Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 October 14 October >

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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Freshwater[edit]

John Freshwater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:BLP1E article, Freshwater is unknown for anything outside of this dispute. It has not had significant world wide coverage, so may fail notability guidelines. Also it is not apparent that he has been convicted of the alleged crimes (assault) mentioned in the article. Martin451 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or possibly rename or redirect to an article about the event - this event has coverage spanning a full year on the calendar, and therefore has some notability. Sebwite (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Per the National Center for Science Education, full title of case is Freshwater v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education et al. See http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/freshwater-v-mount-vernon
I don't think this case is yet before the Ohio Supreme Court. This case in particular was filed in federal court. The writ of mandamus request was dismissed. The rest of the civil cases have yet to even begin, I believe. The only ongoing proceedings are the contract termination hearings, which isn't even held by a court. --Rkitko (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few cases here. The parents of the kid filed suit against the local Board of Education and against Freshwater (they settled with the Board); Freshwater is suing the Board of Ed and others, including the Board's Attorney; then there are the termination hearings... I don't think it would be wise to shunt this all to a single case page. And so far all the press has been about the termination hearings. Any other ideas? --Rkitko (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, yes, I can see how case titling would be problematic. Problem is, any other succinct title I can conceive at the moment would be POV toward one party or another. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the same problem I ran into when thinking about alternate titles. Perhaps someone else might have a better idea. --Rkitko (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Comment All charges against Freshwater are civil in nature and still ongoing; there are no criminal proceedings, so the rationale above about whether or not he's been convicted of any is meaningless. There has been some coverage abroad: [1], and the earlier coverage of the events were national with appearances and coverage on national cable news channels. There has been sustained regional coverage, as well. I'm waffling on whether or not to support this nom, but the rationale should focus more on the concerns over notability and BLP1E. --Rkitko (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does have some international coverage, but it is not a significant amount. Google news gives about 98 articles about "John Freshwater" in the last ten years, of which about 10 appear to be non US. This does not have the coverage to pass notability guidelines.
If Freshwater is not facing any criminal charges (which seems odd considering the allegations), then I agree that he has not been convicted does not apply. Martin451 (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paucity of international coverage is not a reason to delete. WP:N does not distinguish on the type of sources needed for notability. Though I do agree it is a bit WP:NOTNEWSy. I think the sustained coverage alleviates this concern a bit. I'll ruminate on my thoughts before returning with a !vote. --Rkitko (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Does not quite warrant own article... yet. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has rather more than enough news coverage to warrant an article, on the case of course per BLP1E. (Why not just John Freshwater Case, as one article title has it?) 130 gnews (archives) hits is a lot. Just two, or even one, if it has substantial coverage, as many here do, can be enough. Notnews is a more serious problem, but the extent and duration of the coverage is sufficient to overcome it.John Z (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. FFS people this is a blatant WP:BLP1E violation not to mention we are NOT a news site!!! JBsupreme (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:BLP1E, "a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options." I am of the opinion that this is not sufficient grounds for deletion, especially in this case where no other article (yet) covers the subject matter. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. WP:NOT#NEWS also applies here - which is why I do not agree with Jeff Billman's proposal to move the page to another title. RayTalk 03:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, BLP1E. Nor is an article on the case justified -- it's just another case, with not the slightest indication that it will have any implications for law or practice anywhere else. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable long-term conflict, involving more than one event. Civil suits are notable also. Wikipedia is not limited to criminal matters. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make it about the event. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on deletion but rename; I do not see any evidence that the person is notable (WP:ONEEVENT), but given our precedents for court cases the overall conflict may be notable, given the extensive press coverage. I leave it to the judgment of others as to what name the article should take, since there seem to be multiple court cases involved. A Request for Comment might be in order. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per John Z, etc. Notable as event/conflict.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move The person is not notable, but the event and coverage probably is. The current article is mostly a coatrack anyway. (Incidentally, I was living about 5 minutes from Mount Vernon when all this happened and it was quite a big deal around there; no idea how big a deal it was elsewhere, but there certainly seems to be enough coverage.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This has been a long-term, ongoing controversy over the course of multiple years. Freshwater has given repeated interviews to the news and the matter has gotten international coverage. This isn't a tiny thing. Renaming and focusing on the case may be a good idea but it isn't necessary. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed as already deleted. Non-admin. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bliar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bliar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Word definitions belong at Wikitionary, I believe. Thus, I propose deletion. Basket of Puppies 23:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Non-admin closure) Will move page to Sagar Railway Station per consensus. LAAFan 19:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Saugor Railway Station[edit]

