Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 23

< 22 May	24 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was already redirected. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 02:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Glass Elevator[edit]

Despite being signed to a notable label this band doesn't seem to have been covered in any sources besides the one LA times blurb already cited and this Absolute Punk review. Note also that per the last AFD (filed when the band was supposedly signed to Atlantic), the label's website didn't list them as being signed. They don't even seem to have a listing on Allmusic. The page was deleted several times and apparently salted at one point, as I just moved it from Great Glass Elevator (band). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:37, 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. One two three... 18:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Barnes (physician)[edit]

Unless I'm really wrong here, I can't find anything on this guy except for his connection to the Gerald Barnbaum scandal. Classic BLP1E in my mind. Blueboy 96 23:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It may not be notable enough for its own article, but it should be merged into the article about Gerald Barnbaum. Germinscout (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no notability, asserted or otherwise. WP isn't a physician directory. --Sift&Winnow 23:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly quickly, as a BLP violation--innocent victim of fraud by someone else. . He should be mentioned in the article about Barnbaum, but even a redirect is out of place. DGG (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about the redirect--it would be highly inappropriate and misleading. Blueboy 96 02:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete among other things, WP:BLP1E.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 27 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toth Brand Imaging[edit]

This page was created 4 times (by the same user), and deleted as spam, 4 times in September 2008, and after the 4th delete it was set to "only an admin can create this page". At 15:57, 7 April 2009 this page was re-created as Toth brand imaging, and later in Wikipedia:Requested moves was asked to be moved to Toth Brand Imaging; the requesting user was the user who created this page 4 times before. (I obeyed the move request, and I have left everything un-deleted so users can see it before giving opinions in here.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would just like to note thate despite requesting the move for housekeeping purposes, I did not create the article. I had previously proded the article for deletion myself, however removed that prod when more sources were added. At the moment I have no firm opinion for or against a deletion. Passportguy (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry: I misunderstood the history list. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the malformed nom, keep. The sources seem to establish notability rather well. If Calvin Klein and Coach are its clients, I'm pretty sure that it's notable. ceranthor 12:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re "malformed nom": I was partway through creating this nom page when it was answered. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, that was a little bitey. I think that the article could be sufficient, but it will need a rewrite. Definitely the latter. ceranthor 12:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this nom made think of WP:INSPECTOR. Sure, the article is a bit spammy, but the references assert notability. Cleanup is what is required here, not deletion. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 12:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the creator of this article, however I am affiliated with this organization and would like to help clean up to where it is appropriate. I have been informed of the prior deletions of this page. If notability is still an issue, please let me know. If it is considered spammy, again, please let me know exactly what aspect of it is spammy and myself or the creator will revise. Thank you.

Mrvades (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean you're "not the creator of this article"? You created it at least FOUR times judging by your edit history. Drawn Some (talk) 19:24, 16 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 17:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notability isn't contagious and having notable clients does not make one notable or we would have a lot more articles about individual hookers than we have now. Drawn Some (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I did attempt to create this article in the past, prematurely and blindly. The article you see now was created by someone else. There is a USA Today cover story from 1999 on this organization where the writer asserts the impact Toth has on popular culture and fashion. I have original copies of this article but it is archived on the USA Today website and only available to view for a fee. (The abstract is available for free). I believe said article would verify notability and I am in the process of figuring out how it can be accessed online. Thank you. Mrvades (talk) 13:48, 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, One two three... 22:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although all of the references are press releases or passing mentions, a Google News Archive search proves that this company passes WP:CORP. See this article from the Boston Business Journal and this article from The New York Times. Cunard (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Barely squeaks by WP:CORP per above ref (which should be included in the article if not already). From the references in the article that I saw, the subject of the article was not the subject of the reference. Some of the references in the article verified the notability of the company's founder which backs his notability, not the company's. Anyway, weak keep and needs to be cleaned up a bit.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:56, 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. — Aitias // discussion 02:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gonzo[edit]

Student publication that hasn't been published in eleven years. Does not meet notability policy since there's no significant coverage and no lasting impact. The article has two references- a dead link and another Wikipedia article- no reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, this is not a significant student mag. Arma virumque cano (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added another ref, for one - listed by a notable blogger as the first humor zine online - and endorsed by Hunter S. Thompson. Also the source of this meme. DS (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The blogger's quote is: "I believe this was the first college humour magazine published online." One blogger's recollection doesn't mean it's true. How is that reliable? Moreover, he continues: "I don't know that they've done much with it since." Not much- it hasn't been published in eleven years. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Georgetown University#Media. Remember that notability is not temporary. So if it was notable then, it is OK to keep. It certainly succeeded in raising some people's blood pressure:[1]. Article about it in the Washington City Paper:[2]. There's content here well worth saving - merge, don't delete. Fences and windows (talk) 01:14, 29 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) 10:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 399 (disambiguation)[edit]

orphan disambiguation page with no ambiguous Wikipedia articles to disambiguate JHunterJ (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JHunterJ (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed until the proposed route actually comes closer to reality. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that it actually was built, and is now US 9. Maybe New York State Route 399 (Westchester County) would be a better disambiguator? --NE2 23:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this page was created to begin with. NY 399 originally redirected to Interstate 487, which was fine since that was the most recent and probably most prominent alignment (not truly sure whether it was actually signed as such or was proposed, but that's not the central point of my argument here). What I would have considered doing was to simply add a hatnote to the I-487 page saying "NY 399 redirects here, for the old NY 399 see X" since I'd imagine most readers looking for NY 399 would be looking for the Hudson River Expressway-related alignment. I'd delete this personally and add the dablink to I-487's article (or at least add it as a commented out line until the other article is made). – T M F 23:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to New York State Route 399 and keep as a valid disambiguation of two topics. Someone linking to NY 399 will want to know which one to fix the link to point to. --NE2 23:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two ambiguous topics is not a valid disambiguation. Two Wikipedia articles are needed before a disambiguation page is needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not in my experience, and not by common sense. Two topics that will have articles are all that is needed, to prevent future cleanup work. --NE2 01:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you reading this? — CharlotteWebb 06:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:D: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles", not "possible Wikipedia article titles" or "future Wikipedia article titles". As ever, the future Wikipedia can provide the dabs needed in the future. This "future cleanup work" is good and desirable, not something to be avoided by unnecessary "present pre-cleanup work". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per NE2. The disambiguation page also helps establish the proper title for the future article. This is important as unfortunately it's not possible to redirect to page that doesn't exist yet. Links pointing to the ambiguous title need to know which red link is the correct target. As neither of them currently exist, 399 is no more likely to refer to one of these highways than the other, i.e. there is no primary topic. — CharlotteWebb 06:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one article, so it is the primary topic (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "... much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia", emphasis added). You can use red links to link to articles that don't exist yet; redirects to non-existent articles are unnecessary. Wikipedia cannot put all articles in their proper titles to account for every possible future article. Moving articles from titles that were correct to titles that will become correct in the future is a task for the future. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think about it a bit. If we don't have this disambiguation page, how will we know what form the future article title will take, so we can link to it? --NE2 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think about it a bit more. Once someone links to it (using whatever form they want for the future title) in a Wikipedia article, that article can be the blue link in the description for addition of the red link. But until then, you're trying to solve a problem that hasn't occurred yet. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's likely to be more than one article linking to it, and having the disambiguation helps match them. --NE2 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist yet. [3] -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you're trying to ensure that said problem does arise. In any case there's no easy way to tell how many articles contain links which are meant to refer to the same topic despite being written differently. I'm not sure there is any clear naming convention for former state-highways belonging to an uncertain range of years. While dealing with a wide variety of educated guesses will be tedious either now or later, more of the links will follow the same pattern if the desired title is listed in plain sight on the disambiguation page. Having the disambiguation page will also help editors to notice which articles are missing yet, thereby hastening the day on which you can stop worrying about all this. — CharlotteWebb 21:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to New York State Route 399. The disambiguation page needs to still exist in order to direct the reader to the appropriate NY 399 (even though a link does not exist for one yet), but the "(disambiguation)" does not need to be in the title as New York State Route 399 does not redirect to one of the articles. Dough4872 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is contrary to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, since the current primary (only) WP topic for "New York State Route 399" is Interstate 487. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I need to remind you that Wikipedia isn't exactly a reliable source for such linguistic claims as what a particular term primarily refers to. We should, as closely as possible, follow actual real-world usage rather than attempting to dictate it based on which article was written first or which topic is most interesting to us, etc. — CharlotteWebb 21:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC isn't about what the non-Wikipedia primary topic for a phrase is; it's about what article is about the primary topic on Wikipedia for a phrase. And yes, Wikipedia consensus is exactly a reliable source for that, since it's the only source. But FWIW, which article was written first is not a determinant of primary topic; if and when another article comes along, there's nothing preventing it from being the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree that ignorance is often a factor and that many topics will be unforeseen. However when we have a very good idea of which articles will be needed, we should build around this. It is unproductive to revert backward and conceal our present deficiencies, then revert forward again when the articles are created. — CharlotteWebb 02:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is apparent that there was another NY 399 at one time, I'm going to have to agree with NE2. I say Move. ----DanTD (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the primary topic on Wikipedia for Georgia is --NE2 23:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if editors were trying to create Georgia (disambiguation) before there were two articles to disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, good question . I know it's a rhetorical one but since you asked, the disambiguation page did precede the second article by one minute [4], [5]. — CharlotteWebb 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, effectively at the same time, which is a fine application of the need for disambiguation. The editor who was about to create the second article correctly created the disambiguation page just in time, not in advance for some hypothetical future neeed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With only two entries, one red-linked, I don't see the need. IMO a hatnote on the existing article suffices. The comparisons with Georgia are moot, IMO. It's very likely that someone would type Georgia into a search box and not get the article they expected. The likelihood of that happening with a highway that doesn't even exist is much smaller. In other words, Georgia is a mainstream article, a former and future highway are niche articles likely to only be read by those interested in roads in the area.Dave (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything, the non-existing article is more likely, since, if I'm reading the article correctly, the existing article was not actually built as NY 399. --NE2 07:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If someone would just create a stub for that redlink, we wouldn't be having this argument. =) Powers ^T 12:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I thought of that, but I don't have the sources. --NE2 13:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I trust you'll stop this silliness now? --NE2 19:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd help add sources, but I don't have any maps that actually show a NY 399 in Fulton County. The only maps that show it are in the possession of User:Mitchazenia, and he apparently quit USRD. – T M F 19:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you (NE2) have dropped the silliness of trying to disambiguate Wikipedia articles before there were ambiguous Wikipedia articles, yep, I'll continue to go with the disambiguation guidelines. Changed my !vote below. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could always try thinking for yourself. — CharlotteWebb 14:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Common sense is "it takes two articles to be ambiguous". Glad you finally agree. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, is there anything you won't misrepresent? — CharlotteWebb 19:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With just a redlink and a redirect, there is nothing to disambiguate. Even if an article is created for the redlink, the redirect can be covered by a hatnote and the dab page remains unnecessary. And while it's not the most solid argument, waiting for articles before using dab pages is the way things have always been done (it is one means by which we get users to the information we have as quickly as possible). Dekimasuよ! 01:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? Our manual of style page on disambiguations specifically mentions redlinks and how to show them on a dab page. Powers ^T 12:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. You show them along with a blue link in the description that leads the reader to the existing article which, while not exclusively about it, at least identifies the subject and needs to be disambiguated. Not the case here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a redirect would be circular. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the NE2 has stopped the earlier silliness of trying to dab things that weren't there and provided a second stub article to be disambiguated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's remove the tag, close this board, and get it over with. ----DanTD (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my !vote, but since there are other "delete" !votes, I can't simply close this "board". -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:20, 30 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 Pringles. Jamie^☆S93 18:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Liepa[edit]

Substub, not individually notable seperate from Pringles, a redirect would be better or something, I don't know, but I don't think this article meets WP:BIO standalone. Cicely of Sicily (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pringles per WP:RS and WP:PUTEFFORT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Restore the redirect, which was pointlessly reverted in Feb 2008:[6] Fences and windows (talk) 01:23, 29 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 21:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JohnnyTwoShoes[edit]

Webgame designer company, but no evidence for notability. Searching gives lots of hits but couldn't find anything to meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Quantpole (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I updated it from historical information, I think deletion should be removed.--meridimus 23:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meridimus (talk • contribs)
Comment You know, in parts, it seems like advertising.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam article Arma virumque cano (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources (required by WP:CORP). Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No verified coverage in independent sources. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article should not be deleted. Large scale site, information is accurate, especially after major update. Alltellg (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's its real-world coverage in secondary sources, though? Articles are not included on Wikipedia on the subjective basis that the subject is "large" or "accurate"; its significance must be verified via sourcing. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and try again when you can cite your sources and write in a neutral tone. Marasmusine (talk) 13:31, 30 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. — Aitias // discussion 02:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christina (Gundam)[edit]

It's been a few years since I've seen Char's Counterattack, but I don't even remember this character. And based on the article's description, she only makes two cameo appearances in the entire film. This make the character extremely incidental and not even worth merging into the main article or list. Disputed prod Farix (Talk) 20:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 21:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question Is she Christina_MacKenzie? They don't say for sure in that article. Is she featured in other media, such as the books? Does anyone have a picture of this character to compare with the other? In the Gundam universe her contributions were significant if she was able to produce Quess_Paraya More information is needed though. Dream Focus 22:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She has a bit more about her in Beltorchika's Children, she dying at the start though. List_of_Gundam_manga_and_novels shows there a lot of books in this series, and most have never been officially translated into English. Was the character found in any of them? Someone who speaks Japanese would have to search, or ask on a Japanese fan forum for Gundam. Dream Focus 00:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as extremely trivial character. DreamGuy (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge . Interesting deletion reason."I forgot about it myself, so the encyclopedia shouldn't have it." Somehow, I thought that having information about things that an individual person won't remember is the purpose of an encyclopedia. That's why people developed writing in the first place DGG (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've rewatched the entire film and it should be perfectly understandable why someone won't remember her. Her total appears amounts to no more than a few seconds, speaks one line, and is never directly named. This is an incredibly trivial character and doesn't belong merged into the main article or into a list. For all practical purposes, she is Random Background Person #305. --Farix (Talk) 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, beyond minor character by any reasonable standards. Clearly unnotable and fails both WP:N and WP:NOT. No need for a redirect not a likely search term. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She is a Delete! umm, seriously, does a character like this bear anything beyond a passing mention in Wikipedia? JuJube (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources establish independent notability for this minor fictional entity.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this character is so minor as to not even have a last name, merge to an appropriate character list. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and trivial - Vartanza (talk) 12:45, 27 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 per some combination of SNOW, SPEEDY and BLP. Jehochman ^Talk 20:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the step of applying WP:SNOW rather sooner than normal as there is no indication that the article meets criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, WP:CSD#A7. It is a biography of a living person that entirely lacks references, and there is contentious material in the history of the article and the talk page. Also noted, the subject has asked more than once for this to be deleted. Under the combined weight of circumstances, deletion is clearly justifiable. Jehochman ^Talk 20:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Boothroyd[edit]

Non-notable, lack of sourcing. Does not meet our present notability standards for inclusion as a WP:BLP. Last AFD was nearly four years ago. rootology/equality 19:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the subject wants it that way. Syn 19:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should, in my mind, be deleted immediately for his sake. Nathan^T 19:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; and per Nathan. Too many problems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject repeats his request made four years ago for deletion. DavidBoothroyd (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although I am concerned with the nom and the timing of it, the subject has expressed interest in deletion and a google search found only a few entries, most no longer than two or three lines and from primary sources, with little news to justify keeping an article against the subject's will. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Conti|✉ 20:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; per suggestions of questionable notability (above) and the subject's request that the article be removed. AGK 20:47, 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. The subject does not meet the inclusion guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demo (August Burns Red album)[edit]

