that the school is going to give a course on meditation. This is neither substantial nor independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah, I gave a link to a search result with MANY trivial mentions in reliable resources to support the existence of the school. My personal belief that all high schools should NOT be considered notable without consideration of their merits is totally irrelevant as it is community consensus that they ARE notable. Has anyone even checked for sources in other languages, say in Nepali, which would be the obvious first choice? I would find it hard to believe that there are no articles in papers in Nepali about a school with 4,000 students. And I suspect that if this were a British or Australian or U.S. or Canadian school and didn't have such a nursery-school name that it wouldn't even be listed here for deletion and that no one would be saying delete if it were. As the nominator points out, he wasn't sure. Editors should be open to changing their opinions in these discussions as new evidence or information is brought into the matter. Drawn Some (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that it is community consensus that all high schools are notable. There has been a good deal of argument about this, and it is by no means clear to me that consensus has emerged from that argument. What has emerged is a sort of resignation to the fact that those who take this view will usually have their way. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it prepares for the GCE, its a secondary school. all secondary schools are notable. We so far have concluded this by consensus at literally all verifiable high schools for the last 18 months. That a few people keep objecting to it is the reason why there is no guideline--as we presently work, a few people can do that on formal policy questions.Fortunately, we can form consensus by consistent practice at AfD. Incidentally, even if we did not so consider them, I would certainly consider this one, as a major HS for its area with connections to a national university. the reason we have the rule is to keep from arguing each individual HS. We are already facing 40,000 international relations AfD debates. We could potentially have about many times that number in high schools. In order to remove a few possibly non notable articles, it just isn't worth it. we have more important work to do at Afd. DGG (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, it's only potentially around 20,000 bilateral relations articles, (200x200)/2, because you don't pair France - Germany and then Germany - France again. Drawn Some (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks as though the "all schools are notable" line will win as usual, and perhaps in the case of this school that will be the right result. However, I am still not convinced that a notable school should not be able to show some sort of independent coverage, however minimal. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional resources including a very interesting in-depth interview with the founder regarding proposed nationalization of private schools by Maoists.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=100&q=%22little+angels%27+school%22+site%3Akantipuronline.com&btnG=Search especially http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=103430

Please remember that this school is in Nepal where less than 20% of the population is urbanized and the annual per capita GDP is US$1,100. The school has 700 teachers and 6,000 students. Drawn Some (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the best general search is ("little angels school" + katmandhu or katmandu) because Lalitpur is a district in the Katmandhu metropolitan area. That yields well over 1,000 hits. Drawn Some (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is now ample evidence that the school is notable. (This AfD proposal has resulted in work being done which has produced evidence of notability. I still think, as I said above, that notable schools will have evidence of notability, so that a special "schools don't need evidence" rule is completely unnecessary.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have done a bit of clean-up and added some references. Drawn Some (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a major school over there, and we should avoid the systemic bias of regarding things as non-notable that would be notable if they were in a Western industrialized country. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 03:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Professional Basketball League[edit]

Global Professional Basketball League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor basketball league that hasn't started play yet and has only two announced teams. More importantly, despite repeated requests to the article authors, there has been no citation to any reliable independent source establishing that this league or its teams are notable. The only sources cited are the league's and team's own websites and blogs. Also including Lancaster Liberty, a team in the league. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. The league and the Liberty are verified by the league's website. It is a professional league with professional teams and players. This nomination represents merely this person's opinion, which violates WP:POV. Instead of placing this tag, NawlinWiki misused his/her privileges to delete the page w/o any accountability. These pages should be allowed to remain since they're representative of a professional organization, just like every other minor league sports team page on Wikipedia. JaMikePA (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 14:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles are supposed to have independent sources, and this article is sourced only to the league's own web site, which is the opposite of an independent source. It is possible that this league may become notable in the future, particularly if it actually gets to the stage of actually playing games, but so far it has received no mainstream news coverage that I can find. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an independent source: [17].JaMikePA (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a three-line mention in a much longer online article. Not enough to meet WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, OurSportsCentral is a specialized news source (covering only minor league sports). I haven't been advised of any coverage in mainstream news media. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 03:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Duehay[edit]

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

This is an article for an obscure mayor of a town. It is only a few sentences long. It does not even have the mayor's date of birth. Unless it can be expanded, (which I doubt it can for someone so obscure), it should probably either merged, redirected, or deleted entirely. Bibbly Bob (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I totally agree with you on a delete, but the article has not been tagged for a deletion. There's a process that you have to go through before listing an article on the deletion forum. This was apparently part of a project to do an article about all the mayors of Cambridge, Massachusetts, but there is no inherent right to an article simply for having been a mayor of a city, and thus no entitlement to a stub. Unless there's some independent coverage of Mr. Duehay outside of the Boston area, I don't think he would qualify. Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would New York Times suffice? [18]. P.S. "Out of area" argument does not seem that strong knowing that Cambridge is home to MIT and Harvard. The publishing capacity of this little town is far above that of its peers and I won't rule out Harvard site at all [19]. NVO (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cambridge is not a town, but a city of over 1000,000. That's sufficient for notability. DGG (talk)
Last time it was over 100,000 - they grow fast these days :)) Anyway, a town of 100,000 qualifying as a city? NVO (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then. The idea that every mayor of every city in the world with over 100,000 people is "entitled" to his or her own article strikes me as ridiculous. Certainly, there's no policy of inherent notability for such persons. Mandsford (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone interested give a welcome hug to the nominator? He made first edit on May 15 (straight to AFD) [20] and no one, I mean no one on earth said a welcome... NVO (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you're suggesting, but it doesn't affect the merits of the debate. The New York Times articles that you've cited indicate that Mr. Duehay is notable for something other than having been the Mayor of Cambridge, which would suggest a keep on the merits. My objection is to the concept that someone is excused from demonstrating notability if he or she has ever served as a city mayor. Category:Mayors of Cambridge, Massachusetts is someone's pet project, but I think that most people would question the need for it. Mandsford (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Boldly redirected Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor Girl discography[edit]

Bachelor Girl discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In February 2009, it was suggested that this article be merged into the "Bachelor Girl" article, i later saw this and the contents of the this page is now on the "Bachelor Girl" article. That is why i suggest that this article be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusk (talk • contribs) 2009/05/17 21:17:59

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zap! (video game). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitfighter[edit]

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

Non-notable game. KuroiShiroi (contribs) 05:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This game is (apparently) an open-source implementation of Zap!. However, this article looks like a direct copy-paste job from that article. (But it doesn't even mention Zap!.) Isn't that already enough grounds for deletion? --DanielPharos (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note:Reference to Zap! now added.
  • Redirect – to Zap!. This is an exact copy of that page, with the addition of a couple of unnecessary external links and a how-to for online play—neither of which is needed in the article. MuZemike 21:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zap! is for all intents and purposes a dead project, whereas Bitfighter is still viable, so it may make more sense to redirect from Zap! to Bitfighter. Also, Bitfighter was derived from Zap!, and most of the gameplay elements are the same, hence, I suspect, the copy and paste. But it is not an exact copy of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.199.85 (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination is "clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion." Dispute has been properly reported at WP:ANEW; any further issues should be discussed on the talk page or other avenues identified at WP:DR. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Inter-Process Communication[edit]

Distributed Inter-Process Communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mohsen Sharifi from Iran University of Science and Technology has been using this page for personal propaganda. He has been claiming that DIPC is his idea and that he has been working on it since 1997. Please refer to DIPC's home page below to see why this is not so.

A quick Internet search shows that Mohsen Sharifi tried to sell DIPC by renaming it as "C-Sharifi" a few years ago. Failing to market this vaporware product (in spite of flooding the Internet with the same post), he has been trying to instead get credit for DIPC.

Professional and Ethical honesty is of utmost importance in all scientific matters. Wikipedia maintainers should either stop Mohsen Sharifi from misuing this page, or remove DIPC's page all-together, so it won't be misused any further for personal use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J123Jordan (talk • contribs) 2009/05/18 07:36:52

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. There does seem to be a superior version in the history, before an apparently long standing edit war broke out, apparently between Dr. Sharifi and his detractors.

    There may be issues with the notability of this whatever-it-is generally, but no grounds for deleting the article are stated in this nomination. AfD is not for resolving edit wars. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please Read: Many people have contributed to DIPC's design and development, but Mohsen Sharifi just isn't one of them. Allowing his comments to stay is unfair to everybody else who actually did something useful for the project. Mohsen Sharifi's contribution was to rename DIPC 2.1 as C-Sharifi (notice the name? He likes to possess things) and try to sell it. This is of course illegal because DIPC is GPL code.

So I'll try to provide evidence to show who did what in DIPC's development. Please notice Mohsen Sharifi's contribution in the list. It politely means "not much"

If the following doesn't settle the matter, I don't know what will.

  • ) From the file AUTHORS in Sourceforge's Alpha 3.0 version of DIPC:

"Original DIPC system by: Kamran Karimi ([email protected]) Version 3.0 by: Kyle Centers ([email protected])

See also docs/dipc.people for other contributions"

  • ) From the file docs/dipc.people in the 2.1-beta version of DIPC: (Sorry this is long. This file and Mohsen Sharifi's corresponding entry have been present since the first release of DIPC, but Mohsen Sharifi never contested it until after his C-Sharifi failed to sell)

"Here is a list of the people who have been involved in DIPC. 