Saugor Railway Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If this railroad is so important, why isn't it longer?  Btilm  23:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The fact that an article is a stub is not in itself reason for deletion. All railway stations are notable, and this one also appears on Wikimapia at http://wikimapia.org/172250/Sagar-Railway-Station -- Eastmain (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a "major" railway station. However, this needs to be moved to Sagar railway station. The page creator has a history of creating articles and categories with incorrect names, usually historical names not in use today. I've spent a fair bit of time cleaning up those, and CfDing a good chunk of the categories, missed this in that round of clean up. -SpacemanSpiff 00:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Railway stations are almost always considered notable, and this one is no exception. Though I agree that it needs to be moved to Sagar railway station. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stations, like schools, and any other geographical feature for that matter, are by definition notable at Wikipedia. The fact that the page creator doesn't conform to Wikipedia style is a matter of clean-up, not AfD.--Technopat (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid reason for deletion. BTW I counted 40 trains a day [2]. Agreed it needs moving. Edgepedia (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That an article is short is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheCatalyst31. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gleich[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jonathan Gleich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was deleted previously through AFD, and I'm told this version is improved and better referenced. As it stands now, though, the references currently in the article only show minor local notability and no lasting importance.

Note: on the article's talk page, the creating editor (User:Lscappel) stated that they're the co-author of the subject's in-progress autobiography. As such, I advised the editor of WP:COI and best practices, but there's been no acknowledgement. Not that this has anything to do with the article as such, but given the antics in the previous AFD, it's worth keeping an eye out for shenanigans. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ My talk page Before deciding on Afd. Thank you Lscappel (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Lscappel (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the "My talk page" link above is to the article's talk page, not the editor's talk page. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also re-created the original article in HERE so you can see the changes before it was wikified and edited. Lscappel (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Well, I approve of the editors you have invited to this discussion, the broad scope of interests they have, will be a better representation of the people this article impacts.
If there is a Weight loss surgery group, and / or a Halloween group I would invite them as well. -- Lscappel (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is not a shred of evidence in the article or from a google search that suggests this guy is notable. The aforementioned google search throws up nothing even close to a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ Mitchell (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 October 2009
  • Keep - coverage in the NYPress, NY Daily News, NY Post, and Brooklyn Paper are all specifcially about the subject and as such meets notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - So what is he notable for? Getting six traffic tickets, appealing them, and losing? Even The Brooklyn Paper says in its own article that he has no historical import. And if what he's notable for is law breaking, does he qualify under WP:Notability (criminal acts), which requires "significant coverage in sources with national or global scope"? So far as I can tell, these are just local human interest stories. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - Well yes, he is notable for getting the tickets. He is also notable for communitng on his segway and fighting those tickets as documented by the articles. We don't establish notability through personal opinion. We establish notability through coverage in reliable sources which exists here. -- Whpq (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I think WP:1E applies here. Even though it's sourced well, I don't think the guy is notable enough. All the sources just mention him in passing, there's not enough about HIM sourced. Mr Radio Guy !!! 23:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm not sure how 1E applies. What "one event" is he notable for? He is a Segway activist. The coverage I noted spans multiple years. Daily news is from Aug 2009. Press is from June 2008. Paper is from July 2008. NY Post is from May 2007. A blip of news coverage would generate articles from a small time span. This is spread across 3 years. He is also the primary subject of the article so I don't understand how you can say he is just mentioned in passing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage in reliable sources clearly sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Article needs cleanup though. --CooperDB (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. I still don't really feel that this product is notable (perhaps it will become notable as a failure?), but there is a strong consensus to the contrary. JBsupreme (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiReader[edit]