Non-notable independent EP. I've Googled it and searched on all the typical music websites, but the only real coverage I find is a brief mention here. Fails the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Jamie^☆S93 19:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Demo albums are almost inherently non-notable. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Germinscout (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-charting EP and no coverage from independent reliable sources. — Σ xplicit 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability either. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 22:15, 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. Flowerparty^☀ 01:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Daniels (American football)[edit]

Non-notable football player. Never played a game in the NFL, never officially made a roster during the season, nor was drafted. Can't find anything else on him joining any teams after college. Wizardman 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never played professionally--Yankees10 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has never played in the NFL, and was never drafted.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If he were an All-American in high school or college--heck, maybe if he were all-SEC--it would be enough to save this article. But this doesn't even come close to meeting WP:ATHLETE. Blueboy 96 23:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now two years removed, hasn't met BIO yet. Pats1 ^T/C 02:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 17:59, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agloe, New York[edit]

Fictional entry with very minimal sourcing, no hope of expansion beyond "it doesn't exist except on the maps". Already mentioned on Fictitious entry. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many otters, what happened to your sig? Normally I would lean to redirect and merge content to Fictitious entry (and, perhaps, Roscoe, New York). However, the destination article now looks like a mess, so until it's cleaned up - keep. Dumping any content into current Fictitious entry will, quite likely, destroy it. NVO (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- actually, the whole point of the article is that it was a case of a fictitious map entry influencing reality... AnonMoos (talk)
Keep Well sourced and an interesting story. What's the problem? It should be included on a list of fictitious entries so people will find it.Steve Dufour (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge This would be a good merger with the fictitious entry/copyright trap article. I'm not entirely sure if it merits its own article, but the mention of a copyright trap becoming real strikes me as being merited.Tyrenon (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course it is fictitious, but it is also notable and verifiable. We wouldn't delete Gotham City or Metropois for the same reasons. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely WP has room for such anecdotes which have proper sourcing. Collect (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well-sourced for its size. Edward321 (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - truth is stranger than fiction! Bearian (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no proper reason to delete has been offered. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The entry looks non-fiction to me. Real prominent example of real copyright trap. Sourced to boot. --Oakshade (talk) 18:01, 29 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 blanked by author, so will be speedily deleted. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki sims[edit]

Fails all the criteria of WP:PORNBIO. A v N 17:46, 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) Erik9 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Carson[edit]

Non-notable blogger. After a quick search on google, google news and google books, I wasn't able to find anything to suggest that he meets WP:BIO. Bob A (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable as indicated in article introduction. N1h1l (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Carson's work has essentially become synonymous with anarchist mutualism in the present day. Searches on the web suggest that Carson is more often associated with mutualism than many of its major historical figures, including Benjamin R. Tucker. Only Proudhon is more firmly fixed, in that part of popular consciousness that cares about the varieties of anarchism, to the notion of mutualism. The JLS issue was the first issue of an English-Language scholarly periodical ever dedicated to a single mutualist. Etc. Libertatia (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutualism itself is a very small movement. The relevant question is whether history will remember him as a prominent figure in anarchism, or as just another blogger. So far there doesn't seem to be any scholarly or mainstream coverage of him, apart from some brief references in the anarchist FAQ. Bob A (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mutualism is the oldest of the anarchist schools, and its revival is certainly non-trivial. The JLS issue is a significant scholarly acknowledgment of his importance. Carson, btw, is an author and a scholar, not "just another blogger," and the judgment of history is not something that we can, or should, bother ourselves with much. Entries on living scholars, particularly of those working on the edges of academic discourses, who are nonetheless heavily cited on Wikipedia, allow Wikipedia users to easily determine the nature of the sources, and make their own judgments. Their inclusion quite simply makes Wikipedia a better resource. In a field like the serious study of anarchism, where as significant amount of the work is currently being done outside academic circles (as a look at the membership of the Anarchist Studies Association pretty clearly shows) it seems ridiculous to exclude figures like Carson, particularly as he is as high-profile, generally speaking, as almost any of his academic colleagues. You have recently targeted a number of anarchist scholars' pages for deletion, so perhaps your concern is the general notability of anarchist studies. But the field exists, and it is currently informing the content of anarchist articles on Wikipedia. It seems like a no-brainer to include pages for its most prominent figures. Libertatia (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The JLS was a fringe liberal journal, not a well known, mainstream, or even anarchist journal, and thus not a reliable source for establishing notability. Carson may be high-profile among his "colleagues", but I doubt whether he is in absolute terms. If Carson is so important to mutualism, then maybe this article should be redacted and merged into the article for mutualism. For the record, this is the first article of an anarchist whose deletion I've suggested. Bob A (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Carson is the author of two substantial books and was recently described (by someone other than me) as "the Marx of the left-libertarian movement." I believe, though I'm not certain, that I first discovered Carson's work by reading the Wikipedia article about him. But I'm not clear why this is a useful discussion. Someone opted to go to the trouble to prepare a lengthy article about Carson. Storage space for what is largely ASCII text is hardly at a premium. So debates about notability just seem pointless: Wikipedia provides useful opportunities for people, institutions, and topics important to people in all sorts of niche communities. If they're not important to others, so what? I've learned a great deal by discovering what other people regard as interesting on Wikipedia. If information is false, delete it. But if Sally Anderson from Duluth wants to post a Wikipedia article about her brother-in-law, Ralph, and his performance decades ago on a fourth-grade spelling bee, who cares? No one who doesn't search for Ralph will likely find him, unless someone links to him--and, if someone does, all the more reason for the article to be there. People post articles, in general, because they care about things; I think we should be very, very unwilling to second-guess them and determine that what they care about doesn't belong here. garychartier (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusionism isn't justification for keeping an article. Bob A (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is deletionism a reason to destroy it. The notability guidelines are suggestions to help you determine notability, not policy. Dream Focus 01:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As of the arguments above. The article looks fine to me, quite thorough, I see no reason to delete it. This person does appear to be quite notable in the anarchists circles. Dream Focus 01:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Carson is clearly not a major figure, but does appear to be sufficiently notable for inclusion in wikipedia. The article is far from perfect, but it makes an effort to be balanced and appears to be making progress. Shanata (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He just sneaks in, I think. Forget the red-herring inclusionism debate above: there's just enough sourcing and notability. He was namechecked by the SF author Ken MacLeod in an interview: "Kevin Carson, in particular, has done some fascinating work on the interface of the free-market libertarian and the libertarian-socialist positions".[7]. Here's another critique of his work by a libertarian; the author is a Conservative Party councillor:[8] Fences and windows (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has been the subject of an article in Journal of Libertarian Studies. [9] Article was written by Walter Block. I believe that because of that he meets basic notability criteria. -- Vision Thing -- 19:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that justification on the basis that the JLS itself is barely notable. Bob A (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you have no conception of anarchist intellectual debate and discussion. This single person has revived the philosophy of mutualism. There are many obscure philosophies and philosophers on wikipedia. There is nobody else in anarchism contributing as much to individualist anarchism as Carson. In fact, there isn't much of anything being put out for individualist anarchism of the classical variety at least. I really don't understand the argument that JLS isn't notable. Where do you draw the line? It is a journal put together by fairly well known libertarians. George Reisman's attack should also make him notable. Put in a search for mutualism in google and Carson's on the first page.Citizen Anarch (talk) 10:40, 29 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 03:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madison and Miranda Carabello[edit]

They have only one TV role to their credit. Delete or merge with Medium. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fixed the AFD for this IP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not meet the primary notability requirement. Subjects have not received significant (or any, for that matter) coverage in reliable sources. LargoLarry (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the subject doesn't meet any requirements. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge because it is of interest to users looking up Medium's cast 18:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.37.72 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Menu[edit]

Inherently non-notable and unencyclopedic collection of rumours and heresay without reliable sources. The links and sources given only contain user contributed content with zero fact checking. All other similar (vendor specific) articles have been deleted or merged with the article about the respective business itself. Not to mention that a company policy of "make everything the customer wants" hardly constitutes a "secret menu" as insinuated in most examples. Latebird (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no way could any of this be sourced (except maybe the In & Out Burger ones). There are very many items that you can get at a fast food chain just by asking. I could probably get popcorn chicken in a Gordita at my local KFC/Taco Bell if I wanted, for crying out loud. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although fun, this article is really just a reposting of its main source which is nothing like a reliable source. And come on, Burger King's main claim to fame is "have it your way." So how is the fact that you can substitute mustard for mayo a "secret"? Steve Dufour (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was news to me. I didn't know Burger King even had mustard, and I eat there all the time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was news to you that a hamburger place would have mustard?? Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In & Out has a secret menu, but that's the only one on the list I've heard of as such. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't others (for example, at Burger King I often order a double cheesburger combo even though that's not on the menu), but other than In & Out I don't know of any that are as formal.Tyrenon (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like STeve says, yeah, it's fun, but I'm left with the impression that at least a few of them are regional items (i.e., Jamba's "Screaming Orgasm"), and Starbucks I recall merely removed the short item from the menu - no big secret there, just have to do a little research. It is, in short, WP:OR and WP:SYN. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- !Vote is changed, see below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fun, but not entirely notable, verifiable, or universal. Though if anyone wants to try and verify the article's claims, go to Jamba Juice, and ask for a screaming orgasm, be my guest. ;) Zivlok (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Menu as "secret menu" is somewhat likely search term. Article almost entirely depends on the Consumerist article entitled "Really Big Guide to Secret Menu Items". Just redirect to "menu", and add the Consumerist article to its external links section. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Went ahead and added a mention of "secret" menus to "menu" article with Christian Science Monitor as a source. Still recommend redirect to "menu" as that will allow sourced paragraph on secret menus to grow, and avoids destroying this article which may be improved in future. Would be bold and do the redirect myself but deletion rules say not to. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
or Keep. A Google News Archive search for "secret menu" against names of restaurants known for them is returning about 18 relevant and unique articles.[10] A few of them appear to quote the blogs which makes a few of those usable as primary or SPS. It looks like the "secret menu" article is sourceable after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidfryerchef (talk • contribs)
- Maybe a weak keep, and we just go on WP:IAR. I'll have to think on that one. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - When sources get discovered during the AFD but aren't worked into the article, the closing admins don't always say keep. But those sources are a good argument for a redirect without destroying the article, because we've demonstrated the article is sourceable if recreated. Redirect will preserve revision history of the article for non-admins to see. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well put. Changing my !vote to Redirect to Menu. Thanks for changing my mind. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:04, 29 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. — Aitias // discussion 02:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debt Advice Foundation[edit]

I understand COI issues relating to the group have been resolved, but I see no evidence of the group's notability. A book it published got some brif mentions due to MP presence, but nothing that establishes notability per WP:ORG or WP:BOOK. Ghits just confirm existence, not notability. StarM 16:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A worthy campaign, but minor local media coverage for one event isn't enough, especially when the book appears to be a school project. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. The body was registered (no. 1095705) as a charity in 2003, but seems to have been mostly inactive for a couple of years; now, they've an annual income somewhere in the region of a few hundred thousand. They previously functioned as the "Debt Advice Trust", and to have close links with an existing quasi-charitable quasi-commercial organisation of that name - see eg/ an ASA complaint here. I am not sure quite what all this indicates, but turning over a third of a million seems to suggest they do a bit more than publish a single book - perhaps we should delve deeper? Shimgray | talk | 12:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was initially written in a way which made it look unambiguously like an attempt at using Wikipedia for advertising. Now that the blatant advertising has been removed we are left with a couple of trivial statements which do not indicate notability. The onus is on anyone who wishes to keep the article to provide evidence, and nobody has done so. The "references" only establish that the "Foundation" supported a book that a couple of scholgirls wrote, and that the publicity for that book included getting a government minister to meet the girls during a visit to the school: does this establish notability for the "foundation"?JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not likely that worthwhile material can be found to fix this non-article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The summary of the ASA ruling below is simply a piece of misinformation. A contributor to DAF (which has no connection other than it has a similar sounding name), was censured by the ASA, not DAF. I also happen to know that the charity is in talks with government about central funding of the Money Diaries project and that Lancashire Education Authority has already widely distributed the teaching aids. This article simply misleading and damaging to the charity's credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.142.145.221 (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the book's notability, the standards for notability are given at WP:BK. Note that if you do manage to demonstrate the book's notability, that would only qualify for an article about the book, not the organisation who sponsored it. As for your complaint that things are being written in this AfD aren't putting DAF in a positive light, tough. Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences is pretty clear that if you create an article, you can't stop other people digging up information you'd rather keep buried. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The complaint about the summary of the ASA ruling is not really relevant to this AfD discussion, so I will not answer it here, but I have given an answer on the article's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk)
Chris, I understand your point and I agree with you. My point is that some of the edited information on here is a clear and blatant misrepresentation of the facts and I suspect has been put on by parties with a vested interest in damaging the credibility of the charity. I think it’s probably sensible (for the charity’s sake) that the submission is taken down until it has secured central government funding. I’m sure a teaching aid distributed nationally is notable enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.142.145.221 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I made a reply here to the above. I think it was a mistake to let myself be dragged into this discussion here: I should have stuck to my original decision to respond on the article's talk page. This proposal for deletion is about whether or not the organisation is notable: the validity or otherwise of referring to the Advertising Standards Agency has no bearing on the question of notability. However, the accusation that I was not acting in good faith and the suggestion that I had a conflict of interest stung me into responding. I have now decided I was mistaken, and am removing my response: I will put it in the proper place, on the article's talk page. User:JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the book's notability, the standards for notability are given at WP:BK. Note that if you do manage to demonstrate the book's notability, that would only qualify for an article about the book, not the organisation who sponsored it

That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. At least until the charity becomes more notable - there is ample info on their distribution within Lancashire (every primary school) and you mention plans to roll it out nationwide. johnnybriggs (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that sounds fair, I understand the need to view any new submissions with cynicism until credibility can clearly be demonstrated. James - The Eversheds address is a registered business address (you’ll find thousands of companies with the same registered address, usually that of their accountants - Eversheds are BIG). I know for a fact that Debt Advice Trust belongs to a commercial organisation called Fairpoint Group PLC whereas the charity Debt Advice Foundation is a wholly separate entity. I know this because six months ago I worked for Fairpoint and now I’m working for DAF! To be fair, the ASA have really muddied the waters with their wording so I can see where the interpretation has come from! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.31.85 (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, response on the article's talk page User:JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 27 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do lolli

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Acroterion as nonsense. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do lolli[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Abce2|AccessDenied 15:34, 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 redirected. Flowerparty^☀ 01:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Super Scary Monster Show featuring Little Gloomy[edit]

Non-notable book/comic. Basically just an unreferenced copy of what is already found in Little Gloomy about this. I've searched for any non-trivial independent coverage in reliable sources I could find but found none. So, delete per lack of non-trivial coverage. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Little Gloomy. Cosmomancer (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has been indefinitely blocked as a probable sock puppet of User:McWomble--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Little Gloomy. (Emperor (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 13:49, 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. Flowerparty^☀ 01:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelaziz bin Hamad bin Abdullah[edit]