In alphabetical order:

* Ralf Baechle ([email protected])
  Port of DIPC to Linux/MIPS.

* Andrew R. Baker ([email protected])
  Beta tester for DIPC on Linux/MIPS.

* Miguel Barreiro Paz ([email protected])
  Support for glibc.
  Port of DIPC to Linux/Alpha.

* Tim Bynum ([email protected])
  Donation and management of a web page and a mailing list for DIPC.
  Preparing DIPC's man pages.
  WAN tester.

* Diego Carvalho ([email protected])
  Got DIPC to work on SMP systems.
  Beta tester for DIPC on Linux/SMP systems.

* Greg Cavanagh ([email protected])
  Beta tester for DIPC on Linux/i386.
  Provided remote access to an i386 cluster for testing purposes.

* Hugo Delchini ([email protected])
  Beta tester for DIPC on Linux/PowerPC.
  Beta tester for DIPC on clusters with diskless machines.

* Armando de Oliveira Fortuna ([email protected])
  Beta tester for DIPC on Linux/i386.

* Padraig Finnerty ([email protected])
  Beta tester. Found the bugs in 1.1b.

* Kamran Karimi ([email protected])
  The original author.

* Paul Mackerras ([email protected])
  Beta tester for DIPC on Linux/PowerPC.
  Support for glibc 2.1.

* Michael Schmitz ([email protected])
  The main person behind DIPC's port to Linux/M68k and kernel 2.x.x.
  Network byte order data conversion.
  Support for glibc.
  Preparing DIPC's man pages.
  WAN tester.
  Suggested and implemented many corrections and improvments.

* Mohsen Sharifi ([email protected])
  Kamran Karimi's MS thesis advisor, and a great source of encouragement.

* Klaus Thielking-Riechert ([email protected])
  Helped in DIPC's port to Linux/M68k and kernel 2.x.x.
  Beta tester.
  WAN tester."  Kkarimi (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 03:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human equivalent[edit]

Human equivalent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Doubtful notability, lack of good references. DThomsen8 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any CSIRO publication is a reliable source. And there is no rule against using your own publication as a reference so long as it qualifies as a reliable source. To suggest that a mention on Wikipedia as a reference is somehow "product placement" is ridiculous. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The CSIRO publication cited may well be an entirely reliable source. What I do not know is how a definition of "human equivalent" happens to be defined in a book about sustainability gardening. Perhaps it is defined there, and the term "human equivalent" is a useful and respected term within the scientific community. If that is the case, there should be other reliable sources, whether on the Internet or in paper materials like books and magazines. These sources should be cited, otherwise deletion is the appropriate action. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer here is in the word "sustainability". However what worries me here is the lack of an assumption of good faith. On the one hand we have an established editor who writes an article defining a technical term, and uses a book he apparently wrote, published by a highly reputable scientific organisation, as a source. On the other hand we have several editors who express ignorance of the concept, but use that ignorance as the primary reason for deletion. In fact I cannot see where anybody has nominated a valid reason for deletion. Further as I show below, the origin of the nomination flows from a conflict between editors on another article. IMHO a far more reasonable action would have been to tag the article asking for further sources, rather than this premature, and apparently vexatious, nomination. --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The text of this article appears to be a copied excerpt of another article. See Energy > Section: Energy in various contexts since the beginning of the universe second paragraph. In its current version, this article does not meet Wikipedia article requirements. This article lacks the basic elements of a Wikipedia article and there doesn't seem to be any editors interested in expanding it. --Yourdailywiki (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would request the closing admin consider this and this. It appears this deletion nomination came out of a long standing dispute here. --Michael Johnson (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe that this deletion request in uncontroversial. Inviting editors to review and comment is within the guidleines. My research leads me to believe that the creator of the article has agreed to the deletion? If not may we hear from the editors of this article! My own observation and comments on the article are from a neutral point of view based solely on the merits of the article irrespective of any personal disputes. I would encourage all editors to do the same and consider the article and the deletion request objectively without emotion or personal bias. --Yourdailywiki (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google searches on the term "Human equivalent" result in a great many entries about Human equivalent drug doses, and not to this term as an energy unit. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Based on a reliable (if not electronically accessible) source. But the article should be broadened to include the concept of "human equivalent" in other contexts, such as HED (human equivalent drug dose). SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What is the point though of taking a non notable phrase and trying to make that into an article? As said above the text of this article appears to be a copied excerpt of another article with some non connected sourcing. See Energy > Section: Energy in various contexts since the beginning of the universe second paragraph. skip sievert (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An empty page created by the nominator, redirects are not within AfD's bailiwick, and the actual content has apparently been preserved at Submodalities_(disambiguation). Suggest we may also need a Submodality (disambiguation) page also. Question whether the page ought to be "Submodalities" anyways; WP:SINGULAR prefers titles to be in the singular. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Submodalities[edit]

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

It is proposed that the article titled Submodality be moved to Submodalities because this is its more common title in usage. The redirect page (Submodality) needs to be deleted first. --Action potential discuss contribs 03:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to disambiguate this usage in NLP from the usage in neurology. Compare the results if you search "submodalities" on google which mainly has results concerning NLP. In contrast the same search on google scholar has mostly articles about neurology. In NLP the submodalities are about the introspective features of internal representations. In neurology a submodality is the subcomponent of a sensory modality. So given this, maybe we need to renamed the article Submodalities (NLP) and have a disambiguation link for the usage in neurology. ----Action potential discuss contribs 06:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie☆S93 00:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natural art[edit]

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

A one-person art movement with no demonstrated notability and lacks any references. An article on the artist, Jacek Tylicki, was already deleted as non-notable. This neologism is an attempt to recreate that article under the name of his "art movement". freshacconci talktalk 12:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 03:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Choice Records[edit]

Your Choice Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Series of spammy articles on the label and a series of compilation albums put out by the label. All articles were created by the same editor (with some COI concerns) over the past few weeks with only minor edits by others. Not finding independent coverage in reliable sources of the company or these albums. Compilations rarely receive much interest from reviews though. Google hits are to CD sales sites. No indication of notability from the articles, just that they exist. RadioFan (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Your Choice Live Series Vol.03
Your Choice Live Series Vol.10
Your Choice Live Series Vol.12
Your Choice Live Series Vol.19
Your Choice Live Series Vol.20
Your Choice Live Series Vol.22
Your Choice Live Series Vol.25
Your Choice Live Series Vol.37
It's Your Choice - compilation
YCR - the 7 inches - compilation
  • Keep at first glance this looks quite obscure, probably difficult to find traditional sources for, but the based on the roster and history this looks like an obvious keep. riffic (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
okay, here's what I got so far for sources: [21] , "Your+Choice+Live+Series"&ei=Z1MSSsKYO4WqlQSi5vTZCQ&client=news#PPA1009,M1 , "Your+Choice+Live+Series"&dq="Your+Choice+Live+Series"&ei=Z1MSSsKYO4WqlQSi5vTZCQ&client=news&pgis=1 , "Your+Choice+Live+Series"&dq="Your+Choice+Live+Series"&ei=Z1MSSsKYO4WqlQSi5vTZCQ&client=news&pgis=1 I need help putting these into proper citations in the article they cover, thanks riffic (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 14:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP the label article, as many notable bands have released albums on it. Make one or two sections for the compilations an other more notable releases in the main article. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Label is obscure for sure, but a non-exhaustive search of releases shows them all to be by noteworthy bands. Obscurity alone isn't enough to merit deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability of the bands doesn't transfer to the label. WP:N insists on significant coverage in 3rd party sources to establish notability, so obscurity would be the problem here. --RadioFan (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability isn't inherited from the bands that recorded on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but - unless they're in the news or something - notability of a label is based largely on their release. So label roster is hardly irrelevant to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete label for failing to meet WP:CORP and the records for failing to meet WP:MUSIC#Albums. Lacking in significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, releasing that many albums seems to be enough for notability. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, the label did a great job by creating a special document of a special time in music history. Your Choice Records actually gives an insight into the possible success-story of a band like Nirvana. Nirvana would be nothing without all these "obscure" bands. And by the way: Nirvana drummer Dave Grohl actually took part in the Your Choice Live Series project with his earlier band Scream). Some so called "obscure" things are much more important to this world as they seem at first glance. If you really delete this, you would have to delete lots of similar pages of "obscure" labels, bands and releases like the releases of Dischord Records, Alternative Tentacles, SST Records and Touch & Go Records. Sorry, but this actually feels very close to censorship to me! There should be better things do do in this world, so please help to KEEP!!! Grapes-taste (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user has been blocked indefinitely due to sockpuppetry.
Comment This user has been blocked temporarily due to sockpuppetry.
  • Keep A record label is notable by how many notable bands it has signed. This one has plenty. Dream Focus 02:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all No indication that any of it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability in any way. DreamGuy (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
have you looked at any of the book sources I posted up above, from google book search? these would indicate notability, would they not? riffic (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • friendly advice: search for sources not only under "your choice records" but also under "your choice live series"! Party diktator (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These deletion discussions would be easier if good faith attempts at sourcing and assertions of notability weren't so quickly dismissed, and if articles weren't accused by nominators of being "spam". There's no reason why deletion nominations have to be so adversarial. If we can, we should save articles by making a real effort to find sources. The record label clearly does have *some* notability. The problem we have is whether the label is notable enough for an entry, and whether we can come up with adequate sourcing. For some background on the label, I dug an interview with a German fanzine out of the Internet Archive:[22] That might be some help in finding sourcing leads. Sourcing is understandably hard for a German label that ceased operations 6 years ago. I think we need more time for sourcing, and that the individual YCLS pages should be merged into this main one if it is kept. Fences and windows (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review of Shudder to think release on YCLS. Fences and windows (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 03:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mutual Fund Store[edit]

The Mutual Fund Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be written like an advertisement. No articles link to it, and it doesn't seem worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. It is however, not suitable of CSD. Neutralle 11:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked Adam Bold to this article. I believe this article is objective and notable for Wikipedia. Several secondary references have been included in the article. It is written with factual information. Follows formatting used in other articles on Wiki such as Edward Jones Investments and A.G. Edwards.


This is a major, national financial services company. How could Wikipedia not have an article on it? The Mutual Fund Store has 70 locations across the U.S. and is regularly referenced on Forbes.com, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Kiplingers, CNBC, and Bloomberg News. Nemiccolo (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fix advertising and POV issues if it's notable, otherwise delete. I can't claim expertise in notability of mutual fund companies. Hairhorn (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I edited this article so it wouldn't be an advertisement and I fixed the POV issue. Should now be good.Nemiccolo (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your edits are pretty minor, they still include press-release style statements about the company's "philosophy" and what it believes. Hairhorn (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the POV issues have not been fixed. The Mutual Fund Store can't believe anything, it's not a human being. I am sure that significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources exists but the author of the article can provide them. Drawn Some (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed All references to POV have been deleted. Nemiccolo (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to meet WP:CORP with WP:RS. Drawn Some (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five of the seven references are from credible, secondary sources. This article seems to be notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia.Rooney1113 (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The sources cited might be enough, and Adam Bond appears to be a regular commenter around the WSJ/Forbes universe, but I didn't find anything earth shattering to indicate the company is notable. There's a strong likelihood of more substantial coverage. While it would be ideal for those to be in the article, they don't all have to be in the article for it to be notable. Shadowjams (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The company is the "first nationally branded financial advisory firm for the mass affluent." In other words, for middle America, the largest segment of the US population. This alone makes it notable.Rooney1113 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Who they target does not make it notable. For instance, I have a plan to convince all humans with money to give me some... that's a big group. My plan's not really all that notable though. Shadowjams (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will all due respect, I believe there is quite a difference. Your plan is not an established business with over 20,000 clients and 70 locations. You, as the founder, are not asked to appear on major national television stations nor are you asked for your opinion in highly credible news publications. Your plan is not a successful business model that has been recognized and awarded by respectable organizations. There are no secondary sources of your plan as there are on this business. Let's please look at the facts when deciding the fate of articles and not over-the-top statements.Rooney1113 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • We're in complete agreement. I was merely responding to your statement "This alone makes it notable." As you note, it's the reliable sources, business model, and notability demonstrated through these things that is in fact notable. (Side note: the mutual fund store didn't appear on TV; it was an executive of the mutual fund store; the notability of the one doesn't prove that of the other).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armorlogic[edit]

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

This company appears not to meet the guidelines for inclusion. See this all-dates Google news archive search and do a general Google search. I saw one review that mentioned a product without covering the company, and other than that, only press releases. Bongomatic 07:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Bongomatic
  • Delete I agree with the nominator. The article was previously nominated for speedy delete and the article was created by a founder of the company. Smartse (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, more non-consumer software, referenced only to press releases or sources that aren't about this business or its specific products. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This review of their product is the only coverage I could find that wasn't a press release. That's not enough for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Don't delete it. There are many references and articles which refer to Armorlogic. Check out www.owasp.org which is the number one site and independent organization devoted to web application security. Also, just today this article came to my attention through my Google news alert http://www.darkreading.com/security/app-security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217400819. This article refers to two companies in the web security space, Armorlogic and Imperva. While this may not seem noteworthy to you, Armorlogic, and its product Profense, are definitely noteworthy to it's thousands of users and the web security world. I hope that is enough. I'm in a conflict here because I'm part of Armorlogic. I'm sure you can tell I don't know much about what I'm doing with Wikipedia as I'm mainly a user not a contributor. Any assistance or education you could provide would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewGWatson (talk • contribs) 04:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Oops, sorry I forgot to sign. MatthewGWatson (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC) — MatthewGWatson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The specific reference provided is a fleeting mention in an article about another topic. This doesn't constitute "significant coverage" per guideline. Bongomatic 05:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bongomatic, that is not accurate. It is an article about web application firewalls which is what Armorlogic makes. You can gain additional understanding of the topic on the wiki page for web application firewalls aka application layer firewalls. Of all the many makers of web application firewalls, this article mentions two - one of which is Armorlogic. Again, I don't know the threshold for noteworthy but it seems independent references by industry organizations like OWASP and industry articles which find the company is important enough and known enough to reference seem to point to them being noteworthy. MatthewGWatson (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bongomatic's charactierisation is accurate. The article is about web application firewalls. Armorlogic is mentioned in a single sentence and that is all. As per WP:NOTABILITY, this passing mention is not what could be characterised as significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Here are couple of more articles about Armorlogic/Profense which should contribute to the notability part. Windows IT Pro is a known online computer magazine. Undeadly.org is the official OpenBSD news site.
Danish Company Offers Free Web Application Firewall
Better Defenses for Your Web Applications and Database Servers
OpenBSD-based web application firewall -- ssehic (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC) — Ssehic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
First of those references appears to be a thinly edited copy of a press release from a source that may be reliable in the sense of providing accurate information, but not in terms of establishing notability. The second has only a passing mention of the company. The third is a forum posting. Bongomatic 13:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some links to resellers/distributors for your consideration
Argoworks a large US based reseller offering various services
Symtrex, another US-based reseller
DotForce - an italian distributor
2secure.biz, another US-based reseller, ssehic (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 10:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm unsure. I hate the fact that the article was made and edited mostly by one of the company founders. However there seems to be a fair number of hits and references for it. A few more references, good reliable ones, and I may swing to keep. Also a lot of the references appear to be for a different company, though upon digging they're not. Most references say the company is Danish, yet the article is about a Canadian company (that can't spell armour correctly if it is Canadian :) )Canterbury Tail talk 12:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide any of the references that you think demonstrate notability? Bongomatic 12:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Correctly noticed. Armorlogic is still a Danish company, but recently expanded to Canada and moved the headquarters there. Have a look at company info for more information., ssehic (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. There is not substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As to notability and reliable independent sources, the article itself refers to a review of the Company's product by Secure Computing magazine. Secure Computing is a major IT security industry magazine - a reliable, independent source. The review was comprehensive and mostly positive. I know there is a difference between product and company but surely a notable product makes a company notable? Also, we shouldn't be judging this against perfection. Check out the wiki articles on competitors like Barracuda. The Armorlogic article has more reliable independent source - Secure Computing, OWASP etc. As far as I can tell the main difference is that Armorlogic hasn't been sued. In some respects, maybe that makes Armorlogic more notable:) MatthewGWatson (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barracuda Networks seems to be fairly well sources and well edited and looks notable. This subject, not so much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails WP:CORP and reads like a WP:ADVERT. Furthermore, wp is not a place for advertising. Matthew, I'm afraid that Barracuda is more notable because it's been sued so has more coverage in the reliable sources we're looking for. Read those policies carefully and consider whether you can craft an article (or possibly, to avoid WP:COI, persuade me to) on your software. Or go and (alledgedly) rip off some patents and make sure someone writes about it ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie☆S93 00:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web video player[edit]

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

An unsourced how-to guide. Possibly original research. Alexius08 (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie☆S93 00:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Curley[edit]

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

Contested PROD, reason given was that he "played at the highest level for his country as part of the Learning Disabilities team". Has also gone through a previous AfD in October 2006.