I A7 deleted this once. When it returned and was again A7 CSD tagged, another admin declined as he is the son-in-law of a sitting head of state. So be it, but I disagree that this confers notability. Notability is not supposed to be inherited, or in this case married into. And nothing else in the article shows any notability at all, IMHO. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you take a look at the references given ([11] and [12]), you'll see that there's no assertion of notability here. The first link is completely in Arabic, contains an extremely blurry photo of 'Abdullah' and claims that he is almost 600 years old by saying that the birth date was in the 14th century and death date in the 20th. The second link contains possibly a couple of hundred names of 'royalty', with links to five more pages like it. Looks like just a drop in the ocean, so delete as per WP:N. JulieSpaulding (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 1367 and 1948 both refer to the year of death. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JulieSpaulding's research and reasoning. In addition, there is no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly NN. Cosmomancer (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has been indefinitely blocked as a probable sock puppet of User:McWomble--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This user has created a number of these barely legible articles containing information which, as much as it can be deciphered, is difficult to verify and is more trouble than it's worth. A number of them have been speedied, though in some cases admins have managed to see claims of notability in one or two of them. They have better eyes than I do. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless he's got a prospect of mounting the throne, he isn't notable. Blueboy 96 23:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no external references and doesn't turn up anthing on search either. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:33, 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. Flowerparty^☀ 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia–Vietnam relations[edit]

non resident embassies. all media coverage centres around Kosovo or comparing the Bosnian War to the Vietnam War. Serbian foreign ministry doesn't say much about actual bilateral relations. any info on Kosovo should be in International recognition of Kosovo. LibStar (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless random crap combo Arma virumque cano (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Must agree with Virgil Jr.'s well-considered and -stated opinon on this one. Fails notability in that there is not significant in-depth coverage of Serbia-Vietnam relations in reliable sources because they don't have much in the way of a relationsip in in reality. Drawn Some (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Random X-Y intersection. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign relations of Serbia, which holds the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Foreign relations of Vietnam? Drawn Some (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not both? Cosmomancer (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because redirects can't go to two articles. Drawn Some (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change it to a disambig page then? Lugnuts (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or redirect this one to Foreign relations of Serbia and make another redirect Vietnam–Serbia relations to Foreign relations of Vietnam, which holds the same few scraps of information. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like Aymatth's idea. Acebulf (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion would require too many redirects.Knobbly (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The number of potential redirects boggles the mind. Just have people realize they only need to know one country to find out who it has relations with. Or doesn't. Collect (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After working through a number of the "Foreign relations of" lists, my estimate is about 2,000 redirects, or 4,000 if we put in two for each country pair - my preference. There are about 200 countries, which would suggest 40,000 redirects if every possible combination were included (still not a large number). But most countries only have relations even at the trivial level of these stubs with four or five other countries, some less (think Togo, Tokelau, Tonga etc.) And many of the pairs (e.g. the 200 odd United States relations articles) will not need redirects. The cost is minute. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Randomly paired countries with no external sources covering the topic as a whole. No notability here. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It would take much less in the way of resources to make suitable redirects than to argue the matter. If there's a problem doing it as redirects because of needingt wo, a device can be found , similar to a disam p. There's always a workaround. Such technicalities should not impair improving the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the redirect Vietnam–Serbia relations be included in this AfD? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - International recognition of Kosovo tells us about that issue, and unless something notable can be gleaned about relations between Communist Yugoslavia and North Vietnam (doubtful, since the latter was a Soviet client), we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources discuss this relationship in any depth at all. It's as if, there is no relationship to speak of except the highly trivial "The deputy ministers for agriculture once met and shook hands." I have no opposition to recreation as a redirect after deletion.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why does the political relationship between every single country in the world with every other country in the world require an article? Enough already!Knobbly (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless articles and redirects detract from the encyclopedia. No reason has been given why this topic has any substance, whereas the other 40,000 relations between each pair of the 203 countries does not. Let me spell that out: If this becomes an article or a redirect, there are more than 40,000 that should similarly follow. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 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. No "good faith" arguments for deletion besides the nominator (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trainmaster Command Control[edit]

Procedural nom, contested prod. Unreferenced. A search for references has failed to find significant coverage (only trivial or incidental coverage) in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. McWomble (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no significant coverage sources Arma virumque cano (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to a notable control system within the model train community. Could possibly be merged with Digital Command System (also nominated for deletion) into one article Model train control systems --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The threshold for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources. The article does not even assert the importance or significance of the subject let alone provide reliable sources to support such a claim. McWomble (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: control systems as a whole are clearly notable, so I have gone ahead and created that article. This could be merged there, if desired, but it is a bit long to comfortably fit so I could go either way with keep or merge. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As this discussion pertains to popular culture rather than academic interests an assessment of what constitutes significant coverage and reliable sources should be interpreted less rigorously (Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction). I submit that material from model railroad magazines should be admissible here "especially when comments on its reliability are included." (as per the link just cited). Muzhogg (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per Arma virumque cano. Cosmomancer (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has been indefinitely blocked as a probable sock puppet of User:McWomble--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: has received non-trivial coverage in the following books (among others): [13]

[14] [15] --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely. What is this Not notable, no significant coverage sources claim? A Gbook search returns many book hits, I count 19 relevant references in the first 20 book hits (!) The hits thereafter are thin, but coverage in 19 books should suffice for inclusion in Wikipedia. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The proposed basis for deletion is unrealistic given the article refers to an issue specific to a narrow interest group and could only be considered notable in that context. Significant coverage is provided by high quality, hobby specific periodicals. Muzhogg (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. The information is valid for those interested in trains. It has been mentioned in several books. Dream Focus 19:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:26, 28 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 merged to Model train control systems by ThaddeusB. Digital Command System will become a redirect to preserve the editing history. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Command System[edit]

Procedural nom, contested prod. Unreferenced. A search for references has failed to find significant coverage (only trivial or incidental coverage) in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. "Digital Command System" appears to be a genetic term anyway and not unique to this non-notable product. McWomble (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found with good coverage Arma virumque cano (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ appears to a notable control system within the model train community. Could possibly be merged with Trainmaster Command Control (also nominated for deletion) into one article Model train control systems --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and BOLDly created Model train control systems and merged this info there. This article needs redirected to preserve the edit history. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a wise course of action. Surely these are verifiable and significant in that context and merging these will save the information and keep all of them from being listed here in dribs and drabs. Drawn Some (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The threshold for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources. The article does not even assert the importance or significance of the subject let alone provide reliable sources to support such a claim. McWomble (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per Arma virumque cano. Cosmomancer (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has been indefinitely blocked as a probable sock puppet of User:McWomble--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Model train control systems to preserve edit history as suggested by ThaddeusB - good work! There are a few Gbook hits, and interestingly the text in Webster's Facts and Phrases‎ seems to be taken from the Wikipedia article (for what it's worth). Sufficently notable for inclusion in the general article. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Power.corrupts.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:29, 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. — Aitias // discussion 02:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cash taxes[edit]

PROD was contested on the basis that it was USEFUL, which is not a valid reason for keeping. I see no evidence that this term is notable, nor do I see much chance of it being expanded beyond a DICTDEF. Also Wikipedia is not a how to guide. ThaddeusB (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid stub article Arma virumque cano (talk) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful to tax and redirect. McWomble (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A quick Google search brings up some good results but this link appears to have a different definition (not sure if that's what the jargon means...!). JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely, you'll notice that each link is talking about something different. That is because the term just means taxes paid in cash (as opposed to written of via deductions) and doesn't have any special meaning. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as little more than a dicdef. Cosmomancer (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has been indefinitely blocked as a probable sock puppet of User:McWomble--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. What we have in this article is a fragment of an exercise in writing indirect-methode cash flow statement. For those past the college bench, cash taxes, are, well, taxes paid, period. NVO (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a definition. We're not a dictionary. 'Nuff said.Tyrenon (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fragment with weak content Power.corrupts (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Add to Wiktionary.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef, possibly move to Wiktionary if needed. --Sable232 (talk) 03:37, 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. Flowerparty^☀ 01:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mrittika Sen[edit]

Contested prod. The subject's only claim of notability is that she came first in the recently held All India Senior School Certificate Examination. Salih (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's verifiable and I added a reference. It's not clear to me that this is considered a notable honor or award to meet WP:BIO as I'm not familiar with the test. Likely WP:ONEEVENT at best. Drawn Some (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIOArma virumque cano (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable.--GDibyendu (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. The award is not notable, and the accomplishment, although laudable is not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. 131.107.0.73 (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topping the CBSE is an achivement, no doubt but not desrving of a Wikipedia article. --Deepak D'Souza 08:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kensplanet^T _C 04:43, 28 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. Flowerparty^☀ 01:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia – New Zealand relations[edit]

another completely random combination. non resident embassies. the only relations seem sporting ones [16] . the bilateral treaties were all created before 1976 with former Yugoslavia [17], so neither country can't be bothered actually creating new ones since Croatia become independent. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Random and useless combo. Arma virumque cano (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foreign relations of Croatia, which holds the content. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why not Foreign relations of New Zealand? LibStar (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I have asked before in these situations. It shouldn't direct anywhere. If someone is looking for information about a particular country's extremely un-remarkable relations with another then it is not too much to ask for them to look at an article about one or both of their general relations. The creator of all these articles certainly stumbled on the perfect way to waste thousands of man-hours of other people's time. Drawn Some (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects cost nothing - may as well. Perhaps someone is interested. To your second point, the original stubs and the subsequent AfD nominations are certainly taking a lot of time to resolve. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But who would type in "Croatia - New Zealand relations" as a search term, with the dash and spaces and all? Drawn Some (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody would. They would type something like "Croatia New Zealand", and would see that the first result looked like what they they were after. Try doing a search on "cyprus bulgaria" (no quotes) to see the effect. I think it is user-friendly. No big deal though. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh sorry I forgot that part. Drawn Some (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And no need for 8000 redirects either -- I doubt anyone actually types in this article name. Ever. Collect (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No redirect is needed for the meager information here. No notability of the topic asserted anywhere. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious question is what the decision would be if someone boldly recreated the article as a redirect. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whilst appropriate in some cases, I don't think a redirect is warranted here. there is no real information of note, no embassies, no actual treaties created between Croatia and NZ. besides the Croatian foreign ministry lists all their treaties neatly in English. LibStar (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All content in this article is already also at Foreign_relations_of_Croatia, which the more appropriate place for it. Also, there don't appear to be any reliable, third-party sources that discuss the topic of their bilateral relations, so this topic fails WP:N. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why does the political relationship between every single country in the world with every other country in the world require an article?Knobbly (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not helpful to have 40,000 pointless articles saying that country X has relations with country Y. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no general statement on articles of this format. This one article lacks any indication that this relation is notable enough for a stand-alone article; other articles may or may not be worthy of inclusion, but this one is clearly not. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:04, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joiakim (high priest)[edit]

This article seems to be complete original research, drawing together isolated pieces of information from various biblical sources and threading them together with unsourced theories into an article that overall reads like an essay. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure OR; trivia page Arma virumque cano (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I'm still undecided as to whether this page should be deleted (poor formatting), I'd just like to add that a Google search does return some reasonable results. However, this article appears to be just a collection of places where Joiakim appears in scripture. JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noted those when I initially ran across the article, but they're generally one-liners based on Nehemia 12:10, which basically says that Joiakim was somebody's son, and had a son himself. That's not any kind of material to be writing an encyclopedia article about - I haven't been able to find any sources that support the level of information and commentary that this article provides, which really makes it appear to be someone's original research of some bible apocrypha. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge This is OR as it stands, and it's a minor character at that. If there were citations on a major site concerning the Bible/the Apocrypha, then I'd buy it as an article, but there just aren't any such citations given. List of minor Biblical figures is where a one- or two-line entry belongs. (And yes, I'm still learning to remember to sign my posts...) Tyrenon (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a minor character. None of the high priests are, regardless of the extent of information. The article is not clearly presented, and is organized to look a little like OR, but there are sources in there. There are sufficient commentaries on Josephus over the two millennia since he wrote to support a moree extensive article. DGG (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Clearly notable and article is sourced, the definitely in need of improvement. Edward321 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete > notable, perhaps; sourced, definitely not. Any old fool can tell that the Bible is the obvious thing to put, but none of the citations back up the text. "May have been involved..." cannot possibly be cited from the Bible. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 21:19, 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 18:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max gell[edit]

Non-notable actor. References amount to trivial local coverage at best. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not mention him directly. No evidence of notability. Arma virumque cano (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whilst the first part of the article checks out at IMDB here, the second half (about the 'operation' at Sheffield Hospital) sounds very hoax-ish. JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~G3 blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete Not mentioned in most of the sources. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Comment: Declined the G3. If parts of the article contain incorrect statements, they can be removed. The article cannot be deleted as G3 unless the person itself does not exist or if it only contains hoaxes. Part of it seems true as Google News shows with this source that I cannot access but where the abstract reads "Former Youth Theatre member Max Gell is a splendidly fluent and likeable Dandini and the gorgeous Sophie Ladds delivers a Cinderella of great assurance, ...". Please avoid using G3 in this way. Regards So Why 22:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not blatant, let the AfD run. I'd have removed the speedy byt SoWhy beat me to it. StarM 22:38, 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) 00:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Bolognesi[edit]

Non-notable photographer. Speedy declined. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability under WP:BIO. I added a couple of articles and a reference of exhibitions to the article and there are plenty more available. Drawn Some (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage of this person found Arma virumque cano (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously you didn't click on the links I added or you would have "found" them. Drawn Some (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found where? (There's none behind my fridge either.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn Some is correct if they are implying that Arma has a habit of jumping in on dozens of AfD discussions adding nothing but cliches. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google news search turns up plenty of in-depth stories such as this one, in Italian but published in reputable newspapers. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of coverage. -- Hoary (talk) 16:32, 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. The lack of reliable sources to show that the subject has played in a fully professional league means he does not meet the inclusion guideline for athletes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sterjovski[edit]

Unsourced BLP. Fails WP:Athlete inclusion criteria as it seems he has never played in a fully professional team. he has played in a number of VPL teams, which are second tier and semi-professional and a fifth tier German team. No significant, detailed media coverage found, so WP:Notability guidelines are not met unless such sources are uncovered. Camw (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not significant person Arma virumque cano (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, hasn't played a pro level (fails WP:ATHLETE) and no other claim to notability (fails WP:N). Giant Snowman 14:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, TeBe Berlin played in the 2.Bundesliga in 1998-99. So unless someone can show me that we don't keep 2.Bundesliga players, that's a keep from me. Punkmorten (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Confused though. This shows that he played for TeBe Berlin in 1998-99, but this shows that he played there in 2000-01. Punkmorten (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The match records I've seen ([18], [19]) suggest that it was 2000-01, but if something can be found to show that he made an appearance for the club in 98-99 then I would agree that the article should be kept. Camw (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he seems to fail WP:ATHLETE. Also, conflicting sources makes it very hard to determine whether or not this player has played in the 2.Bundesliga, which makes me believe this article also fails WP:V. John Sloan @ 20:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has played for professional football club matches which i have wittnessed and should be kept. User:Melbourne.sport 10:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.196.200 (talk) [reply]
- Can you please provide a source to show he has played in a professional league? Camw (talk)
- I agree with Camw, this argument does not hold water. Punkmorten (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence is provided that he played for TeBe when they were in a fully pro league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep source has been added to show the list of TeBe Berlin players [20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.196.200 (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, you can't vote to keep twice and the link unfortunately doesn't show that he played a game for TeBe Berlin while they were in a professional league. Camw (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to think. Better let lack of WP:V sway the decision per John Sloan. Punkmorten (talk) 20:06, 30 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. Flowerparty^☀ 01:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay c.r.[edit]

Contested speedy. Worth at least a google search before it's deleted, but I have no vote. Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That Google search didn't turn out so well and it is not easy to identify someone whose full name isn't given and whose followers are unidentifiable. The article is also unreferenced and so unverifiable so delete. Drawn Some (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is impossible to confirm though a simple Google search. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 11:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been speedied. Priyanath ^talk 18:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I put in CSD tag which was removed. No reference in Indian newspapers and a Google search wasn't exactly useful. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - My initial CSD after googling was for vandalism, since I couldn't find any reference to these people. I guess A7 might have been more appropriate -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: never encountered his name in any business magazine as yet. --Deepak D'Souza 08:21, 27 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 by Jimfbleak as G11 (unambiguous advertising). --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC) (Non admin closure)[reply]

Accentium Web[edit]

Contested speedy. No vote. Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam article Arma virumque cano (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)S[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Hairhorn (talk) 16:08, 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. Flowerparty^☀ 01:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pab social club[edit]