Curley hasn't played at a fully-professional level so fails notability at WP:ATHLETE and general WP:N. The England Learning Disabilities team isn't the highest level he could play at, as it is a subsidiary of the England national football team, which he would still be eligible to play for. Footballers from other England national teams, such as the England semi-professional and youth teams do not become eligible for representing England at those respective levels. --Jimbo[online] 08:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how the England Learning Disabilities team is the highest level of anything. Punkmorten (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 11:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as player fail WP:ATHLETE. John Sloan @ 13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable athlete who hasn't competed at a high-enough stage to be considered Wikipedia-worthy. Cheers. I'mperator 14:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above --ClubOranjeT 11:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - England LD team clearly isn't the highest level he could play at. It's not like the case of an amputee or a blind person, who clearly could not compete against able-bodied professionals. This guy was on the books of Chelsea as a youth and still plays at a high semi-pro level, so clearly could have gone on to play professionally and potentially even for the full England team had he turned out to be good enough..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a disruptive nomination. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush substance abuse controversy[edit]

George W. Bush substance abuse controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The only notable and verifiable piece of information here is George W. Bush's 1976 DWI conviction and his self description of his alcohol use before age 40 as abuse. This does not deserve its own article. The rest of the entry is non-notable speculation from liberal bloggers or columnists that George W. Bush has either abused drugs or alcohol after age 40. Several claims in this entry are dubious and clearly come from sources that are speculative. Other claims clearly attempt to insinuate substance abuse when source does not explicitly verify this, in violation of WP:SYN. Page was nominated for speedy deletion under CSD-G10 as an attack page that had no hope of salvation. ResearcherInFlorida (talk) 08:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This page was created as a daughter article to the main George W. Bush bio to accommodate all the facts about this subject, in greater detail than the main bio. The nominator's description of the article is inaccurate. With regard to alcohol, the article describes his arrest for disorderly conduct as well as the DWI incident. It also goes into more detail about his troubles with alcohol and about his decision to stop drinking (including Billy Graham's part in that decision). The article also includes information about other drugs. Contrary to the nominator's assertion, the article is not "non-notable speculation from liberal bloggers or columnists"; it includes information from his authorized biography, from a family friend, and from Air Force records. JamesMLane t c 09:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Proliferation is non-encyclopedic. Knobbly (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to George W. Bush, but, to make sure the article isn't too bloated, omit some of the lesser, finer details. Cheers. I'mperator 15:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep, but don't delete. Hairhorn (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lest we soon forget. Definitely notable as the subject of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no question about it, the subject is notable and reliable sources are available. Any unreferenced allegation should be remove per WP:BLP but this is far from an attack page. --Jmundo 18:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is extremely notable and was well covered in the mainstream press at the time. His drug use seems to have been deleted from the article; this needs to be reincluded as well, again from reliable sources that have discussed the matter. This should be mentioned in the main bio page but there really is enough here for a separate article. csloat (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:BLP and WP:GRAPEVINE, poorly self-published sources (WP:SPS) speculating about George W. Bush's potential drug use would be akin to creating an article called Barack Obama substance abuse controversy and populating the article with quotes from Larry Sinclair. As the original nominator, I am leaning merge or keep now (more keep since there is a lot of information here already). ResearcherInFlorida (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment This citation from the article disproves, definitely for the purposes of WP:BLP, poorly sourced allegations of drug abuse. Link ResearcherInFlorida (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's silly; we're not here to "prove" or "disprove" allegations such as this. What your cite "proves" is that allegations of George Bush's drug abuse were notable enough of an issue to be covered by the NYT. Certainly we can include quotes or references to that article, and others like it, but to censor mention of this based on the claim that the NYT "disproves" it (by a quote from a party buddy suggesting that Bush really wasn't all that wild-and-crazy) is ridiculous. csloat (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The new user who began this AfD decided to "close" his own AfD less than a day after its creation. He moved the article to a new title, then made it a redirect, and removed most of the information from it, including quite a bit that was properly encyclopedic. I've requested admin help in undoing the resulting mess. In the meantime, the article under discussion, in its last good version before these unilateral changes, can be seen here. JamesMLane t c 23:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All undone now, the AfD can proceed as normal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have restored the article to the original title. Keith D (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Having this as a separate article places undue weight on Mr. Bush's admitted use of alcohol and cocaine. Moreover, the title itself is a problem - there's no controversy over his use of alcohol and cocaine (he admitted it), so the article title is non-neutral. Regardless of any problem's with the nominator's style of editing, his suggestion to merge to Early life of George W. Bush is a good one. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The article was originally created for exactly the opposite reason. Some editors felt that having this much information as part of a bio of Bush would give too much weight to this aspect of his life, an objection that would probably apply even if it were merged into the "Early life" article rather than the main bio. (Of course, given that some of the material relates to his later life, "Early life" isn't a good merge target anyway.) Other editors felt that leaving only a passing mention in the bio article, and expunging the more detailed information entirely, was a disservice to our readers, because it involved pointlessly losing some data that met Wikipedia's standards. The daughter article was the way to keep all the information available without giving rise to complaints that it took up an inordinate share of the space in the bio article. As for cocaine, he sort of hinted at admitting it, but didn't come right out and admit it. A title that assumed as fact that he used cocaine would be POV. JamesMLane t c 04:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The burden of proof rests with those wishing to add new material. The material of this artcile could easily be summarised and mereged with the parent article. Furthermore this article being about a living persons runs the rist of not having a NPOV and is contrary to this Wiki principle: "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source" (WP:GRAPEVINE) Besides which biographies of living people should use reliable third party information and not delve into speculation. (WP:WELLKNOWN) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knobbly (talk • contribs) 05:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable controversy about a prominent public figure. Allegations of drug use should be sourced and limited to reliable sources, yes, but deletion of the article would be taking WP:BLP too far. John Callender (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John Callender. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for sure. At least some of this material is worthwhile and properly sourced, and the defenders of W will never consent to allowing it back into the main article, so the existence of this article is a necessary compromise. "Thou shalt never speak ill of my favorite politician" is a ludicrous position to take, especially on Wikipedia. Paul (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A sufficiently major issue, though of course care should be taken in sourcing. DGG (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge that he had to give up drinking is important part of his life story and a number of biographers have persuasively made the claim that his success with alcohol effected his world view, self belief, etc... positively. I have no doubt that he used drugs when he was younger (enough decent sources have vouched for that). The long and short? This can easily be distilled to two relevant, well-cited paragraphs that would slot well into his biography. This is over long and an uneeded fork (i find the length concerns unpersuasive because i believe the meat here is easily distilled to about 100 words).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though 'controversy' is really not the right word and anything unverifiable should definitely be removed. Peter Grey (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Merging is possible as well, but I assume the split was made to avoid it overwhelming the main article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - i agree with User:Bali ultimate and User:Peter Grey. this could easily be condensed and merged, but if the vote is to keep, the word 'controversy' should be changed. if wikipedia is ever to become a legitimate scholarly tool, all the 'controversy' pages need to be deleted. and after rereading this article, the only passages that allude to controversy are the ones that suggest Bush actually passed out drunk rather than choked on a pretzel, and that Bush probably stopped flying because of future mandatory drug tests. and both sources for these claims read more like gossip columns. all of this should be cleaned up and merged into main biography page. Anthonymendoza (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The following passage from the article isn't gossip; it's cited to an AP story and The New York Times:

In the taped recording of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions,” Bush says. “You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.”[15] When Wead reminded Bush of his earlier public denial of using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything."[16]

So this information is well-sourced and is certainly of interest, as an unusual statement for a U.S. politician to make, but an attempt to merge it will surely meet with resistance from people who scream "undue weight". This is only one example; there's a fair amount of well-sourced information in this daughter article that some readers might want but that some editors will fight to keep out of the main bio. That's why there's a daughter article, per Wikipedia:Summary style. If this AfD is closed as "merge", I trust that you and all the other merge supporters will join me in making sure that the information is indeed merged as opposed to being suppressed. JamesMLane t c 18:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, i think that passage belongs in the main biography page. it's equivalent to this passage from Bill Clinton:
In later life he admitted to smoking cannabis at the university, but claimed that he "never inhaled".[15][16]
what do you make of the two specific passages i cited above? clearly those do not belong, right?Anthonymendoza (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your specific examples. The "pretzel" incident and the Guard testing information are sourced to a British cabinet officer and a prominent mainstream journalist, respectively. They're properly encyclopedic. On the other hand, I'm not arguing that every word of the article is sacrosanct. The three episodes mentioned at the end of the alcohol section -- G8 summit, Napolitano lunch, APEC summit -- are borderline at best.
What's relevant to this AfD, though, is that even the material that would survive an excessively intense pruning would still be too much to merge. I see your point about including the Wead passage in the main bio, but I'm confident that it would take a Herculean effort by several editors to get it there. Furthermore, even if that succeeded, there's a lot of other information -- detail about Bush's problems with alcohol, Billy Graham's role in the event, etc. -- that simply wouldn't fit in the main article without overburdening it or drawing cries of "undue weight". As with any President of the United States, there's simply too much else that has to be covered. It's not uncommon to have multiple daughter articles even as to unsuccessful recent presidential candidates (e.g., John Kerry and John McCain). Heck, even Sarah Palin has multiple daughter articles. For someone who actually spent eight years as President, the amount of valid material that can be considered for inclusion in the main article is far greater. The result is that a lot of significant and interesting information must be relegated to daughter articles. JamesMLane t c 03:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Heck, even Sarah Palin has multiple daughter articles." Is one of them pregnant? ;P csloat (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nomination is in bad faith, as evidenced by his subsequent article creation. Further, this article has about two dozen citations from reliable sources, and doesn't present the information in a ridiculous, inflammatory style. Looks fairly well kept within the leash of BLP. ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nja247 06:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark–Moldova relations[edit]