Declined db because it asserted significance, but this should clearly be deleted. Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Not notable. Enough said.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 10:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there is one source but it is 1st party. It does not count. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 10:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not shown by reliable independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Quoting from the article: "The true history behind the PAB Social Club is really unknown. The patched members swear to keep the information secret and never speak about it." Thus, there will never be verifiable information about those team of lawbreakers. Alexius08 (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be deleted. There is no PAB SC!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.203.47 (talk) 05:22, 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. — Aitias // discussion 02:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Persuasion[edit]

Nominated for speedy. Subject seemed to have some claim to notability due to namedropping of various notable artists that have articles. No vote. Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if the article survives AfD, it will need cleanup to meet Wikipedia standards.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that this page SHOULD NOT be deleted is simple. This band that I enjoy, with a producer, ZAK BANEY, that already has a Wikipedia page and a history of creating "new styles of music" such as Acid Breaks (also in Wikipedia) has created a "whole nes genre of music, Electro Nu Wave Disco"... this seems important to me and to musician and music fans everywhere, especially considering everything the two people in the band have accomplished already in the world of my pusic. All of it is true and irrefutable. If indeed the band should break up and the new genre they are persuing is prooved to be "irrevelent" then history shall be that judge, not a person with a program that simply searches out any page that has the name BAND on it. Thank you and please reconsider. Scotchontherocks (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Comment copied from article talk page[reply]

Your arguments would be more persuasive if they referred to Wikipedia guidelines on notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of no news coverage had me tagging this one with a speedy tag. Delete unless completely-rewritten. Alexius08 (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to believe subject is notable. Enjoyment and producer are not relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 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 05:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steamline Industries Limited[edit]

Declined db. sent to afd. No vote. Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any in-depth coverage not in first-person plural or independent business profiles like Hoovers to meet WP:CORP. If someone finds such I will reconsider. Drawn Some (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A GSearch returns 1,500 hits, I reviewed the first 100 and it's trivial coverage in business directories, jobfairs and yellowpages. No doubt the company exists, but the claims in the article cannot be verified. A search in Gbooks returns a single hit, trivial mentioning in a business directory of sorts. GNews returns zero hits. I would say delete due to lack of WP:V. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears there is no prospect of useful information being found in the near future, and as is, the article has no source and makes no assertion of notability. It can be recreated if events change. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 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 redirect to Chuvashia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuvash statehood[edit]

Nominated for speedy due to "original research". That didn't seem like a good reason for a speedy, so I AfD it. No vote. Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chuvashia. The article is rambling, unfocussed, unreferenced and written in broken English. I have a suspicion of lack of neutrality, some sort of WP:POINT is made regarding to centuries of oppression and now independence, due to actions taken by mainly two tribes only. Earlier article version contained the word "genocide" - indicative of lack of WP:NPOV. The history section may contain salvageable information, but unfortunately I have no clue whatsoever regarding factual accuracy. I propose that it is redirected to Chuvashia to preserve edit history and contents, and that a note is placed at the target, to mine and merge any salvagable information. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The topic is undoubtedly encyclopedic and worthy of coverage, but the article in its present state fails miserably to reach that goal. Unless the article is re-written during the course of this AfD, it should be redirected to Chuvashia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:48, May 26, 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as an obvious hoax. Author was already under a 24-hour block for hoaxing, but I ramped it up to indef after looking at his history. Blueboy 96 23:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tess Gannon[edit]

Nominated for speedy as "blatant vandalism". Looked like it could be true or false, so I'm passing it on to AfD. No vote. Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I meant hoax, actually. It's a blatant hoax from a disruptive user whose other articles have all been speedied as hoaxes. Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of importance or significance for the soap opera character in this unreferenced stub regardless of whether or not it is a hoax. Drawn Some (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is an article about a character that doesn't exist. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 11:46, 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. Flowerparty^☀ 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCart[edit]

Is not notable enough.Jamie Shaw (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per utter lack of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 08:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability provided. GF news archive and web searches identify no significant coverage in reliable sources. Bongo matic 09:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete provides no reliable sources, does not assert notability. Quick searches of Google and Google News do not provide significant coverage by reliable sources. Kn Cv² 13:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Pretty much the same analysis as in the last AfD: I personally would like to keep this page but I can't justify doing so in the absence of reliable sources, which I've been unable to find. There is evidence that people are using this software; search for "powered by OpenCart": [21]. However, outside of this one Italian-language source (which I can't read): [22] I can't find anything other than blog or forum posts and the project's homepage. This is not enough to provide notability. The blog/forum posts I read also commented that there isn't a very big support community for the software, which would reinforce that it is not notable. Cazort (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability, barely any context, and being a web application doesn't make you notable - otherwise, I'll write an article about the spider near the front door - at least its web application is doing something useful... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not notable but I dispute your claim that this application is not "doing something useful"...the web search I showed above does demonstrate that a large number of online stores are using this product. But this is irrelevant to the notability discussion--it doesn't matter whether or not it's used, it matters whether its use has been documented in reliable sources, which it hasn't. Cazort (talk) 19:20, 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 18:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma boron discovery controversy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy

Despite thorough attempts by several editors and professional scientists in this field, no reliable sources could be found confirming the stated controversy exists or existed (see discussion page for details NIMSoffice (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify: NIMSOffice (now renamed into Materialscientist for inappropriate use of the institutional name(NIMS is an institute in Japan)) nominates this page for deletion, because he is directly involved in this controversy. I am also directly involved in the story. The controversy page has been started by independent Wiki-editors (not by me and not by NIMSOffice) who found controversy existent and important.
In this controversy, our side has presented solid evidence that the discovery of the new crystal strucure was made by us, and the other side (to which NIMSOffice is directly related, being their long-time collaborator) plagiarized our work. The side supported by NIMSOffice failed to present any contrary evidence, and now NIMSOffice insists on deletion. I suggest to keep the page, which has involved so much independent effort and now has our documentary evidence. Instead, I suggest to delete NIMSOffice's account - this person misuses anonymity. BTW, I and my colleagues found the identity of NIMSOffice and we can prove his long-time connections to Dubrovinskaia (the other side in the dispute) and rather dark role that NIMSOffice played in publishing their work (NIMSOffice is an editor of the journal where their paper appeared, in shortest time and in spite of referees' rejection!).
Generally pages like that are useful in that they bring awareness of the complexity of the discovery process, and may help to establish the actual facts on important scientific discoveries. We need such pages. Artem R. Oganov 16:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoganov (talk • contribs)
- From what I can tell, NIMSOffice/Materialscientist is an experienced contributor to Wikipedia who is in good standing. Without judging edits made to gamma boron related topics either way, other edits made by this user seem to have been constructive improvements to the encyclopedia, IMO. I therefore find it highly uncivil to suggest deletion of this account. Further, your statement "I and my colleagues found the identity of NIMSOffice and we can prove his long-time connections to Dubrovinskaia" sounds like a threat of outing; outing the real world identity of a Wikipedian against their will is expressly against our policy and is a blockable offense. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information. So please keep your specific suspicions to yourself. --mav (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)~[reply]
  - You are right that NIMSOffice/Materialscientist is an experienced editor. I don't know how good or objective his other edits are. In the case of boron his edits are demonstrably biased and it is easy to demonstrate that he is biased on purpose. I mentioned that I know his identity for a simple reason - WP-administrators can check his identity and contact me (if my conclusion about this person is correct, then this person is directly involved in this controversy, in spite of his claims of the opposite). I am not threatening NIMSOffice at all, but I do want his behavior to be investigated. This is why I explained the story and his involvement in it. Aoganov (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please understand that in all discussions on WP, behind a user name there is a real person, who might get hurt by your comments. The sensitivity threshold of that person is unpredictable, and thus you might notice that experienced editors and administrators try to be polite in disputes. However, just for example, calling an opponent a biased, incompetent coward who should be banned from WP for this, would be taken as offense by most people and therefore is discouraged on WP. You might know a related example from "real world" - bullying over internet or mobile phones. It is usually anonymous but can lead to serious consequences and therefore is treated with extreme attention.Materialscientist (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable secondary sources demonstrate existence of controversy. Only primary sources maintained by Aoganov. NYTimes, etc. don't mention any "controversy". Article's existence due to attempts to "right a great wrong" from dispute that spilled over from Talk:Boron. Scientific content now at new neutrally-titled Allotropes of boron to meet initial concerns over deletion on talk page. Perhaps Aoganov can get some reliable secondary sources to notably document his concerns, but, until then, the page does not meet our notability guideline (this point is understood by Aoganov). Perhaps Materialscientist (same user as NIMSOffice) should have mentioned they were involved in the edit conflicts at Boron, and thus may also have a "vested interest" in this content. Nonetheless, this article was patiently waiting for a deletion proposal from anyone as it fails our notability guideline. -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Take the statements about Materialscientist by Aoganov with a pinch of salt. Aoganov thinks that Materialscientist is a particular person in real life, and has taken to stating it as fact, but the latter has, to my knowledge, never stated xyr name nor claimed any involvement in the purported external dispute on either side (and in fact asserts that xyr only involvement here is as a Wikipedia editor interested in materials science topics). Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information supports Materialscientist's tacit refusal to become embroiled in a discussion, instigated by another editor, of who xe may or may not be, note. Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t delete – controversy exists and has reliable secondary sources. A number of sources are already mentioned on Gamma boron discovery controversy page. Operating only with public materials, i.e. reliable secondary sources:
Oganov and colleagues made at least 8 presentations of their findings at conferences since early 2007, including the high-profile IUCr meeting in August 2008, where they announced the discovery of a new phase of boron and its unique crystal structure ^[1]. These results were later published as a full article in Nature ^[2]
The IUCr conference was attended by Dubrovinsky and his colleagues (see the abstract of their talk at the same meeting as a proof http://journals.iucr.org/a/issues/2008/a1/00/a38473/a38473.pdf). Later, Dubrovinsky and colleagues published papers on boron, which did not mention that they are familiar with results of Oganov et al. Dubrovinsky et al. called this phase “new” (in spite of the earlier work by Oganov et al.) ^[3].
See also presentation of Zarechnaya and Dubrovinsky called “New HPHT phase of boron” http://www.psi-k.org/newsletters/News_90/newsletter_90.pdf
Also see Editorial Preface (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1468-6996/9/4/040301), stating that Zarechnaya-Dubrovinskaia work reported on novel phase of boron. This is at the heart of present controversy. Aoganov (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally have no doubt that you are who you say you are and feel that your work has not received proper credit by Dubrovinsky et al. But are there reliable independent sources that document a controversy itself (extrapolating a controversy by noting inconsistencies in reliable sources and submittal/publication timing is different)? If not, then this does not satisfy the verifiability requirements of Wikipedia, IMO. Wikipedia is not a place to document such a controversy for the first time. It must first be documented somewhere else that is both reliable and has independent editorial control (even if the external article about the controversy were written by one or the other party in the dispute). Facts can and should be cited in allotropes of boron and boron from published papers by both groups and inconsistencies mentioned as needed to improve the article, though. --mav (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure - if you just read above, you will see that Dubrovinskaia herself, and the editor of the issue where her paper was published, claimed that they found a novel phase and its structure. In reality, this was found by us. Dubrovinskaia's paper and Editorial article are reliable secondary sources. Aoganov (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did notice that but a notable controversy per our policy (please, do not take offense at that statement: I understand that this most certainly is a very notable thing for you) only exists when the conflict itself is documented by reliable sources (that is, articles or papers about the conflict/controversy itself; competing claims to discovery are different unless two or more groups continue to maintain their competing claims). Even then, the controversy may only be notable enough (again, per our policy) for a short mention in allotropes of boron or perhaps boron. So far, I'm unconvinced that this is notable or verifiable enough for an entire article on the subject. Again, this is per our policy on inclusion and should not be taken as diminishing your group's excellent work on uncovering this most fascinating allotrope of boron. --mav (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I reviewed the article and the sources, and I believe this falls under WP:OR. Based on the responses above, I believe the author of the article does not fully understand what WP:OR is, and should also consult WP:COI. None of the article talk about a controversy. The author is formulating a controversy through original research. Since they are the one trying to create the controversy, conflict of interest is definitely present. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads as complete original research. I could not find a source indicating any notable controversy as asserted in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This description of a priority dispute is WP:OR and unsuitable for wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear WP:OR WP:SOAPboxing by the articles author seeking to promulgate his claims of plagarism Mayalld (talk) 07:54, 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 05:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magaluf Card Game[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable card game. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 07:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think WP:MADEUP may apply here.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Sky Attacker: "This game was created by four Emerson College students studying abroad in the Netherlands. The students simply added rules to the game Polish Poker and named it after their weekend destination Magaluf in Palma de Mallorca off the coast of Spain." Add that to the fact that g-searching for "Magaluf card game" yields no relevant results besides this Wikipedia article, and this is non-notable, and just something 4 guys made up while in Spain. Zivlok (talk) 20:40, 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. Sources haven't been added since the past AfDs, and notability was not proven. Jamie^☆S93 03:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maravilla[edit]

AfDs for this article:

DELETE. This article is a joke. Yes, there is some trivial coverage of this gang. If there was anything substantial it would have been added by now, years later. WP:DEADLINE is not a free pass for non-notability. JBsupreme (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability was clearly established in the 3rd AfD. McWomble (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not really. Hence the nom. JBsupreme (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN gang. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given four noms going back to 2005, I think it's time to put this one to rest once more. The past noms seem irrelevant now given it's a sub-stub, editors have been given 3 years to gather the required sources but not even notability establishing sources have been added even before it was pared down to the current state never mind the secondary sources. treelo _radda 22:59, 27 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 Erik9 (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian cult[edit]

AfDs for this article:

note: article moved to Christian new religious movements— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbachmann (talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 May 2009