Denmark–Moldova relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination, non resident embassies. No visits by either leaders, total trade is less than USD8M [23]. Danish Foreign Ministry entry on Moldova mentions one human trafficking program for Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. Appears to be no coverage of relations except competing in the same football competition [24] . not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. another boiler-plate creation, with not the slightest hint as to why this relationship is worth noting. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No third-party coverage of the topic as a whole exists. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-direct - Only for the purpose of saving the name, it can be redirected to one of the new lists on Bilateral relations. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing here other than directory entry. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge despite pleas of helping merge these articles, nominator continues to noiminate new articles. I have already collected all of this information to merge, so this is a pointless empty gesture, an argument over a redirect, not an article. Ikip (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since i find no reliable sources that treat this relationship in a fashion that would establish notability for the relationship. Not sure what there is to "merge" since there's no sourced material in the article at the moment. Unsourced means unverified and basically useless (and also dull as dishwater -- no assertion of notability, just of the "x recognized y in year z" variety). Anyone motivated to conduct the appropriate research and use citations to support something about these two countries in some other article, will have just as much of a task in front of them after this unsourced stub is deleted as before it was deleted. This article, on a topic of no notability apparent to me, remains, so i'm not sure how the AFD is a "pointless empty gesture."Bali ultimate (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possible merge. There is insufficient material and notability as is, but I wouldn't oppose merging with the relevant "Diplomatic relations of..." articles. HJMitchell You rang? 23:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nja247 06:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver C. Thomas[edit]

Oliver C. Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is not established by local newspaper sources. The only thing he is partly notable for, that is being president of an association, has zero hits on Google News; a Google search of ""Texas Good Roads/Transportation Association" Oliver Thomas" brings up this article, a few obituaries, and other things that don't look to be related. Lastly, I believe that there are plagiarism problems with the article and its primary source, the obituary. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as withdrawn by nominator and no delete votes --Random832 (contribs) 13:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobson's[edit]

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

Unsourced article about unnotable company. Tagged for more references since August 2006, the only citations are from the company website and a possibly-unreliable company history.

I can't trust both of them and what is left to improve it are 642 hits, not enough to establish the reputation of this company. Alexius08 (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Here are a few potentially useful sources: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], etc. You have to play around with your search terms and use Google News archive to find the good stuff. And what is that you're using, Latin google? Just curious.... :) Zagalejo^^^ 07:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and historic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zagalejo's sources, asserts notability as a sizeable regional chain with significant history. The Funding Universe source appears reliable as well. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 642 hits isn't enough for you? :-P Seriously, I just added a few sources to the article and expanded it, and am still left wondering why every single retail article on Wikipedia sucks so badly. Clearly nobody else cares about one of my areas of expertise. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in this case the main author had to leave the project rather suddenly shortly after starting the article… – iridescent 22:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hah. Sweet. It was started by a MyWikiBiz sock. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are enough sources to prove notability. Tavix |  Talk  02:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—I commend TenPoundHammer for the excellent work he did bringing this article up to a reasonable standard that can obviously be kept. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now speedy keep, seeing the difference between the pre-AfD version and the revision by TenPoundHammer. Much improvement. Alexius08 (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie☆S93 00:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas E. Locke[edit]

Thomas E. Locke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Don't believe this individual meets the notability requirements. The only coverage is local newspapers, I can't get any ghits that look relevant, and his only claim to fame seems to have been not playing for the Brooklyn Dodgers; he was president of a now-defunct bank and that's about it. The article before I nominated it here read like an obituary, which Wikipedia is not. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per, well, the nom. If kept, I would really like to see the obituary that most of this article is sourced to after reading through another one of the creator's articles, Oliver C. Thomas, and the main source (an obituary in the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal) and finding a substantial amount of plagiarism. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like this is the obituary and this is the memorial notice. I tried a couple of database searches on the guy, and the only material I got was editorial letters written by a "Thomas E. Locke" in The Daily News of Los Angeles. This man's from Texas, though, so probably a different person. Shubinator (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a "prominent banker" at the municipal level isn't noteworthy. Hairhorn (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Hairhorn. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 03:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chikamaka[edit]

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

This article exists solely for the purpose of attempting to validate a fraudulent entity in Grundy County, Tennessee, calling itself "Chikamaka". There is not and never has been a tribe called the "Chikamaka" or any other variation of that name. Indeed, Richard Fields himself remarked to Br. Steiner of the Moravian Brethren when asked the question, "What kind of people are the Chickamauga?", that "They are Cherokee, and we know no difference". The "Chikamaka" of Grundy Co. are merely one of scores of such groups attempting to usurp Cherokee heritage by establishing fake groups such as this. As long as this article exists, Mr. Meeks will continue to perpetrate the fiction. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name Chikamaka is a trademark of the Chikamaka Band. This page gives reference to the historicity of the people who are a part of the Chikamaka Band. These people are descended from the Chitimauca, Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Chickasaw, Choctaw, Delaware, Mohawk, Shawnee, Catawba, their white allies the Tories (mainly Scottish and Irish), and several smaller tribes. If the group was attempting to usurp "Cherokee" heritage, why would the reference be to all the Tribes/entities to which heritage can be traced. This entity has existed and continues to exist. James Everett Meeks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete. Article has egregious conflict of interest issues, and primarily seeks to promote a cause. Its tone is inappropriate, and the veracity is suspect. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. COI, looks like it's been cut and pasted. There may be a notable topic here, but the current page doesn't show it (possibly due to edit war). Perhaps the user needs to work on it as a user page and recreate once it's more polished? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real sources--and a long list of external links does not count as such--wildly inappropriate tone and original research means that this does not belong here. Perhaps Mr Meeks can continue to host it at his own web site, and an uninvolved person--if he or she can find valid evidence for this tribe's existence--can write an appropriate article. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or complete neutral rewrite. Hairhorn (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether or not there was a Chickamauga/Chikamaka tribe, the term is in wide use and is notable one way or the other. See bookseach and wesearch on Chikamaka; and on "Chickamauga Tribe". Not saying that the article as it currently is doesn't need a re-write and better sourcing - but that is not a deletion rationale. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All those quotes are exactly the same and, therefore, clearly from the same source, so basically it amounts to a single source, with incorrect information. There was never a "Chickamauga" tribe seperate from the Cherokee. That is a historical fiction invented by J. P. Brown. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time believing that all 82 google book hits linked above to "Chicamauga tribe" are exactly the same, and that none of them are reliable sources. And the searches above are very restricted searches, using more general terms turns up even more. Nancy Lee Rhoden, Ian Kenneth Steele, The Human Tradition in the American Revolution, (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000), p. 132 refers in passing to the Chickamauga Indians, or any number of books in this search which talk about Chickamauga Indians. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks are completely irrelevant to the current discussion of this specific article. It is a matter of fact, however, that no such entity as a "Chickamauga" tribe seperate from the rest of the Cherokee ever existed. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree. Using reliable sources to establish notability is precisely the point of an AfD. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has been speedy-deleted for bltant copyright violations. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 12:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie☆S93 00:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Wolfe Pereira[edit]

Steven Wolfe Pereira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. BLP without sources. Article is autobiographical. KuroiShiroi (contribs) 05:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12, copyright violation. Copied from the CNET Editor's review. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Backup[edit]

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

Non-notable software that is basically an advertisement. KuroiShiroi (contribs) 03:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KuroiShiroi (contribs) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin's Eatery[edit]

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

No indication of notability. KuroiShiroi (contribs) 03:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per this Google News Archive search. Notability is confirmed by this source from the Washington Post, this source from Beacon Journal, this source from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, etc. This restaurant chain easily passes WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Projectify. I'm on the fence. Although the articles Cunard found clearly establish notability, I think the current article is of sufficiently crappy quality to delete anyway. So to avoid having a bad quality article lying around, I suggest we move this to the project space of Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink until such time it's ready for mainspace again. See it as userfication for improvements. - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, notability is established by reliable sources. --Jmundo 16:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Bad quality" is a reason to improve an article, not to send it to purgatory. The article is more likely to get the attention it needs here than in project space. Either way, there doesn't seem to be any dispute that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, even if it doesn't meet some other editors' personal criteria for inclusion. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article has been greatly improved and notability has been established by added sources. --kelapstick (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 04:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark orbit[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for speedy, which an editor converted to a prod which was contested without comment. No initiative has been shown to improve the article. I have been unable to find reliable sources to verify notability - 1,000,000 Ghits for "Dark Orbit", most of cheat sites and youtube videos. When unencyclopedic content is removed, not much is left. —LedgendGamer 23:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. The article is dreadful, but the game does seem to have some coverage on Google News. I've not got the energy to check if the sources are reliable, and many are not in English, but don't delete it without looking through those sources first! Fences and windows (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frustratingly the English language hits are just press releases. If I were to pick out a handful of the most promising sources for translation, I'd go for [30] and [31] - they are sizable, mention the game several times and look reliable. Marasmusine (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I cannot find anything notable using this unashamed search engine test as well as WP:SBST at least because the article is unable to establish self-notability. However, I recognize that this could change and would frown if this afd was referenced in a future debate over a revived Dark orbit. ZabMilenko 17:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and borderline speedy deletion per either A7 (open to interpretation) or G11. Borderline advertisement, and definitely nothing that can establish notability here. MuZemike 18:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Its subscriber base (1 million) is impressive and is, in my opinion, sufficient to establish self-importance under A7. Your claim for G11 also seems weak. Nanowolf (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep The game may be somewhat notable due to its "real money"-to-"game money" scheme, which is referenced here (translated automatically from Google, so please bear with it). Nanowolf (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This game has over a million subscribers so it should not be deleted because i know of people who have used wikipedia to try and find resources on the game. If you want to, feel free to edit it and post pictures you can do so. 23:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeforthelolz (talk • contribs)