Violates WP:No original research. Most Christians would deny that a group can be both Christian and a cult. The article does not make it clear how the expression "Christian cult" is used, nor does it even provide any evidence that it is used at all. Borock (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does in fact define 'cult,' and does so quite carefully, separating it from other uses of the word and specifying the term. What "most Christians" would deny is entirely irrelevant here--and I might note that precisely that turn of phrase suggests that the nominator is not aware of the term 'cult' in all its nuances: the average Catholic knows (or should know) exactly what, for instance, the cult of Mary is, but that is not the use we are talking about here. Moreover, there are some pretty freaky Christian cults out there, as many Christians would agree. Article has plenty of references to pass the test, though not nearly enough for my taste, and it could do with serious improvement (more narrative, less schematics). But this nomination has no merit, in my opinion, and I hope other editors agree quickly, in order to close this discussion. Drmies (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many Christians would not agree that there are freaky Christian cults. A better title would be "Cults who say they are Christian." Borock (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that at all relevant? It seems to me that you have an implicit definition of "Christian" here, which defines what you claim to be Christian or not, and excludes what you think of as cults. The article is much more clear and explicit than you are. What Christians or non-Christians think of this article as Christians or non-Christians is far beside the point. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been Christian sects and cults from the Ebionites onward. The issue isn't whether some Christians regard these sects and cults as "true Christians". The issue is simply whether the term is used as a significant concept in scholarly discussions. Will Beback talk 06:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article specifically excludes eary Christian "sects and cults." The first thing it says is: This article does not discuss Christian cults in the original and typically ancient sense of "religious practice". Borock (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I just meant that Christian cults aren't a new phenomenon. Will Beback talk 06:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not simply discussed in books (894), but the term appears in the title of many books (43). Cirt (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the books you cited seem to refer to groups in the first few centuries after Christ. I also don't think many people in the mainstream would consider the Maccabees to be a "Christian cult" as one book seems to. (Some of the book titles refer to "pre-Christian cults.") Borock (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, archived news articles = 527. Cirt (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first page of that search includes a letter to the editor complaining about someone calling Heaven's Gate a "Christian cult" and someone else calling the Mormons a "non-Christian cult." It's clear that this is not an expression that is used in any neutral or even consistant way. Borock (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also additional sources, from JSTOR. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The topic is interesting and potentially encyclopaedic, and the sparse refs there show some promise, but the article needs a lot of cleanup, possibly even a complete rewrite. That said, XfD is not cleanup, so i'm leaning towards keep on this one. Firestorm ^Talk 06:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is notable and verifiable. Google Scholar shows 1920 hits for the article title as search term. Note that the definition of the term "cult" does not imply non-Christian in any way; its first definition in the Random House Dictionary is simply "a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies." --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at that search shows that most of these books are refering to early Christian sects, which are specifically excluded from this article. Another book seems to be saying that Christianity itself is a cult.Borock (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the book you found that makes that statement is a reliable source, maybe it would be a good idea to add that info to the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that every source that puts the words "Christian" and "cult" together in the same sentence should be cited in the article. That's pretty much what it does now. You might as well have an article on Dishonest Christian. (Look 864 ghits)Borock (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On further considerations of your concerns about the article title, maybe rather than AfD, what you are seeking for the topic to be disambiguated. There could be two articles, one about Christianity as a cult, in the sense of a "a particular system of religious worship..." per the dictionary definition and the various historical & anthropological references that use the term "cult" in regards to Christianity, just as the term is used with regards to other major religions such as Judaism, etc.. The disambiguated article could be something like Christian cult (contemporary), and that could describe modern cults that happen to be based in Christian ideology. That might resolve the questions that result from the use of that particular term, but it would depend on whether or not the sources can be found to support the disambiguated uses. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There already is Christian cult (disambiguation). And yes, I mainly object to the title. If a very large number of concerned people (most Christians) don't think that a "cult" in the modern sense of the word can even possibly be Christian then the present title is not WP:Neutral. I think a better title would be "Cults that draw on Christian traditions."Borock (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep but if possible move to a more satisfactory title. "Christian cult" should be the disambiguation page now at Christian cult (disambiguation)". Note List_of_new_religious_movements#Christianity-oriented. "Christianity-oriented new religious movements" may be a more neutral title, but would also widen the scope to include nrms not usually or necessarily considered cults, such as Mormonism --dab (𒁳) 09:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per given reasons.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 10:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first section is supported by sources, and the numerous other Keep editors here have convinced me that there are sufficient sources to make a solid article, and that the term is not inherently pejorative nor a neologism, though I don't like the list nor it's classification, each listed group needs citation to support how it has been categorized. ThuranX (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is notable and significant and religious groups are classified this way. POV or attacking any particular group should be carefully avoided in the article. Drawn Some (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep albeit with a less POV title. It could use more sourcing, but it's a valid topic. I agree that the title is too POV. Whether something is a cult is a matter of opinion, and one person's "cult" is another person's "way of life". For the same reason, we don't have an article entitled "Moslem extremist" ("Muslim extremism" redirects to an article about extremism in general). Although I understand the nominator's statement that "Most Christians would deny that a group can be both Christian and a cult", it's not our prerogative to judge whether someone is "walking the walk" or just "talking the talk". Nevertheless, within any religion there are going to be groups of people whose interpretation of the written word and practice of faith is far enough from the mainstream that the media has used the word "cult". Mandsford (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: This AFD was linked from AN after an early non-admin closure [23], which I reverted. –xeno^talk 15:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic clearly meets notability and verifiability guidelines. Questions regarding the nature of the content are a separate matter, which can be addressed in the article itself, not in the deletion discussion. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —John Carter (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article may require some work to provide nuance to what is a complex area. POV issues arise, in my opinion, because cult has both pejorative and technical usages. Need is for disambiguation of the term cult rather than deletion and this is achievable. Agree that the subject be regarded as notable. Muzhogg (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main Cult article linked in "See also" already covers complex nuanced usages. This article is specifically for the notable phrase "Christian cult", and it's only one small part of extensive coverage of the cult topics as shown in the navigation template. Milo 10:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Wikipedia is not censored. Notable title terms are often non-neutral to somebody (e.g., the n-word article, and even the term "American" as a demonym for "U.S.A."). The title is a robustly notable term. Google has 48,900 hits today on "Christian cult", and additional WP:RS references are available. Cirt and Jack-A-Roe pointed to scholars' literature or Google news archives above. Here is a pointer to some news articles in the NYT archive: [24]. Nine references since only 1981 (the free archive) refer to "Christian cult" (I didn't bother with the plural form). Two are about the ancient Christian cult (religious practice), and one is a contemporary veneration of Mary (also a religious practice), leaving six which are on topic. Two are arts and theater reviews which do count toward notability of the term. Four are news stories. The most important is a direct quote of officials of the government of Israel who deported 26 members of "an extreme Christian cult".[25] Milo 10:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never questioned that the two words "Christian" and "cult" can be put together. I do question that that has any consistent meaning. I also have no idea what the government of Israel would consider an extreme Christian cult. I don't think they are experts on the topic.Borock (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel's long history of cult expertise dates at least from religious and social conflict with the Samaritans starting about 2700 years ago.

"I do question that that has any consistent meaning." Editors who are new to the cult topics often say things like that, because they usually don't know that the spelling c-u-l-t is a homonym with at least nine meanings. As with any homonym, the exact meaning must be deduced from the context, but the usage is consistent within each context. This also applies to phrases containing c-u-l-t.

Speaking for evangelicals as a group, "Christian cult" is quoted from a position statement made by Pastor Ted Haggard, then president of the National Association of Evangelicals (LATimes, 2006-10-10). Haggard describes a certain "Christian cult" as having two characteristics: "claims exclusive revelation" and "hard to get out of". These two characteristics are part of two contexts described by the article (1."Christian fundamental beliefs"; 2. "thought-reform and life-control") as those of the counter-cult movement and anti-cult movement respectively. Milo 22:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christian cult (disambiguation) and redirect accordingly. A note to Borock, just because the term has a rather fuzzy meaning doesn't mean we should get rid of it That, and if you move it to that other suggestion (list of cults who say they are Christian, or soemthing), then there exists a whole new can of worms that's been opened. As for the merge, there is much information in there that really needs to be on the dab page - make it a one stop shop of sorts, and remove the redundancy of the examples hereon. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to make it plural (that is, to Christian cults). No one can dispute the fact that some cults are referred to as "Christian" only by themselves, and that's what the article is about. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- My view would result in the addition of a lot more, but this is based on objective source lists. Conceivably Christian cult (disambiguation) might be merged here, certainly not the ther way around, vut that article is really concerned with something else. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just wanted to point out that there is nothing POV about the title of this article. These cults identify themselves as Christians; therefore we can classify them as Christian. It is not for us to decide how faithfully they adhere to the tenets by which other people define Christianity. Powers ^T 00:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But do these "cults" also identify themselves as cults? Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the problem I see. Someone calls them "cults" and someone else calls them "Christian" and the two things are put together to create this article. Borock (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It superficially appeared to be that way only because of currently inadequate references. Multiple reliable source references to the complete phrase "Christian cult" in the article's modern context have been posted above, so it is now Wikipedia policy to keep the article: WP:AFD#Alternatives to deletion: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Milo 05:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions on scope and terminology belong on article talk. I have no idea why this is supposed to be debated on an AfD page. "Cult" is an unhappy term for the intended scope. It'll probably end up being about "Christian new religious movements". So let's do it, but let AfD stick to actual deletion debates. --dab (𒁳) 07:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AfD should be SNOWed in view of all the keep votes above, and I have move it to Christian new religious movements and begun expanding its scope along the lines suggested above. --dab (𒁳) 07:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann/dab has hijacked "Christian cult", the article title under AfD discussion, without consensus. He used admin tools to move the article ("26 May 2009" ... "(Deletion log); 07:33 . . Dbachmann" ... "deleted "Christian new religious movements" (G6: Deleted to make way for move)"), to an occupied title, "Christian new religious movements", which is not the same topic. Fundamentalists/Evangelicals call as "cults", two major religions which are obviously not "new religious movements"; one such major religion was named by Evangelicals President Ted Haggard in the LAT source above.

Then dab did a major rewrite that spans 16 revisions, which (unsurprisingly) makes it difficult to restore the article to a condition suitable for installing the new reliable source references posted here.

Dab previously tried a move using another title last August, 2008, with the result of "...no consensus to support move"

Therefore, I call for admins to restore the Christian cult article to its condition before dab altered it, and transfer dab's new text to a stub with the new title. The new title "Christian new religious movements" has only 176 Google hits today, so it may be difficult to reliably source it. If Christian cult isn't restored, so few Google hits on the new title could mean that dab has engaged in a backdoor AfD of the Christian cult article against the WP:SNOW consensus here.

Dab's remark above, " 'Cult' is an unhappy term...", and followup actions with lack of consensus and tool misuse suggests that he may be following too closely in the footsteps of an editor who was banned in 2008 [26], inclusively because of: "...Sfacets's ongoing campaign to expunge the word "cult" from Wikipedia..." ((17:27, 20 September 2007)).

Since dab used tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, I call for an investigation to determine if he should be topic banned or desysopped. Milo 13:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI is where you need to take your grievance. Mandsford (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, I think here I'll trust dab's judgement on this - he was, in short, exercising WP:SOFIXIT. WP:SNOW would be appropriate for the AFD in my opinion, but he's right - fixing the problem rather than removing the article is the right thing. I still think a merge to the disambig page would have been better, but that's just my thing. [ Dennisthe2 13:29, 27 May 2009(UTC) [27] ]

"merge to the disambig page" Disambig pages can't be used that way: Wikipedia:Disambigation#References: "...disambiguation pages are not articles"

"dab's judgment" This isn't an issue for judgment, it's about following a clear consensus. This AfD has already been closed once as SNOW KEEP, and no one is claiming otherwise. Keep means keep as titled, not merge or move/rename (especially from a notable title to a non-notable title). To do otherwise condones backdoor AfDs, a mockery of consensus and process.

←This is a policies violation issue. Dab broke at least two, and he has been previously much discussed and reminded:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse of administrative_tools (policy): "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist."

2. WP:Consensus#What consensus is (policy): "... consensus is the rule on Wikipedia" Wikipedia:AfD#How an AfD discussion is closed: "... decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion."

"trust dab's" That rubicon has already been crossed. Dab has had no less than three RFCUs (RFC/U/Dbachmann 3), culminating in an RFAR, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Dbachmann reminded:

"1) Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is reminded to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes in which he is personally involved, and to avoid misusing the administrative rollback tool for content reversions. ¶ Passed 9 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)"

Arbitrator Fred Bauder also wanted dab desysopped in 2006.[28]

Milo 22:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, let's take this to either WP:ANI or WP:RFC. We aren't here to discuss behavior of an administrator, we're here to discuss whether this article should be deleted. Anything beyond this is little more than clutter we don't need here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:44, 28 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 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Summers (MMA fighter)[edit]

Nothing verifiable to show notability. --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —--aktsu ^(t / c) 04:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hoax, prank etc. feydey (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm guessing this is an over-inflated page for a minor MMAer/MMA fan based on this [29] (note the number of MMA-related "friends" there). No evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article or Internet searches suggest this person is notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Mann (actor)[edit]

non-notable radio actor, fails WP:ENTERTAINER, has not had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" Tassedethe (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the article and my (somewhat cursory) interpretation of it are to be trusted, he had a significant supporting role (the Chester Proudfoot to Gunsmoke's Matt Dillon) on a radio show ("production") which lasted over five years. I'm not aware of an IR(adio)DB, so internet sources may be somewhat hard to come by (especially with such a generic name), but it seems feasible that print books devoted to OTR (old time radio) would confirm his appearance in said show, and perhaps even provide more of a career overview. This is an article that seems to need expansion, not deletion. Badger Drink (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Certainly, he is mentioned in several sources for his work in Dick Barton. I would have thought that further research an expansion would be preferable to deletion, as per Badger Drink. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears quite notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question If he is notable, where are all the reliable 3rd party references?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 10:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple on Google Books [30]: The golden age of radio: an illustrated companion‎ - Page 69 and Famous movie detectives III‎ - Page 27. Was involved in major radio programs many years ago, so it's not as au courrant as say Pokemon or Sponge Bob. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS for this person Arma virumque cano (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Minimally meets our criteria. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' As ChildofMidnight has shows, sources do exist. Edward321 (talk) 15:46, 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 speedy keep.

Peter Tagliaferri[edit]

Long history of deletion of pages of mayors who are failed parliamentary candidates Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notable with substantial coverage seen here " high-profile Fremantle mayor Peter Tagliaferri emerges as the front-runner to win Labor preselection" [31] and here in an article headlined "Tagliaferri gets Labor nod for Fremantle" [32]. Article needs some work and sourcing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. He's had an article since 2007 based on his notability as mayor, long before he was preselected as a candidate in the by-election. He's one of the most high-profile mayors in the state; there's more sources on his career than a lot of people who did get elected to parliament. Rebecca (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CoM's extraordinarily cogent (noteworthy because rarely so) argument. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per the arguments above. The point about mayors or councillors being failed parliamentary candidates is a nonsense, given there was no objection to this article prior to the recent election, especially given it has existed since 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soji Lujet (talk • contribs) 08:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per eveyone but the nominator. No valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 15:50, 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 keep. Although the !voting among experienced Wikipedians was pretty even until the point that Theredspecial added substantial sourcing to the article [33], that change decisively turned this discussion in favor of keeping the article. In light of that and the tentative nature of some of the early delete votes (JBsupreme, Bali Ultimate), I feel comfortable closing this early as keep. The reason I'm closing it early is to put an end to the meatpuppetry and because I think a different conclusion is unlikely given the recent re-writing. In assessing consensus, meatpuppets' votes were disregarded.-chaser (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YTCracker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Insufficient sources, seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Kept through two previous AFDs in 2006 with provision that sources be added, and that ain't happened. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete partly per nom. He seemed to be more notable as a hacker, but not every hacker is notable. Fails several guidelines, including WP:MUSIC. American Eagle (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wasn't YTCracker in that Frontalot documentary disguised as a "nerdcore" documentary? I can't remember. Either way, without proper sourcing this article has gotta go. JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2+ years is more than enough time to allow for conditions like that to be met. Timeline should be in weeks not months in situations like this. Drawn Some (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SOFIXIT Both past AfDs closed as snow keeps and there seems to be plenty to work with. There is a list of references linked at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/YTCracker, I suggest the nom make use of them. Per WP:BEFORE AfD is not for editorial issues that can be corrected through the normal editing process. WP:NOEFFORT and WP:RUBBISH are not valid reasons to nominate an article for deletion. The Ties to the computer underworld section already has two references that are perfectly acceptable. Tothwolf (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked those sources. None of them seems substantial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you double check because that's not what I'm seeing. We must not be looking at the same links... Tothwolf (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a seemingly non-reliable blog and a bunch of one sentence mentions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just admit it you hate a nerd on the grind dont hate the player hate the game rewrite the article goon sire Ytcracker (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see these, which are all perfectly acceptable:

Rap Marketing Comes to Nerdcore
Spammin' is slammin'
AOL security breach exposes personal info
Cracker Launches Attack on NASA
Feds leave doors open for hackers

I'm sure Google would turn up even more. You seriously need to lay off the JavaScript bulk XfD nomination tools.

--Tothwolf (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another thing, this article has been effectively gutted since the last two snowball keep AfDs, ~1 year ago it looked like this [34] Seems to me this AfD is completely unfounded. Tothwolf (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusatory much? You seriously need to lay off the constant trouting of a good faith editor. You seem to act as if I want to delete everything I can. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chewbacca defense much? Unfortunately that isn't going to work. The only thing I've said so far is I think you are being just a little too quick to click on your pretty JavaScript buttons. Now, in the case of this article, you either

A. Failed to check the article history, or

B. Checked and didn't care

Either way, the fact that the article is down to less than 1/4 of what it was about a year ago means your nomination is faulty. Given that so much material (and a number of sources from the looks of it) has been removed from the article, your nomination reason of "Kept through two previous AFDs in 2006 with provision that sources be added, and that ain't happened" is absolutely invalid (not to mention I don't see any such statements in those past two AfDs). Now, I assumed you simply did not check the article's history before nominating it for AfD. The only other option is 'B' and I'd rather not assume that because that will end up involving a lot more work.