Frankly, it's probably too late for such people to come and edit the article now; this AfD has been relisted once already, and is getting pretty close to closure. It might be a better idea to userfy and work on it for now. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'm throwing in a last-minute weak keep. As I linked to above, I feel that some of the non-english hits on Google News are suitable for the general notability guideline (see also WP:BIAS) Marasmusine (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question It says on their site "Play now and compete against thousands of real players" and I see 48000 people online right now. Where is the claim that they have 18 million registered users? Any reliable way to gauge their net traffic? Alexa is too faulty, as many have proven in the past. Dream Focus 03:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bedcation[edit]

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

Nothing indicates this term even exists. KuroiShiroi (contribs) 02:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mestre Ombrinho[edit]

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

I declined the speedy deletion and prodded for lack of independent sources, the article creator removed the prod, and we still have no independent sources. See talk page and the edit summaries. Btw, Capoeria is a cross between a martial art, a sport and dancing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of football players from Non-FIFA nations[edit]

List of football players from Non-FIFA nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced list. No indication of what makes a 'nation' eligible for listing, or what makes a player eligible for the nation. Stu.W UK (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't see the point of this list at all. For example, some of the players (Kasey Wehrman) listed under the Aboriginal flag have played for Australia and they are all Australian citizens, I would think. I havn't heared of an Aboriginal national football team. While there is a Category:Indigenous Australian soccer players, I don't think there is a "national" team. EA210269 (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hardly verifiable and imho absolutely unneeded. --Angelo (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, strange way of categorizing footballers. Does not belong. Punkmorten (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because there's some crappy entries doesn't mean the entire list is without merit. We have a clear definition of what a nation is, so all entries about ethnic groups without an actual attached nation should be cut. If we have a list of association football players, there's no reason to have a list for ones that aren't affiliated with an association. In fact, it makes sense to. - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can see, all of the pages linked from the List of Association Footballers article now redirect to the relevant 'Football in (Country)' article. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 06:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except Denmark, Taiwan which are bland meaningless lists, Canada and USA which link to Categories, Zambia which is is a rather bland list of all Zambians, and Brazil - which at least is a good cross reference between "player names" and "birth names".--ClubOranjeT 11:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This list is un-verifiable and inaccurate in many places, and has no place on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 11:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless list that fails WP:V. John Sloan @ 13:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not notable. Basically fails 1,2,(arguably 3), 4, 6, 7, 8 of WP:LISTCRUFT--ClubOranjeT 11:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a list that has nothing to do with football, it is also impossible to complete as there are millions of people from Catalonia. Also Rafael van der Vaart is Yeniche. Plus the list is mostly covered in better detail here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_players_with_dual_nationality Spiderone (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Most of these players play for the FIFA-affiliated national teams of their countries, not for unaffiliated subnational teams. The fact that they might, in some alternate reality, have chosen to play for the non-affiliated teams reflecting their place of birth or ethnicity does not rise to the level of something that should be an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|(talk) 10:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kellow Chesney[edit]

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

Not sure what to make of this. To start with, there is simply no context. It reads like a bio, that's all. Disputed prod, the disputer said "notability is hinted at", assuming due to the fact of the external likes. However, those external links are simply commercial sites. He wrote a, or more than one, book. That's all? Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, as I think a talk page discussion for the Prod may have given more insight, and it appears as if this is a relatively notable author even though the article is of poor quality and does not describe why. The author's work The Victorian Underworld is cited in more than a few Google Book searches, such as Miriam Dixson The Real Matilda:Woman and Identity in Australia, 1788 to the present,Helen J. Self's Prostitution, Women, and Misuse of the law and G.W.M. Reynolds by Anne Humpherys, Louis James. Mrathel (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Inclusion in Gale contemporary Authors is enough. It's a major selective encyclopedic reference work, with edited independent articles. It's a sufficient source for anyone. We cover everything and everyone in other encyclopedias, except the most specialized ones which give non-selective coverage. DGG (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:CREATIVE as his books are held in many significant libraries, including university and research libraries. I will point out that Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion may differ from another encyclopedia's guidelines and each subject should be judged on its merits by our guidelines. Drawn Some (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finland–Mongolia relations[edit]

Finland–Mongolia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination, non resident embassies, seems to be little media coverage of bilateral relations except chess tournaments they've competed in. [32]. Finnish foreign ministry says nothing! not really rescuable LibStar (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, if information is saved, then the history needs to be saved for attribution purposes. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent coverage of the article's stated topic as a whole. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacking encyclopedic content. If any sources are found, the relevant information can be included in the Foreign relations articles for the countries involved. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Honorary consulates are just that and chess matches are only notable as foreign relations under certain circumstances, such as the Cold War. Fails the "significant coverage" test of WP:NOTE. Deleting one of the most worthless of these odd pairings every now and again is more helpful than not. Drawn Some (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- with 203 countries, there is a potential for many thousands of these articles (e.g. Greenland+Nepal, Nepal+Vanuatu ad (almost) infinitum). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More WP:N whimsy. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak Keep as two countries with very problematic interests with the intervening country, there is probably something interesting if people looked. Very week keep, not keep, because i cant keep up with researching as fast as people can keep nominating. DGG (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"probably something interesting if people looked" -- that doesn't seem a very strong reason to keep. Moreover, given Russia's size we will have a great number of these based on that reasoning som -- as noted below -- on opposite sides of the world. I think a stronger a priori reason is needed. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Russia's a bit of a special case as an "intervening country"; Finland and Mongolia are on opposite sides of the world. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mgm. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There isn't a relationship. Policy whizzes, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure, at the very least, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and so on and so forth require, if implicitly, that the subject of an article actually exists! In this case, there is no relationship of which to speak, thus there is nothing to keep or merge. HJMitchell You rang? 00:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, random X-Y intersection article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable secondary sources adress these relations. Hipocrite (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cameroons national football team[edit]

Southern Cameroons national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This team is not notable. Their 2 'internationals' have been a 30 minute game against a team representing the Chechen diaspora and a game pictured here against the 'Romani nation' on what appears to be a dirt pitch. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not really a notable team: two games are definitely not enough to establish notability for a football team --Angelo (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable team. GiantSnowman 11:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article about a non-notable national team. John Sloan @ 13:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nja247 06:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romani people national football team[edit]

Romani people national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks evidence of notability. --Angelo (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment could you expand the AfD as to why this team is non-notable. --Jimbo[online] 11:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The team has played one match. There are photos of the match here. A google search for their alleged national association returns no notable results. Stu.W UK (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable team. GiantSnowman 11:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another article about a non-notable national football team. John Sloan @ 13:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is another of those nation-less national teams. In this case it is even more absurd as the history of the Romani is practically defined by their statelessness. Drawn Some (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I make my words what some guy said in another Articles for Deletion: the whole POINT of non-affiliated national sides, such as members of the NF board, is that they are non-notable, but the fact that they ARE recognised by an affiliation (in this case, NF-Board means they should stay. Furthermore, for anyone who is a fan of soccer, the passion involved in trying to get a national team together and enter it for various competitions such as the Viva Cup, the Island Games, etc etc., is fascinating in itself. I have looked at this page and all the other similar pages many times over the years I've been on Wikipedia, and as a member of a community that consults football results constantly. Also a team registered in a international federation is not less notable then the dozens of non-league teams that has a article over wikipedia --Calapez (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. I don't see why being affiliated to the NF Board makes them automatically notable, especially given that I would estimate that 99% of football fans have never even heard of this organisation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshino Fuuta[edit]

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

Non-notable author that fails WP:BIO and specifically WP:CREATIVE. First AfD was closed solely on the bases that the original nominator was blocked for making a personal threat. Since none of the the comments raised in the first discussion were ever considered by the closing admin, they should be taken into consideration when this AfD closes. Relisted per DRV. Farix (Talk) 01:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails both WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. One wouldn't expect too many libraries to hold his work or for there to be significant in-depth reliable sources about him and that does seem to be the case. If someone can conclusively demonstrate otherwise please notify me on my talk page. Drawn Some (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whoever he is, he has a shitload of torrents available online. Someone is reading his stuff. I expect he's more noteworthy in Japanese than he is in English. Hairhorn (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Characters of Lost. What is clear is that consensus is for merge. What is not clear is whether to merge to Characters of Lost or Desmond Hume. I will let that be determined through further discussion, but the bottom line is to merge to one of those two places. For now, because I'm forced to put down something, I'm sending it to Characters of Lost. Discuss. Valley2city‽ 08:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Widmore[edit]

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

Penny does not need her own article, really not that notable. Limited impact on the show and real world significance. The text below is mostly copied from other episode summaries. The character should be merged back into Characters of Lost. Tphi (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, merge the content back to the list of characters. And possibly to Desmond's article. --Tone 08:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just merge it to Desmond's article. There is no reason to delete the underlying history. - Mgm|(talk) 10:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely, pointless article. Leave it in the Characters of Lost - Bahoral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.82.92 (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Characters of Lost, reception section about her relationship with Desmond should be integrated into Desmond Hume. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 22:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: there are not many real-world sources available, but enough for an article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: True, but these sources mostly comprise discussion of the Desmond/Penny relationship, which is dealt with already on Desmond's page. Tphi (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Desmond Hume; this character and her reception are so closely tied to Desmond's that there's no real point in her having a page on her own. --CF90 (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nja247 06:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gozo national football team[edit]

Gozo national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not verifiable. On the Gozo FA website, there is no mention of a national team under history. In fact, the 'national team' section of the site is about the Maltese national team! Stu.W UK (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per evidence by nominator. --Angelo (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable team. GiantSnowman 11:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V and WP:N. John Sloan @ 13:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Gozo's national side is going to get more an more coverage, now it is agreed that Gozo will not only host the 2010 VIVA World Cup but have a very favourable draw for the 2009 cup in Padania. People find these stats fascinating, and enjoy following the results of fledgling barely recognised teams. Of course they're non-notable: that's why these cups etc have been created for them especially.Tris2000 (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if they do indeed "get more an more coverage" then recreate when they do, although I don't actually think this is very likely as I would estimate that 99% of football fans and the media don't care in the slightest about the VIVA World Cup. Keeping an article based on the presumption that the subject will start to gain coverage in the future violates WP:CRYSTAL big-time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - there's clearly evidences that the team exists, you can see for the amount of news concerning the VIVA World Cup 2010 that will be organized by them [33] [34] [35]. Also they will play in one month in the VIVA World Cup 2009. Tell that Gozo FA doesn't mention their team is a joke because it's clearly news about them in their website. --Calapez (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Those articles are all about the VIVA World Cup. None of the articles is about the team. They all refer in passing to a possible Gozo 'representative team'. None of the articles mentions the team competing in 2009. Still not notable. Stu.W UK (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carminia Ammia[edit]

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

No real evidence of notability provided in the article. All Google book mentions appear to be trivial in nature. ThaddeusB (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Half of the brief article isn't even about her, it is about her husband, her son, and her granddaughter. Out! Brianyoumans (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I added the correct source for this. She and her family are well-documented. We could likely make articles for the others as well. DGG (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps one article for the whole family might be more appropriate? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps one article for the family, and some for the most specifically notable members, because there are some more notable than she . But as it was, she seems to have held significant municipal office. Actually reading the cited source, there seem to be at least a dozen more articles possible here. DGG (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per DGG. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have just created a link to this article from Carians and plan to add more when I have time. There may be an argument for extending this article to cover other members of the family, but just deleting it would IMHO weaken Wikipedia rather than strengthening it. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will be more than happy to withdraw this nomination if the article is rewritten to be about the family in general (with the possibility of further articles being created about the most notable members) and moved to The Carminii of Attouda or something similar. I suppose she might be able to meet notability guidelines in her own right, but it doesn't seem like a separate article is really needed since there won't be a great deal to say about any one member of the family. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's safe to say that people from the second century are notable per se if anything at all is known about them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to withdraw my nomination on the basis that the content belong (at minimum) as part of a larger article. I certainly don't want valuable content deleted just because the article is poorly done. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope everyone sees the humor in the fact that almost two thousand years after her death her notability is being debated. Drawn Some (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nja247 06:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chechnya national football team[edit]

Chechnya national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article about a team based in France that claims to represent the Chechen diaspora rather than Chechnya. None of their games appears to have gained any press. Stu.W UK (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Stu.W UK (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks evidence of notability, also claims of them being the "official" Chechnya team might be controversial and debatable. --Angelo (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable team. GiantSnowman 11:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. John Sloan @ 13:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per the following references: [36], [37], [38]. Grammar sucks, though.Zivlok (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levon Hayrapetyan[edit]

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative view of jazz and Indian classical music[edit]

Comparative view of jazz and Indian classical music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As noted by all the editors who have tagged this, this page is OR, is not notable enough for its own article, is written like an essay, and is orphaned. There are much more substantive genre comparisons possible that don't have pages, and if we're going to compare various styles of music, this is far too obscure a place to start. I would suggest merging, but the pages sitar in jazz and indo jazz have this covered extensively. Conical Johnson (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Indo jazz - it does not seem to be entirely original, but perhaps a synthesis, and has two sources. Neither does it appear to be notable by itself - perhaps make it a section within the larger article. If the plan is to merge, then this AfD can be closed early. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, there isn't anything of substance in this article that could be merged into the Indo jazz article. All this article does is describe a few concepts of Indian music and jazz music (all of which are covered on the respective mages of those two styles), and conclude that one thing they have in common is the fact they are partially composed and partially improvised. This is the case with an enormous amount of music, from rock to pop to electronic to hip hop, and even much early Western classical music, and is nothing special or worthy of note, except maybe on the article for music in general. Conical Johnson (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Marsh (radio presenter)[edit]

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

Delete - Non notable, CoI article. Created by P176 along with another page. User works with the subject and the userspace can prove that, given the identical nature of style and tone. Kale Weathers (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just being on the radio (and the few trivial gigs that might come from it) doesn't make someone notable. Hairhorn (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of BASIC dialects. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bywater BASIC[edit]

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

I clumsily prod'd this without checking the history; it's actually been proposed for deletion twice before - so let's bring it here for discussion. I believe that Bywater does not meet the notability threshold for inclusion, based on a lack of coverage by reliable, independent sources (WP:GNG) Marasmusine (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteRedirect - fails to have multiple non-trivial sources. Has a single borderline non-triv source. It's a shame that the info will probably be lost to wp, but google bywater basic and it's clear the info is there in the first hit. Bigger digger (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per S Marshall below, there is no WP:POTENTIAL for an article here, but I suppose we should replace it with a redirect to List of BASIC dialects and remove the link from the list. I've added a bit of information to the list for Bywater, but in general there's nothing WP:Notable here. Bigger digger (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jamie☆S93 00:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cocos (Keeling) Islands national football team[edit]

Cocos (Keeling) Islands national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Also nominating Christmas Island national football team, as this team's only opponents. Neither team is notable. They only play against each other. If they ever take part in domestic or international competition then they can be recreated. Seeing as one island has a population of around 600, and the other less than 1500, I sadly find that unlikely. Stu.W UK (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Stu.W UK (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I concur with the nomination. Tavix |  Talk  00:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of those players probably don't exist, particularly the multiple Reddaways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.121.243 (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if sources can be found. I believe these should be kept but altered, including the title. These teams are in no sense national teams as the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island are not nations but Territories of Australia. Having said that, these teams are undoubtedly notable within the context of these Territories and could be made into good interesting articles. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with respective national articles. Insufficient notability to warrant stand-alone articles. WWGB (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both Cocos (Keeling) Islands is not a nation, so the article is incorrectly labelled as national team. I doubt there is any significant coverage of this team. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both no sources to meet WP:ORG and neither are in any way 'national' teams. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - two teams only playing friendlies against each other in all of their history surely don't have any sort of notability. --Angelo (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom, non-notable. GiantSnowman 11:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as they both fail WP:N. John Sloan @ 13:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the whole POINT of non-affiliated national sides, such as members of the NF board, is that they are non-notable, but the fact that they ARE recognised by an affiliation (in this case, Football Federation Australia means they should stay. Furthermore, for anyone who is a fan of soccer, the passion involved in trying to get a national team together and enter it for various competitions such as the Viva Cup, the Island Games, etc etc., is fascinating in itself. I have looked at this page and all the other similar pages many times over the years I've been on Wikipedia, and as a member of a community that consults football results constantly, would be devastated to see this page and similar pages go. Tris2000 (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not valid reasons. Also FIFA does not recognise these as national sides. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are NOT national teams, the matches are irregular friendlies between neighbouring islands. There is an absence of references from reliable independent sources (fails WP:SOURCES). WWGB (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these islands are not a country, thus an article on a national football team does not make sense. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Like Life[edit]

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

Nothing but a confirmed release date, which I really don't think is enough for a future album. This source verifies only the release date and two singles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • All i can say is that like American Saturday Night, we'll need to give Sounds Like Life some time as well. If they don't release it in June like they're proposing, then there'll be a good reason to delete this article. Deleting this album article for the reasons listed won't really matter once the album does come out. So why bother deleting it if the album article's gonna pop back up anyway when there's more info added on it, and the release date gets closer? Ryanbstevens (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete? To discourage people from making articles too soon which is still quite common. - Mgm|(talk) 13:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rio Rico, Tamaulipas. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laurier McDonald[edit]

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

Declined ProD. Subject is an attorney who worked on a notable case, though insufficiently notable to warrant a separate article per WP:N.