--Tothwolf (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

youre the boss you have a place in my new world order high five Ytcracker (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wired magazine and other sources found, indicate notability. Dream Focus 19:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the absence of multiple reliable sources that treat the subject of a BLP in any depth, as is the case here, would appear to be dispositive for inclusion.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. notability appears trivial at best Theserialcomma (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain this is going to be another snowball keep - you realize i tour INTERNATIONALLY?

i have commercials airing ALL over comcast's network - they own g4tv, e!, and style http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/686579/More_Nerdcore_On_TV_YT_Cracker.html ive been in newsweek IN PRINT http://www.newsweek.com/id/42852 ive been in blender ive been on mtv the sf examiner the boston globe i own digitalgangster.com home of the miley cyrus hacks, paris hilton hacks, twitter hacks of barack obama etc. just this year im an official dj/mc for facebook i do their corporate parties http://ytcracker.com/about some people just gutted the nuts out of this article and i quit editing it seriously lol hating ita sorry i move units haters hugs and kisses Ytcracker (talk)

Keep Notable computer hacker and Nerdcore rap artist with 76,000 results in Google and many credible sources GRYF. Padillac (talk)
Strong Keep Are you serious? This is nothing more than harassment on an internet celebrity. He owns sites that are visited by millions daily, he tours internationally, has commercials on one of the most watched channels in the US, G4, and he has made several news articles over the years. This is a false attempt by an internet charlatan trying to dispute the popularity of someone he idolizes. This is the attempted Mark David Chapman of 2k9. Whoever began this movement should have his Wiki account deleted and his edits of other pages checked for authenticity and prejudice. mattqatsi —Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC). — Mattqatsi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The article has been trimmed quite substantially recently, and would seemingly have passed your criteria a number of months ago. Ytcracker has only gotten more notable in the time being, so the article should be fixed and kept. Tom (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Definitely a prevalent figure in the nerdcore scene. He's even in G4 commercials as seen on http://g4tv.com/gspot/videos/26652/Nerdcore_YT_Cracker.html. The man is on TV repeatedly for his music such as on MTV, seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDnx2e9zwyE. And yes, GRYF. Morreo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Tothwolf's arguments. Until It Sleeps 02:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ytcracker is an influential persona both in real life and on the internet. don't google results mean anything anymore? if ytcracker gets deleted then wikipedia is a failure. Aerno (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen YTCracker perform, I know he's real. Google says so, G4TV says so. MTV says so. Youtube says so. Etc. etc.. Why would you delete that? Don't you want to participate in reality? Lullabud (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC) — Lullabud (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep "YTCracker" has MORE Google image search results than "Wikipedia" does. The man juggles an intense career in the music and entertainment industry as well as an internet hustle that would blow your minds. Do your research before you turn around and knock the empire that he has created over the last decade, ignorant morons. As far as the administration at Wikipedia goes: I personally speak for thousands if not millions of fans when I tell you how disappointed I am that this website even entertains the unfounded garbage that other useless/no-name/haters (mc chris fans) manage to ramble on about. STC is the greatest, power to the RJ45 jack.Edwardwoltin (talk) — Edwardwoltin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep CNN, Wired, Oreilly, CNET, G4. There are so much more backing up this entry compared to other "internet celebrities" that have Wikipedia entries. I mean just look at Leslie Hall
Strong Keep YTCracker is one of the most influential talents in the nerdcore scene. He is basically the founding father of the nerdcore genre that has spread across the nation like a wild fire. It is preposterous to even say that YTCracker's achievements are not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. YTCracker is featured as a pivitol figure that leads the nerdcore G4 TV generation. YTCracker has stared in multiple G4 TV commercials that are aired nationally accross the United States. In my opinion YTCracker is a notable artist and deserves an entry.http://g4tv.com/gspot/videos/26652/Nerdcore_YT_Cracker.html The Crude Oil King (talk) — The Crude Oil King (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep per Padillac and Mattqatsi's arguments. Theredspecial (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep YTCracker's strong arm stretches across the pacific ocean all the way out to Hawaii, we dancin' naked with leaves around our bodies whilst strumming the ukulele. Plus, read everything above and under me--spitting volcanic fire. Systom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC). — Systom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep How can one of the most influential artists to a popular musical genre be not notable? This is 2009, not 1984, the point of wikipedia is not to remove articles, it is to add articles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.47.216 (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.113.146 (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of sockpuppets coming out of the woodwork are lol to be sure. Where are you failbots coming from? JBsupreme (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, providing large quantities of sources basically proving your claims null automatically makes us failbots. Get out of here with your destructionist views. --Morreo (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - i told you i was a big deal holla at you koala ahoy at ya boy i will WP:SNOW this fail of an AfD what an injustice im watching future weapons on the television so im getting a kick out of these replies get your weak ish out my humpy bumpy Ytcracker (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think YTCracker's fanbase is stronger than the obvious bias seen on your user page and discussion JBSupreme —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.47.216 (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - JBSupreme, umad cus I'm stylin' on you? Theredspecial (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just seems a little ridiculous that this is the 3rd nomination when there are so many sources to back up being noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.204.217 (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Straight up, YTC runs a empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.52.135 (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THIS IS INSANE KEEP IT YTCRACKER IS THE UNDISPUTED HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMP OF THE NERDCORE GENRE ALL YOU HATERS BETTER RECOGNIZE BLUNTBILL (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC). — BLUNTBILL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
dude props Theredspecial way to revert that garbage and cite everything with gangsterocity - im on top of the world Ytcracker (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had to fix the internet, word Theredspecial (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it asine to destroy this article, he is notable for both a nerdcore mc, and a hacker/spammer. The reason why this is up for AfD due to the fact of how non-juicy the article is, after many sysops actually DELETED info which was credible and slandered his wiki article. If other nerdcore MC's have A's, then let YTC, because its like deleting a whole genre of music. He mainly started out nerdcore with front. DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE —Preceding unsigned comment added by T0rba (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC) — Torba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Mentions in major publications as being representative of the genre are MORE than enough for a keep. I read articles EVERY DAY that are unsourced/obscure yet they remain. There are THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of articles that have worse sourcing than this, yet those remain because they are not high profile internet personalities. If a person that has multiple MSM mentions can't keep an article, then just delete the whole thing! ( * wikipedia that is) Mattarata (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Deleting this page makes as much sense as deleting Kevin Mitnick and MC Frontalot's pages in one swipe. Notability as a hacker is proven. Notability as a Nerdcore artist is proven. Notability as an entrepreneur, while hardly touched on in the actual page, is proven. Sufficient sources, meets WP:MUSIC which is more then enough to keep this page.--Nwnerdcore (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC) — Nwnerdcore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep FORGOT TO ADD MY VOTE TEOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by T0rba (talk • contribs) 07:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The apparent incoming sockpuppet army isn't really helping. JuJube (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From what I've seen it would appear to be fans and not sockpuppets. Tothwolf (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I redid the whole article citing every source with some help (heh). One of the best written pages on Wikipedia in my opinion. There is no longer an argument for deletion, "sockpuppets" or not. STC is the greatest, holla at a scholar Theredspecial (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The subject of the article fails WP:NOTE, has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The number of sockpuppets and WP:SPAs at this AFD page is disturbing. I hope the closing administrator will take this into account. The sockpuppets should also be blocked. Cirt (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "Sockpuppets" is always the last argument of people not getting their way on Wikipedia. That said; not only does this article surpass the requirements of a celebrity in media, (Blender Magazine's full page article for example) but I have had to request that it be semi-protected due to a vandal repeatedly removing said sources of relevance. If multiple appearances in magazines and television shows (mtv, G4, etc...) aren't a good enough source of notoriety than maybe the multiple newspaper and website articles could satiate the requirements. chozo_ninpo (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no opinion on the matter; the influx of new accounts, all with similar styles and mannerisms, does not help this case is all I am saying (particularly when one calls another user an "ignorant monkey" as can be seen on this page). JuJube (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
chozo_ninpo beat me to saying it, the reason there are no sources on the page is because the same person/people who nominated the page for deletion have been purposefully vandalizing the page to remove sources and refferences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.47.216 (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per the incredible levels of sockpuppetry. → Dylan 620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 12:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. You voted to delete a notable article purely based off the amount of outcry the request for deletion has caused? Last I checked, Wikipedia cited its rules based on notoriety and credible sources, for with which this article has in spades. Accusing these other Wiki-users (including myself) as "sockpuppets" is not only completely and very obviously untrue, but childish and insulting as well. Keep the voting on the source material please. --chozo_ninpo (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when are fans and fellow nerdcore rappers coming to the defense sockpuppetry? You could possibly get away with playing the meatpuppet card, but that would be setting a standard of all fans of a given artist opinion's being worthless in the face of non-fans who don't like the artist and wish for his/her removal, which is exactly what is occuring here. How users defend a page has nothing to do with the notability of the page, the content of the page SHOULD determine the notability, and that's hard to do when its being purposefully degraded.

HE TOURS INTERNATIONALLY YOU IGNORANT MONKEY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardwoltin (talk • contribs) 13:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak, conditional delete.~~ He is mentioned in a few reliable sources, but I couldn't find any of them which discusses him in enough detail to verify the information in the article- he's just one of a list of musicians, generally with only a sentence or two of information. Touring internationally is one of the criteria at WP:MUSIC, but I wasn't able to find any reliable sources that confirm the existence of such a tour; none of the parade of meatpuppets have provided any useful information in this regard. Note to the parade of YTCracker fans: you don't do any good by just telling us he's famous, but you could help a lot by providing us with a few newspaper articles about his tour, or articles in significant online sources (NOT blogs) that are all about him, and not just about nerdcore music in general. I'd be glad to reverse my vote if I could verify that he has had an international tour which was written about in reliable sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Mr. Cracker shared this article, which is in Dutch but appears to confirm the existence of an international tour. Since touring internationally is one of the marks of notability at WP:MUSIC, that works for me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They actually did before the larger fanbase got wind of this: Newsweek: Geeksta Rap Rising, G4: More Nerdcore On TV: YT Cracker Tothwolf (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FisherQueen, this fellow seems notable enough. And get rid of all the socks. Lychosis ^T/C 13:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FisherQueen.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles #1 has been met. "multiple" means "more than one". Even if you only count sources listed ON THIS AfD page (Newsweek, G4, Denver Westword (not just a blog -- look at the "about us" page. it's a local publication that's been around for a while), that is more than one reliable third-party source ON THE ARTICLE'S SUBJECT (not just one-sentence mentions in an article on something else). The nomination is therefore invalid, and this article should be kept. (Furthermore, to the closing admin -- please check IP addresses of all suspected sockpuppets. I know most of them personally, and I'm reasonably certain that many of them are in fact NOT sockpuppets, but the nerdcore community coming to the defense of this AfD. Check out the rhymetorrents board... yes.. a lot of nerdcore folks type alike.) .. and yes guys, he can be notable as both a musician AND a hacker. The article's about a PERSON, not his particular profession. --spazure (contribs) (review) 16:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alright, I see the concerns regarding meatpuppets. I'm talking to people on a one on one basis on the RT boards and through twitter trying to explain the proper way to conduct themselves on an AfD.. they have a right to their opinions, but the barrage of "but he's famous srsly!" isn't particularly helping matters. --spazure (contribs) (review) 16:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lots of sources for his notoriety as a hacker, the problem may be that people are pushing for his recognition as a musician, which is probably less notable than his illegal activities. There are lots of reliable sources discussing his activities. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ignore the socks and meatpuppets. The levels of vote-stacking in this case are unfortunate but they should not distract us from trying to find consensus based on arguments. Although it happened, experienced users should know not to !vote based on these happenings. Back to the topic at hand: FisherQueen (amongst others) has proven that notability exists in this case, multiple reliable sources establish notability, at the very least per the general notability guideline. Regards So Why 17:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Once one slugs through the above sockpuppetry which make one want to favor deletion simply in reaction, it does appear from reading the article that he meets WP:BIO which is what matters. I agree that there is a lot more sourcing for his hacking than for his music but that is an issue of how to write the detail of the article more than anything else. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (switched from delete) - As much as I dislike the massive levels of meating/socking (I even filed the SPI), hacking into government interfaces is certainly a notable accomplishment. → Dylan 620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 17:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following has been transcluded from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/YTCracker (3rd nomination):

YTC is an international celebrity and pioneer in his genre of music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeBronJamess (talk • contribs) 02:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC) — LeBronJamess (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

He is an accomplished internet personality, save this page!

-DuSTeR/Aradesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aradesh (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC) — Aradesh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Belated courtesy notice[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ytcracker. Best, → Dylan 620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 16:56, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cancerslug[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article in question appears to have a hint of notability, yet it contains no references to third party sources, and almost all of the sources used are blogs, which violates our reliable source policy. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it per an anon request on my talk page, knowing this probably wouldn't survive another AfD without third-party references. I'm not against it staying per se, but without those refs outside of Myspace and Facebook, I have to go with delete. They seem to have some regional notability, but most of it seems like the "fanboy" type. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no indication of reliable sources to establish sufficient notability per WP:BAND. Vicenarian (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry man, but there's no notability. Delete. Good luck out there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above --Freikorp (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:NM. — Σ xplicit 06:32, 28 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 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedNotes[edit]

Contested prod. The prod rationale was "non notable software." Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN software. Article reads like an advertisement. Nakon 02:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertorial. Let me know if situation changes... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No inline citations but external links are there. I suggest that this AfD discussion is delayed for a period of 24 hours to give editors a chance to find reliable sources. Then, discussion may continue.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 10:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD already has a seven day period. Nakon 19:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the person who originally PRODed the thing. - TexasAndroid (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like an advertisment. A quick search on Google didn't bring up anything. Laurent (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam for commercial software with free "basic" version available. Not even notable software either. Nuwewsco (talk) 12:13, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megapolisomancy[edit]