This appears to be an homage piece written by a family member of the subject. The author was initially contributing under User:Jlauriermcdonald until I tagged the article with ProD and {{COI}}. At that time, that user became idle on the article and a new account, User:Guirisystems was created, declined the ProD and has continued work on developing the piece. (irrelevant) Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 06:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I concur with Drawn Some's recommendation to identify and merge any relevant material to Rio Rico, Tamaulipas. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 01:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to be notable. I cannot get any confirming refs online. Although for the 1970s/80s this might not be so surprising I still have a few doubts. The one and only inline citation is to Texas Monthly, which at least has its contents page online for the relevant issue. Worryingly, this does not list the cited article. Two other references are given (not inline), but there is no indication from the article titles that they verify anything other than Rio Rico (as opposed to verifying Mr. McDonald). In the external links we find an article on the Rio Rico case in The Handbook of Texas Online. Who is the author of this article? Why it is one Laurier McDonald. Sadly Mr. McDonald does not seem to consider his part in the Rio Rico case to be notable enough to mention in his own article! SpinningSpark 23:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to article on notable topic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge to Rio Rico. From the article's description of the office of United States Commissioner, it doesn't appear that the office is included in WP:POLITICIAN, and the references mentioned are all related to Rio Rico. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 2 deletes, nothing else Nja247 06:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Snetkov[edit]

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

not finding reliable sources demonstrating the notabilty of this person. Doesn't meet WP:BIO (previously declined speedy deletion)RadioFan (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:25, 4 May 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, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the information available, not yet notable. DGG (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. His two main claims to notability in the article (Conductor Dortmund International Orchestra, head of the New Philharmonia Orchestra Hamburg) are not referenced, the orchestras do not have articles and I could find no evidence asssociating him with them online. I am not saying it is not true, just that it does not appear to be notable enough to be recorded. SpinningSpark 20:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nja247 06:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JScience[edit]

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

Lacks sources to verify notability. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Kaiser[edit]

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

Non-notable software, advertising Passportguy (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no coverage about this software in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Bethell[edit]

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

Delete seems to be a WP:BLP1E for starring in a film that won an award, but is devoid of most biographical detail. He's a professional kite flier - are their competitions, does he compete - how does he do? Has he sponsors? Awards? Coverage? I assume he was born somewhere sometime, but alas by reading our article those facts do not appear - were there an article on the film (which may be notable) a redir would be in order, but since that hasn't been written and may never be, or kept even if it were, delete seems the best option. Poorly sourced BLPs need to be subjected to tougher scrutiny than other articles and this BLP barely tells us much about the subject. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLPs are still subject to the same rules as any other when it comes to deletion. Your nomination shows no indication that you made an effort to find the sources to back it up outside the article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per very substantial coverage in reliable sources [39] and record setting accomplishments. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A world kite-flying champion, who apparently who holds 12 world records at multiple kite flying, an inductee into the 'Kite Flyers Hall of Fame', tours the world performing at international kite festivals, plus we have sufficient "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to meet our primary notability criteron. Sounds good to me. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erik J. Berg[edit]

Erik J. Berg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a child actor with a bright future, but who doesn't currently meet the inclusion criteria. While he has acted in a widely reviewed movie, he has only been named in passing in reviews—certainly he does not star in it. Come back in a few years. Bongomatic 08:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've found reviews that make it clear he plays a signficant role in Haunting, but we need multiple (at least two) such roles to meet inclusion criteria despite the lack of indepth sources. The IMDB listing for "I Really, Really Like You" has him up relatively high in the credits, but they are unreliable especially since I've seen them mess that up in the last by listing the title character around that spot. Could someone dig up paper publications about that production? =- Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are the sources you are referring to? I checked some of the more reliable reviews (Variety, NY Times, Roger Ebert) and he didn't get a mention. Bongomatic 11:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the reviews by The Scotsman, The Birmingham Mail and The Gazette in Montreal here and the reviews listed at Metacritic. Both the character Berg plays and the room the character lives in are critical to the story. What I'm asking is whether IMDB is by chance correct in listing him high up in the credits for the other film I mentioned. If it is and it can be proven, then "2 or more significant roles" clearly apply. - Mgm|(talk) 10:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Scotsman: "The building used to be a funeral parlour and the old owner's son Jonah (Erik J Berg) was a conduit for evil, bridging the divide between the real and the spirit worlds. Jonah returns to wreak havoc on the Campbells." this is the last paragraph of a three paragraph blurb, and the only mention of the character or actor. This is what is called a "passing reference", and does not constitute "significant coverage".
  • The Birmingham Mail: Almost identical text to The Scotsman.
  • The Gazette: Mentioned once in credits, with no further mention of actor or character. Bongomatic 22:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see all these sources either and in addition and for the record I take issue with "multiple" meaning "two or more" in this situation. Drawn Some (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this situation be any different from all the other articles we have? - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Drawn Some (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep In looking toward WP:GNG: Alonso Duralde of MSNBC: "I was particularly taken with Berg, who has almost no dialogue, but who expresses volumes through his eyes and facial expressions; he could have been huge in silent cinema, but hopefully there’s a place for him in talkies as well. (It’s Berg, incidentally, who you see on the posters with the weird driftwood-like blob thing coming out of his mouth.)"[40] seems a bit more-than-trivial and would tend to nudge the bar of the WP:GNG a bit more. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I would side with MichaelQ. The problem originates in the inherently subject nature of WP:GNG, todays interpretation of "significant" etc. It cetainly passes WP:V. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja247 06:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REPLAY (software)[edit]

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

No notability is established or implied. The article cites no reliable, independent and verifiable sources. Rather, most of the article's references are self-published. Has been speedied once in the past, and though this incarnation contains more substance, the software just hasn't had any traction to warrant inclusion. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 02:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added two (blog) articles on REPLAY from third-parties, that makes it three independent sources (English, Dutch, German); the article from the proceedings of the 36th annual ACM SIGUCCS conference was submitted and peer-reviewed, I don't know whether that makes it more of an independend source. Finally, the article has now been linke from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yovisto, making it less of an orphan. Not sure what you mean by "the software just hasn't had any traction" - how does this relate to notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oas777 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC) — Oas777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Peer-review of a paper by a creator of the subject software does not establish notability and is certainly not independent. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 15:36, 22 May 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, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm a bit suspicious of self-promotion, but the article seems to have some decent sources - the language barrier makes this difficult, though. The article certainly needs rewriting, but I don't think it should be deleted. Nanowolf (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is bombarded with specious claims notability using papers and PPT presentations published by the subject software's creators, along with conference proceedings to which those individuals have contributed. When you discard sources that don't satisfy WP:RS and those in which the subject's creators had a hand in producing, what's left is insufficient to claim notability. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 15:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why you ask me to provide sources in the first place and then accuse me of "bombarding". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oas777 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC) — Oas777 (talk •[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think the article should be deleted, since it describes a software solution that is referred to throughout the user domain, e. g. the opencast community, dealing with a/v software products: opencast listserv. Additionaly, I attended numerous well-known conferences in Europe and the U.S. (e.g. EDUCAUSE) where this product was either presented or referred to, and last but not least the steeple project in the U.K. conducted a workshop on replay. Yakarij (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)— Yakarij (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nja247 06:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse (short story)[edit]

Mouse (short story) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable short story. Notability of the magazine where this was once published does not transfer to this story itself. No indication of any awards, that it's been the subject of reviews or other writings about the story, or anything else that might show its notable outside of the fact that its been published. RadioFan (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It has been published in other anthologies since its inception in 1949.--DrWho42 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep You say no indication of beinng the subject of criticism, etc. Did you search? Did you check the anthologies listed for comments by the editor--they often appear, and the opinion of a notable editor beyond the mere inclusion in the anthology can be relevant . Aside from criticism, usually the only reliable standard for short stories is inclusion in multiple anthologies. That it's been in anthologies from 1950 through 1992 is perhaps significant. There seem to be 5, besides the collected works of the author himself, which don;t really count. I note that for some notable stories, there are additional factors which do clarify it further, such as for the author's Arena (short story)DGG (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, yes, the title makes it a bit difficult. All the more reason the creator of this article should have provided references.--RadioFan (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps those who know him can explain--there seem to be a number of problem articles from that source. DGG (talk) 22:33, 12 May 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, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. According to this page, it doesn't appear that this is even one of the most reprinted and anthologized stories by this particular author, and it apparently was not included in either his anthology The Best of Fredric Brown or The Best Short Stories of Fredric Brown. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication of notability. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Look at the books it has been published in. He signed a contract, so perhaps he couldn't also publish it in his own work. It has been featured in numerous publications, over quite a time period. It is clearly notable. Dream Focus 17:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But seven other stories by this same author have been reprinted at least twice as many times as this one has been. (See [41], [42], [43].) I don't claim to know how many times a short story needs to be reprinted to establish notability, but relative to this author's own works, this story has not reached the top rank in reprint popularity. Finally, I have no idea what kind of contract the author had for this particular story, but another story he published in the same magazine just two months earlier ("All Good Bems") did make it into The Best Short Stories of Fredric Brown. [44] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability on its own, and notability does not transfer. DreamGuy (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flying 101[edit]

Flying 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable DVD/YouTube video. There is one reference given (for the films budget of $35000) which links to an irrelevant article about a $35million Tom Cruise movie. A look on google for e.g. <"Flying 101" dunk> doesn't seem to yield any reliable sources, but mostly gives video sharing websites etc.. Pontificalibus (talk) 21:01, 11 May 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, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoonful James[edit]

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

The article fails WP:BAND, and there is no notability established in the article. A further internet browser search reveals no independent and/or reliable sources for expansion. ceranthor 22:05, 11 May 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, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn PhilKnight (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Johnny[edit]

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

Based on the following web search:

the article appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Of the references cited, the only one that mentions the subject is a blog. PhilKnight (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_18&oldid=1142643884"