I hate to do this (because I like the novel), but this article treats its subject from a basically in-universe, and unsourced, perspective; and I know of no reliable sources that treat it otherwise. Certainly, any literary study that mentions Our Lady of Darkness—about we don't even have an article—has to mention this concept, but in the absence of sources treating the concept significantly from a real-world perspective (discussing sources or analogues of Leiber's notion, for instance), I don't see that an article on the concept can be admitted here. This fails WP:N. Deor (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Write and merge The novel should have an article, and a somewhat abridged account of this should be part of that article. Had I encountered this, I would have constructed a stub article, and done the merge, instead of bringing it here. But the nom could do it better, because he knows the book, and I do not. DGG (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deor commented on my talk page that he thought my suggestion not to the point. . Perhaps I could more conventionally word it: Move to Our Lady of Darkness, cut some of the detail, and add the necessary additional material. Is it clearer that way? DGG (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I moved it. The article still needs quite a bit of work and citations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, and your move of the article has not resulted in either an acceptable article about Our Lady of Darkness or an acceptable article about the topic megapolisomancy; and yet it's somehow managed to thoroughly mess up this AfD about the article on the latter topic—a topic which the move failed entirely to address. It seems that some folks are willing to do anything to confuse, obfuscate, and otherwise disrupt discussions in this forum without actually improving articles or making them meet the WP inclusion requirements. I guess I should not be surprised. For the benefit of any editors who subsequently come upon this discussion, the article I nominated for deletion dealt with the topic of megapolisomancy, not the novel Our Lady of Darkness, and ChildofMidnight's move of the article to a different title doesn't somehow magically manage to make it be about the novel rather than the in-universe concept, which still fails WP:N. If an article about the novel, rather than this fictional element, is desirable, someone (perhaps even I) will write one; but this isn't the way to go about it. Deor (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're not happy with my edits. They were well intentioned. The article could definitely use some major pruning. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no view on whether this should be deleted or kept. However, if it is kept, it is much more likely that the article will be improved, new and encyclopedic information will be added, any salvageable material will be put to good purpose, under the new title. Bongo matic 09:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also have no view on whether this should be deleted or kept. But, if it is kept you need to find some references.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 10:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also concerned about the total lack of references. The title and length of the article are irrelevant if there are no sources. Drawn Some (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge - depending on where the article is moved to! I found this essay through this search which cites a book as having 4 pages on Our Lady of Darkness: Byfield, Bruce Witches of the Mind: a Critical Study of Fritz Leiber Necronomicon Press 1991. Not the most encouraging name for a publishing company when in search of a source, but the site leads to this possibly useful page. I see the Fritz Leiber page lists the Byfield source, are none of the other books of use? Ultimately, the number of hits generated by "Megapolisomancy", although slightly random, suggests wp needs at least a stub to tell the interested what it is (I don't think this argument holds much weight - "Ooh, there are lots of hits for that funny youtube video...") which can be expanded as and when... The page should probably live at Our Lady of Darkness with a heading on Megapoliomancy. Either that, or a bit of a mention at Fritz Leiber. Anyone got a copy I can borrow?! Bigger digger (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leiber seems like quite a well known author, surely there are reviews of his book written in the 70s? Who's going to go to the library to check..? Bigger digger (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as currently, as a redirect to article on the clearly notable novel, which gets 11 gnews hits, and 202 gbooks hits.John Z (talk) 19:06, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Notability established, the article needs expansion at a certain point but deletion really isn't a question here. Tone 10:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Gerst[edit]

Concerns of notability. I myself am neutral (for now at leasT) on the issue, listing to generate discussion more than anything else. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I see no assertion of notability. Totally unsourced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously notable as the German astronaut selected in 2009 by ESA. All astronauts so far have been considered as notable as soon as they are selected. Should this policy change ? Hektor (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, ESA astronauts are indeed notable IMO. Links covers all the referencing one needs at this point. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:55, 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 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simpoe3D/Simpoe-Mold[edit]

In a nutshell: product placement Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability, in addition to being a good bit spammy. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even an assertion of notability, and it's spammish. --Dawn Bard (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: jargon-filled advertisement. Alexius08 (talk) 09:13, 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 redirected to Lee Hoffman. Jamie^☆S93 00:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Always the Black Knight[edit]

Nothing but a plot summary, and I can't find any third-party treatment in reliable sources on which a proper article could be based—there are only 40 discrete Google hits and zero hits on Google Books or Scholar (always a bad sign). This fails WP:N. Deor (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the author. That this was almost entirely plot summary could have been handled by editing, but nothing I can find indicates that the work is of great importance; only 24 WorldCat libraries hold it, and I see no signifiant reviews. Her Westerns are much more significant than her SF, and an article could probably be written on some of them. DGG (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you note, this is an obscure book, about which nothing much more could be said without venturing into "original research" territory. I regret that it never occurred to me that a summary of a major-publisher issue by an author apparently deemed notable would be worth nothing itself. Wikipedia will undoubtedly be (however slightly) enriched by this article's absence. Senix (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:21, 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 Speedy Deleted G3, non admin close. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi omen[edit]

Can find no reliable sources for this character, nor for "Darth Olweu". No sources provided. Fanfic? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I put in a request for Speedy since I couldn't find any reference to this Jedi Omen character, but the author removed my speedy tag. I can't find any reference now either. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Hoax or blatant misinfo. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:45, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Submachine Gun vs Combat Shotgun[edit]

This article appears to be a clear cut case of original research as it is one editor's personal views. The article's topic is also unencyclopedic and probably violates WP:NOTGUIDE. Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, read before posting - Like to remind everyone here that yes, this is a 15 year old, but he's also new to Wikipedia. As a reminder, don't bite the newbies. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete debate; take this to your local bar. Not an encyclopedic topic. OR. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons noted above. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this

Hey guys. I'm only 15 and decided to do this for fun, though I do think it's a worthy topic. I have no idea whatsoever how to do things on Wikipedia, and I certainly don't know how to write a decent article. Could someone please help me out with this one? Or if it's too helpless then I suppose it should be deleted. Thanks!!!! HenryShooter (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Henry, I'd encourage you to take a look at your talk page and follow the links there. On there are some excellent links on how to work Wikipedia. I have to admit, this is a hell of a way to welcome a new editor, but the rules as given...well, check the guidelines, and you shall be enlightened. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. More of an essay, but still original research. Inclined to userfy content for the author. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed !vote, reverting to just plain ol' userfy. Good points here, and if the article has resources, the creator of the article can fix it and resubmit it at a later time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for essays. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if individuals want to post things like this, there are free blogging sites available, which Wikipedia is not. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. I don't see anything that could be merged anywhere, and userfying is not appropiriate, as it serves no purpose even in userspace. Suggest snowballing this. Firestorm ^Talk 05:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete oh heavens no. No. No. Annnnd no. JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ack. And to think it was written by a 15 year old....Makes you sad for the world.--Him and a dog 11:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that can be salvaged I agree that this article is more of an essay and thus probably should be deleted. Perhaps, however, there is something from it that could be salvaged and put into Close Quarters Battle. In my opinion the article is reasonably well written (I have certainly seen worse on wiki) and the contributor needs to be encouraged to stay as he seems like he might be able to make valuable contributions in the future. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing can be salvaged, nothing is cited. Full stop. JBsupreme (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:ESSAY. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I told the author of this article that I thought it could survive this {{afd}} with some better references, and an excision of about two thirds of the material. I did some web searches, and he is correct. There is a debate within law enforcement and special forces literature as to the relative merits of combat shotguns and submachine guns. I added a couple of references to the article. I would remind those voicing an opinion here that opinions in an {{afd}} are supposed to be based on the merits of the topic, not on the current representation. Geo Swan (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if possible. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. If the article creator wants to contribute to this topic usefully, then add sourced material to Close Quarters Battle. Fences and windows (talk) 01:39, 29 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 YTCracker. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdrap Entertainment System[edit]

this album does not appear to be notable because there are no reliable sources to attest to its notability Theserialcomma (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like fun. Looks to be non-notable. Seems promotional in nature at any rate. Delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to YTCracker (itself barely notable). I'm tempted to redirect right now. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ (Changed to redirect, still a pointy nomination)
Clear violation of WP:POINT with a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the nom.
Per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia."
Theserialcomma's nominations of Nerdrap Entertainment System and The Digital Gangster LP for AfD are clearly intended to be disruptive and are a continuation of the disruption surrounding the YTCracker article. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#YTCracker
YTCracker's article survived AfD and has been rewritten to include plenty of sources despite Theserialcomma's attempts to gut the article. [35] [36] [37]
Theserialcomma continued to edit war over the YTCracker article even during the AfD [38] [39] [40]
--Tothwolf (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment here applies equally on this page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to YTcracker. Otherwise, there is very little, if anything, for independent notability. MuZemike 15:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to YTCracker per WLU and MuZemike until proper reviews are available. Tothwolf (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STC IS THE GREATEST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.195.238 (talk) 13:14, 27 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. — Aitias // discussion 02:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cosette Goldstein[edit]

Non notable child actress DimaG (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. Roles were minor and there hasn't been substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established - no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: MQS is on the case. $5 says you all will be eating crow--without bacon. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not this time. You owe him one for steering him in the wrong direction. :) I had a bit of dove oncce (marinated in milk or cream and with bacon I believe). Those free roaming wild animals are quite lean. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Sorry. I have to gree with CoM. Cute as Cossette is, I was unable to find enough on her to even sneak up on the GNG, much less climb over. I suggest that Camille Goldstein be included in this nomination as it suffers from the exact same problems. You owe CoM $5 and a slab of bacon. Sorry. The only hope is that the twins received praise somewhere for their work on Barney and Friends... but I have not so far been able to find it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least she was well-dressed. Pshaw. You should have seen my kid today, in her new blue dress! And CoM, I ate a bacon burger today--grilled bacon on a bun with mayo. Ah yes. Drmies (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had one Thurdsay. No mayo though, just a bit of Russian dressing. Yummo. And once I get your fiver the next couple will be free!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, before I forget, per comments above (not mine). Drmies (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I've added Camille Goldstein; they're twins, on-wiki, too, so sort them both. Jack Merridew 09:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 09:56, 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. Tone 10:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad Ahmed (artist)[edit]

Subject does not meet notability standards. Article is mainly promotional. Most references are generic, not pointing to pages that specifically reference the subject. Most information cannot be verified. (PROD removed by anon IP editor.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine by me, the technical creator of the page. I was merely redirecting the efforts of User:Avenue22 who replaced the Sajjad Ahmed article with information about Sajjad Ahmed (artist). I invited Avenue22 to join in the discussion. -Twinkie eater91 (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 9 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) 00:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, appears to be prolific, but not yet notable. Agreed that most of the references presented in the article do not discuss the actual artist in depth. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:41, 16 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 00:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 09:23, 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 merge to Mahmudiyah killings. The arguments for the application of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL are compelling, and I must discount the arguments that do not address these rules or argue that they should not be followed. Sandstein 06:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and is the perfect example of WP:BLP1E. Most of the article already exists in Mahmudiyah killings, so if not deleted, a merge would be fairly simple. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BLP it certainly is not. She's dead. I didn't see it as applying to her murderers either, as they've now been formally convicted. DGG (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - okay, same policy, different name. How about WP:ONEEVENT? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~Redirect~~ to Mahmudiyah killings. This girl is totally non-notable except for the horrible incident. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per ChildofMidnight. While she was alive, she never did anything notable. The article on the murder is more appropriate. Firestorm ^Talk 05:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect seems like the best option here. 140.177.205.91 (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deja vu... It's already been nominated for deletion a few times and the result was KEEP. How many times do we have to do this? If we delete this we need to delete all the killers pages too. nut-meg (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not quite true. It's never been nominated for deletion at WP:AFD. There were two discussions in the past on the article's talk page about a possible merge, but that's not quite the same. Also, see WP:ONEEVENT and tell me how this article doesn't go against that policy. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - also, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Feel free to nominate the other articles for deletion. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is certainly a notable person in a notable event. Wars in general, and this war in particular, are full of similar incidents. But this article will highlight the gravity of the event which is already established as a milestone in the history of this nation's war in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadik7 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC) — Sadik7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - No one is saying that the event isn't notable; that's why the Mahmudiyah killings article exists. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But the question is if (Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi) is a notable person under WP:Notability_(people) and Sadik7 makes a few points here that confirm she is a notable person. Iqinn (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - What point has he made? He basically stated that the event was notable, which no one disagrees with. You have to ask yourself, if this one event (as tragic as it is) had never occurred, would she be notable on her own? No, she wouldn't. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Yes, considering her age it might be the case that she has become notable just for one event. But that does not violate the policy you are pointing to. I have read WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT a few times and i see no violation that would justify a merger or deletion. As i am quite new to Wikipedia could you please specifically explain how the policy is being violated instead of just pointing at it. Iqinn (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - the key phrase in WP:ONEEVENT is If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Yes, there are reliable sources about this girl that give information about her, but she's only "notable" for her death. She wasn't considered notable (by Wikipedia's standards) before her death, so therefore, because of one event (her rape and murder) does not make her notable. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - But just above your 'key phrase' WP:ONEEVENT also says; "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." That's the case here. Iqinn (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Reply - being a victim is not a large role in an event. If you continue reading after the "key phrase", it mentions John Hinckley, Jr., who played a significant role in the Reagan assassination attempt. Unfortunately, Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi as a victim, does not play a significant role in the Mahmudiyah killings. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - She does play a significant role as a victim. WP:Notability_(criminal_acts) on victims says: "Also, consistent with WP:BLP1E, articles on persons primarily known as victims may be appropriate for persons with a large role within well-documented historic events. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role..." The Time[[41]], the Guardian[[42]] and many of the other secondary sources have devoted more than significant attention to Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. It's all about her and her role in the event in many of these sources. This significant attention makes her notable. Iqinn (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply She is significant to the event because without her there would be no event. nut-meg (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable, encyclopedic, and well sourced. Badagnani (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mahmudiyah killings, only notable of being a victim of the killings, and the article itself doesn't say much about it. 71.165.197.22 (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The story of Abeer has been followed by many Iraqis, and non-Iraqis (like myself & my wife). It illustrates the brutality and wrong-ness of this war like this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Phuc_Phan_Thi (Vietnamese girl running from a napalm fire) did for Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.22.139 (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC) — 76.193.22.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Good point. Just because the American media doesn't care doesn't mean this person isn't notable. In Iraq, she is a symbol of the injustices many civilians have suffered. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wikipedia isn't an "American only" site. From what I understand there has been a lot of coverage on the whole thing and people in the Middle East have followed this closely. She may be notable for one event, but unlike someone like Lacy Peterson, she is intertwined with many other, hugely notable events. nut-meg (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It does Not fail WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E nor WP:ONEEVENT. I agree with the general rule that not all victims of a crime are notable just because they are victims. However these guidelines also clearly say that a separate article for a person may be appropriate: When the event is significant, well-documented and or from historic importance. That is clearly the case here. The persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources is a given fact and Abeer's role in this coverage is substantial. From the beginning of the event until now she is an important figure and for these reasons the article should not be merged or deleted. Iqinn (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's nothing in her article that isn't already in the main article and if it isn't there, it can easily be added. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi had a large role in this historic incident. Many reliable secondary sources included in the article have devoted significant attention specially to her. And because of this she has became notable. The existence of the article does not violate WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E nor WP:ONEEVENT and therefore the article should not be erased. Iqinn (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - there is NOTHING in the article about her specifically. The majority of the article is about the killings themselves. If anything, it provides some more details that should probably be included in that article, too, which just strengthens the argument that it should be deleted or merged. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - That is not true. Everything in the article is about her. It is named after her Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. There is a picture of her ID card. All information in the article are about her and well sourced. I think that brings us just back to the discussion if she is notable. Iqinn (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - Her page seems quite similar to the Prelude section of Mahmudiyah killings and a merge should maintain, clean up, and streamline all the pertinent information. It was a tragedy, but I agree it technically fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.122.55.134 (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC) — 202.122.55.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep -- Claims of WP:BLP1E, in this particular case, give the very unfortunate appearance of an attempt to sanitize the historical record regarding an incident embarrassing to Americans. No boubt this was not the actual intent of the nominator, and those expressing a delete or merge. But it gives this unfortunate appearance nevertheless. This young girl is one of the most noteworthy victims of the entire war. And since spin-doctors played a shameful game to try to claim she was in her twenties, was not a child, this appearance of an attempt at obfuscation leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Geo Swan (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I can see the arguments for "merge", but I'm not convinced we could contain all the information in the article on the killings without violating WP:UNDUE. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - (repeat from above) - there is NOTHING in the article about her specifically. The majority of the article is about the killings themselves. If anything, it provides some more details that should probably be included in that article, too, which just strengthens the argument that it should be deleted or merged. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Why repeat the same again? I have replied to it above. Let's continue the discussion about this there. Your argument does not become stronger by shouting it out many times. Iqinn (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - if you notice, this is a reply to this keep not to the your keep above. Many people don't read all of this and it sometimes helps to reply directly under. I apologize if you think I was shouting, because I wasn't. Finally, you must be reading a different article than I am, because there is nothing in there about that girl that's not directly related to the event. Nothing. The picture of the ID card can easily be put in the other article, as well. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - yes it is another keep but i just think it not good to discuss the same points again under different votes. It could cut off other peoples voices, and now you reply here to something i said above. I am not sure that is helpful. Anyway, back to the discussion. I can assure you i am reading the same article. I have frequently included the link to the article in my remarks. It is the article about Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. All you say here brings us back to the point if she can be notable just for one event, what we have discussed above. And as i have to say it here again. All information in the article are doubtless about her, well sourced and notable. About my shouting remark: Writing a word with all letters in upper-case often indicates shouting. I am sorry if i have miss interpret you in this particular case. Iqinn (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - take away information about the days leading up to the murders and the day of the murder and what do you have in her article? What information do you know about her from the article outside of her rape and murder? That she has a family that they were also brutally killed? Her age? What else? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - basically you say: If you would take out all the information of the one event she is notable for, than there would be nothing notable left in the article. So what? Yes, it would prove that she is just notable for one event. But what is wrong with that? We have discussed this above under the vote of Sadik7. The outcome there so far is: She is notable for her role in this one event and that her article does not fail WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E nor any other policy you have cited. Iqinn (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Finally my feelings: There is hardly anything in my life that was as painful as this discussion. I have been in tears many times and i am in tears now. Iqinn (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a soldier and a father, reading this article made my blood boil. I honestly felt sick to the stomach. I know that policywise the subject is not notable for anything other than the crime committed against her and that in voting keep, I am voting against that policy. However, I cannot bring myself to vote delete. Someone needs to speak for this poor girl, maybe the wikipedia article can go someway to doing that. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so basically, you're saying that you agree with the merge arguments and that this article goes against policy, but that you like it so it should stay? Her information would not be lost in a merge. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I'm fairly sure that what I said was clear. I said keep. Not merge. I don't presume to paraphrase what others say, so would appreciate that people don't paraphrase what I say. No, to make it perfectly clear, I don't like it and that's why I say keep. To be honest the article is not the best wiki article I've read. But I found this an emotional issue and therefore chose to vote in a manner that was possibly against policy. One of the great things about being human is that sometimes we can choose to act in a manner that may not be rational because we feel it is the right thing to do. In this case, I feel that allowing this subject to have its own article helps illustrate the tragedy of this incident and as such feel that an exception should be made to the rule. Additionally, I feel that the policies cited allow room for some flexibility. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I do not believe your vote is counter-policy. I believe the policy allows some discretion, and that individuals known for one event are not usually considered notable -- but exceptions are allowed, or perhaps necessary, if the event is significant enough, and their role in the event is significant enough. I don't think there is any question that hers is a case that merits the exceptional treatment. So, rest easy. Heroic Richard Jewell would be another instance of WP:BLP1E fans would argue should be deleted on "one event" grounds. Geo Swan (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! For the love of God, for the love of humanity, do not delete this. This girl suffered the worst death imaginable. At least give her the diginity of being remembered!!! Junius ONE (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)— Junius ONE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - as I've already said above, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The question that should always be asked is this: can the sum of encyclopedic knowledge about this subject be covered in another article. In this case, the answer is "yes". There is very little notable information which is not/can not be covered at Mahmudiyah killings. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 03:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We should also take in consideration that it usually takes a long time, often decades, to work through horrific incidents of this magnitude. The war has not even ended and people are still under shock. Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi is already a notable article that is well sourced. Maybe we should give it at least a few years more time. The risk of losing something in a merge now is to high for an event of this importance. Iqinn (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic wp:blp1e/wp:oneevent. Incident is sufficiently covered at Mahmudiyah killings.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial + wp:oneevent. NoCal100 (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - instead just pointing to wp:oneevent could you please specifically explain how this policy has been violated? We have a few discussion above now to clarify this question. I think it would be helpful if you could help us there. Iqinn (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From wp:oneevent: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." - She covered only in the context of the Mahmudiyah killings, and being dead, is unlikely to gain notability for other things. I hope this clarifies things. NoCal100 (talk) 05:18, 31 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 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cost per post[edit]

Unreferenced, and apparently completely untrue - Cost Per Post and Pay Per Post have been in use since at least 2007 - http://payperpost.com/advertisers/faq.html - this is an apparent attemt to re-write history. Original poster continues to remove prod without improvement of article. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 00:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and as prodder. No references linking these two men to this concept. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't really have a solid following of references. Just external links to home pages of search engines. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 02:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:OR, WP:N, WP:V. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 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. Jamie^☆S93 00:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stew Herrera[edit]

Asserts notability as a voiceover for Rock & Roll Jeopardy! and a couple networks. Absolutely no sources found, however. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I found sources, but they're all websites, and while not suspect, they aren't obviously WP:RS. IMDB says he's the voice of a few notable video game productions (Hitman and Tom Clancy). And the LA Times has his name in a few articles, although the references appear to be DJ related. Is there a DJ notability criteria out there? Probably WP:Entertainer comes close. Like I say, it's borderline. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable individual (like Loretta Fox, whose page has already been deleted). [email protected] (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage. Even if we can prove this guy is real it wouldn't make him notable without something deserving of an encyclopedia article, and the claims made in the article don't cut it. DreamGuy (talk) 23:59, 21 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) 00:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced BLP lacking significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. لenna vecia 13:55, 27 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) 10:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Real MacKay episodes[edit]

The Real MacKay is one of two video blogs associated with regional news programme STV News at Six. It was was recently nominated for deletion along with this episode guide and the result was to merge into the parent article. However, the episode guide is too long to merge and in any case seems to me to be inappropriate content - WP:DIRECTORY only allows for historically significant programme lists and there is no suggestion this applies. As the article consists of just a list of episode summaries it appears also to fail WP:OR and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Therefore the episode list should be deleted, not merged.

The other video blog associated with the news programme also has a corresponding episode list so I am also nominating that - List of Northern Exposure (video blog) episodes - for deletion. I42 (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and due to lack of WP:RS. Dalejenkins |[43] 11:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose and Keep The Real MacKay entry only had 2 people raise their points of view, it should never have been deleted. Scotlands biggest commerical station video blogs are notable. I can add in sources and reference if need be.--Roadblocker (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was merged - not deleted - but no no third party references show any notability, nor could I find any. This specific AfD is not about the articles for the blogs but about the episode guides - which I assert fail to establish notability, fail to show historical significance and are entirely original work. IMO there is a place on the web for these guides, but using Wikipedia for this purpose inappropriate. If you do address these concerns I will happily withdraw the nomination. I42 (talk) 09:05, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and undelete The reasonable course seems to be to restore the article on the blog, but delete this list. A list of episodes of a newscast is over-exhaustive detail, exactly what is meant by WP is not a TV Guide. DGG (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that as the AfD for Northern Exposure (video blog) closed as keep, merging The Real MacKay per its own Afd is inconsistent, and I have taken it to DRV recommending that it be reinstated. I42 (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Real MacKay has now been reinstated. I42 (talk) 07:52, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Hashem Cheshti[edit]

I declined the speedy deletion request, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The article is a stub and needs improvement. No doubt. But sources for Afghanistan on the net are hard to find, for obvious reasons. Also, if you look at the huge number of Afghanian Internet articles which quote or copyvio this article, it should be obvious that Afghanis consider him important (but that is not argument that would wash with policy, I accept that... :-) - Anyway, I will try and improve some of it now. The man is famous among Afghanis. He is the teacher of Ustad Mahwash who is probably a lot better known in the West. Refdoc (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added references for practically all claims of the article. It remains a stub, but I think a better researched one. Refdoc (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Weak delete I don't think the sources can be considered reliable. Two youtube links shows appearances on Radio Television Afghanistan, but appearing on tv by itself doesn't make someone necessarily notable (see criterion 10 of WP:MUSICBIO). He might well be a famous musician, but with the given citations it's difficult to verify. I see problems with WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO. Hekerui (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think, he verifiably fulfills criteria 3 and 5 of composers/teachers WP:MUSICBIO in relation to Mahwash and other members of Radio Kabul, also Ahmad Zahir and criterion 2 of "others" WP:MUSICBIO Refdoc (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of strength of references, I would think that this is the best possible for a Afghan artist who died a decade prior to the advent of the internet in Afghanistan.Refdoc (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is probably notable. Hekerui (talk) 00:58, 24 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) 00:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Afghanistan's greatest tabla player from the 1960s on", according to this reliable source Phil Bridger (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book says "Ustad Hashem". How do we know it's the same person? I can't see it in the book context. Hekerui (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ustad is a title--see the lead of [[44]], and as i read it, it fits exactly. DGG (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first of the references in the article gives both his full name and the title Ustad Hashem. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Not on page 162 and a search reveals no "Cheshti" in the whole book. Hekerui (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said the first of the references in the article, not the book. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could well be true, but I can name two Ustad Sabris from the top of my head, too :) Hekerui (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one regularly uses "Cheshti", the surname is here for completeness sake. Ustad Hashem is how he was called regularly. If there is another Afghani Ustad from that part of Kabul of significance going by that name I have not encountered him nor a reference. Refdoc (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this case, the lack of reliable online sources is sort of an example of FUTON bias and not a fair assessment of the subject notability. --J^mundo 03:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you know that how? Hekerui (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing is difficult, but we have clear notability as a famous Afghani musician. Some reliable sources have been found, and I've found reference to him in three more: "Mahwash received thorough training from the Afghan singing master (Ustad) and composer Mohammad Hashem. Ustad Hashem taught her the classical Indian raga singing techniques and programs (traditional Indian melodies), and composed for her" (translation from Dutch)[45]; "[Zuleika] has also studied under Ustad Hashim Chisti, who introduced her to dance and music of Afghanistan."[46]; "My father was taught to play the tabla (Afghan drums) by the great Afghan musician Hashim"[47]. Naming is a problem for us Westerners, as traditional names and honorifics in some cultures get added on or removed seemingly at random and spelling can go all over the place, but Ustad Hashem/Hashim and Mohammed Hashem Cheshti/Chisti are definitely the same person. There are bound to be dead tree references, but finding them would be hellish. Fences and windows (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some good detail is in an article in the Guardian, here's a snippet: "Mahwash's rise to fame owed much to another famous Kabuli musician, Mohammad Hashem, whose ancestors came from India and were brought to Kabul in the 1860s as court musicians by the then ruler, Sher Ali Khan. Hashem was recognised as an ustad , a "master musician", for his artistry in playing the tabla drums. He was also a multi-instrumentalist, singing and playing various stringed instruments..."[48]. Fences and windows (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All references added. Thanks. Refdoc (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Fences and windows (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Fences and windows (talk) 22:47, 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 redirect to Fictitious entry. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian Virginia Mountweazel[edit]

Non notable hoax, almost no sources. Sufficiently mentioned in fictitious entry. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fictitious entry where 'she' is mentioned. JJL (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fictitious entry. For the record, the article started its life as a redirect to Nihilartikel, which was since moved to fictitious entry. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 02:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Weak keep or merge to Fictitious entry. An article in the New Yorker, one in the Irish Times and another in the Journal of the Rutgers University Libraries[49] isn't quite enough to have a stand-alone article, but there is additional context here that isn't mentioned at Fictitious entry. Fences and windows (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:32, 29 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) 16:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda dunbar[edit]

I declined the speedy deletion request, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral on the matter. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to be plenty of coverage of this person in reliable news sources, for instance here, here and here. Satisfied that she meets WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:30, 16 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) 00:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable; fix title. JJL (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The speedy was a case of biting a new editor, they'd barely had the chance to create the article. Notability is clear, and there are plenty of sources. Could be improved, but no reason to delete. Fences and windows (talk) 20:32, 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 both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and Warrior[edit]

Article focuses on a very obscure and poorly-received film. There is no assertion of notability, and I have seen little to support any possible notability this title might have. None of the cast or filmmakers are known, nor are the distributors. All evidence indicates that this title is not notable. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page, as both of these films were distributed by Digiview Entertainment, and the latter has a similar lack of notability:

Comment on Diatron-5 only: The article was entirely unsourced, OR/POV crap, and I tagged it as such a while ago. The only evidence of how it was received-- poorly or not-- is the unsourced opinions of the editors of the article. I've redone the article with what little verifiable information I was able find-- and that sourcing is pretty weak. If others think my editing was too heavy, feel free to revert anything of value that I cut our of the original. (Even the Synopsis was so heavily POV-- pointing out flaws, rip-off sources, etc.-- I cut it.) The director of the film does have a few other credits to his name according to his KMDB entry, including this life of Jesus. According to this bloggish review, the producer of the Australia version, Joseph Lai, is a Hong Kong-based auteur with a bit of a reputation as a schlock-meister, having such gems as Ninja Strike Force in his oeuvre. How this stacks up notability-wise, I don't know. I'll hold off on Keep or Delete pending input from other editors. Dekkappai (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other editors who bring some knowledge and thought to the discussion, that should read. Dekkappai (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:17, 9 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) 00:09, 16 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 00:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Not enough sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I smell advertising. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both for lack of evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beauty and Warrior. It's not discussed anywhere.
Strong keepof Diatron-5 Only kidding. Delete. Diatron-5 has a reputation as the worst anime ever. An anime fanzine editor said of it that it was "the hands-down lamest anime ever", "The Holy Grail of Lame Anime", "the lamest, cheapest TV show animation you've ever seen, and then ramp it down a notch" and "It's a tremendously crappy movie". More on it here:[50] After seeing a clip on YouTube, I'm sure it is so bad its good, and I will have my $1 ready in Walmart the next time I am that side of the pond. It is mentioned on Transformers Wiki already as a rip-off of the Japanese Diaclone:[51] Best place for it, as there are no reliable sources discussing it. Fences and windows (talk) 20:20, 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.

^ C. Gatti, A. R. Oganov, J. Chen and Y. Ma. (2008). How and why elemental boron undergoes self charge transfer between 19 and 89 GPa. Acta Cryst. A64, C70 (August 2008). http://journals.iucr.org/a/issues/2008/a1/00/issconts.html
^ Oganov A.R.; Chen J.; Gatti C.; Ma Y.-M.; Yu T.; Liu Z.; Glass C.W.; Ma Y.-Z.; Kurakevych O.O.; Solozhenko V.L. (2009). "Ionic high-pressure form of elemental boron". Nature. 457: 863–867. doi:10.1038/nature07736. Submitted 27 January 2007, Published online 28 January 2009.
^ Zarechnaya E.Yu., Dubrovinsky L., Dubrovinskaia N., Miyajima N., Filinchuk Y.,Chernyshov D.,Dmitriev V. (2008). "Synthesis of an orthorhombic high pressure boron phase.". Science and Technology of Advanced Materials 9. doi:10.1088/1468-6996/9/4/044209. http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1468-6996/9/4/044209/stam8_4_044209.pdf. Submitted 3 November 2008, Published online 28 January 2009.

[1] C. Gatti, A. R. Oganov, J. Chen and Y. Ma. (2008). How and why elemental boron undergoes self charge transfer between 19 and 89 GPa. Acta Cryst. A64, C70 (August 2008). http://journals.iucr.org/a/issues/2008/a1/00/issconts.html

[Oganov-Nature-2] Oganov A.R.; Chen J.; Gatti C.; Ma Y.-M.; Yu T.; Liu Z.; Glass C.W.; Ma Y.-Z.; Kurakevych O.O.; Solozhenko V.L. (2009). "Ionic high-pressure form of elemental boron". Nature. 457: 863–867. doi:10.1038/nature07736. Submitted 27 January 2007, Published online 28 January 2009.

[3] Zarechnaya E.Yu., Dubrovinsky L., Dubrovinskaia N., Miyajima N., Filinchuk Y.,Chernyshov D.,Dmitriev V. (2008). "Synthesis of an orthorhombic high pressure boron phase.". Science and Technology of Advanced Materials 9. doi:10.1088/1468-6996/9/4/044209. http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1468-6996/9/4/044209/stam8_4_044209.pdf. Submitted 3 November 2008, Published online 28 January 2009.

[1]

[2]

[3]