AfDs for this article:
WikiReader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This product was deleted once before upon the closure of an earlier AFD debate, and I don't believe its any more notable now than it was then. Reads as self promotional spam either way. Please send it back to the recycle bin. JBsupreme (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, that's not correct. The earlier AFD was for something completely different -- Wikipedia:WikiReader, which was a wikis-to-print initiative that was the predecessor of Wikipedia:Books. This is a piece of hardware, developed by a completely different group. I'm not seeing the "self promotional spam" part, either; article was written by people unconnected with the project. Request withdrawal of AFD, based on faulty information. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you phoebe, as I am not an administrator I could not see that. JBsupreme (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an admin either... I just am familiar with both projects :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (speedy?) It is getting a fair amount of media coverage today. Just check Google News. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep there is no way the first afd referenced this product, as that was a 2006 debate and this device has just been announced. plus the news coverage is obvious notability riffic (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is in very early stages, but google news shows 55 articles at the moment. Rror (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Currently on the front page of Slashdot and several other tech sites and attracting considerable interest, this was just officially announced on the OpenMoko mailing list today I believe. Seems to be getting coverage on every major web tech site. Ben Kidwell (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We really should not create articles for every new product to hit Slashdot. "Just announced" suggests a certain distinct form of non-notability in my eyes. JBsupreme (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coverage listed by User:Ben Kidwell. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Looking this AfD over, I believe that the arguments noting that the article violated WP:BLP1E were stronger than those arguments of the people arguing to keep the article because of the reliable sources. A crime spree is still one event, not multiple as required to pass BLP1E. In addition, severala few, though by no means all, of the keep votes were remarkably weak. NW (Talk) 22:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Ferrell[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kari Ferrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted article (see here) per BLP. Has consensus changed? Is the article now sufficiently improved? rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I believe that the page meets criterion 3 for perpetrators under WP:N/CA. The story received major coverage by abc news, as well as local news coverage, and even coverage in China, not to mention extensive tabloid coverage. As a note, the first AfD was prior to the abc news coverage. J04n(talk page) 02:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The addition of ABC news does not satisfy N/CA, and tabloids are worthless to us. To meet N/CA, there needs to be significant independent coverage that displays notability for the crimes. If that's met, you have further criteria to overcome to warrant a biography. She's not otherwise notable, and I don't think there is the significant independent coverage in reliable sources to even warrant an event article. Lara

13:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per J04n. I would prefer to see the revisions prior to the previous AFD, though; as I recall, they were more substantial and better-sourced. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I voted "keep" in the first AfD (was the original article creator) and although I felt it was closed improperly (4 keeps and 4 deletes and the closing admin did NOT state it was deleted for BLP reasons), I choose not to bring it to DRV. In this case, not only do the in-depth sources in the original article stand like this very substantial article, but the sources created after the last AfD further demonstrate notability of this person.--Oakshade (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This remains to be a textbook example of WP:BLP1E and thus should be removed. JBsupreme (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This person is not notable for "one event" but a continuous and ongoing series for events.--Oakshade (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's not really notable for what you suggest. Thank GOD we had the common sense and decency to do the right thing with the Anna Ayala article. JBsupreme (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the "thank god" factor about someone who attempted commit fraud by planting a severed finger in her chili from Wendy's. Besides, this is a different case and we judge each one individually. --Oakshade (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's thanking God because Wikipedia doesn't exist to judge or punish people. He's thanking God because the editors in that discussion understood that. Lara 13:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to tell you, but everyone here understands that WP does not exist to judge or punish people. If you think that being on WP is "punishment", this is entirely your own (odd) opinion. --Cyclopia - talk 22:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't deny things you don't think are true. In addition to Oakshade's comment, I could go search through AFDs to locate the various comments I've read over the years from editors who believed subjects "deserved" biographies that contained BLP violations and were overly negative and judgmental in tone because of the crimes they've committed. So take your "odd" comment and stick it back in your box for use where appropriate. Lara 22:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand now the origin of your comment, but I guess you're misreading Oakshade's semantics. He -with 95% certainity- meant that we judge each inclusion or deletion case by case, not that we judge people case by case. So yes, here the comment was appropriate. --Cyclopia - talk 22:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it wasn't. Lara 00:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why is wikipedia going to not provide information about this topic? I wanted to find information about this topic and for some reason wikipedia has some kind of strange bias about this topic. If it's deleted then what? I have to find it information about it elsewhere? Why? It makes no sense to me. I created the article because I saw an article about this individual and wanted to learn more and found nothing on wikipedia. I then saw it had been deleted 4 prior times. I have no affiliation with anything involved with the topic and am not a stakeholder, I just wanted to find out information about Ferrell and was unable to. So I created the article. Please vote to keep. Bjorn Tipling (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's deleted then what? I have to find it information about it elsewhere? - Yes. Lara 13:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You know it's obvious she's going to get some kind of book deal or do something else after her 9 months in jail are up that will just continue her fame and more and more people will look her up on wikipedia only to find there is no article for god knows what reason. The WP:BLP1E is meant for individuals who were only once involved in a small minor event and were covered in they local newspaper, it's not meant for individuals who garnered extensive tabloid coverage. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL. Lara 00:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Save for Oakshade (talk · contribs) who has already participated in this discussion, I have notified the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell of this AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of content beyond textbook WP:BLP1E. There is nothing in the article that is not just a summary of primary source material, provided by news reports. For this person to have an article, more coverage based upon reliable secondary sources (ie commentary on her story, not reporting of her story) would be required. This doesn't seem to exist, based upon a quick google search. We should be conservative in covering the continuing stories of living people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looked again, and still delete. Still don't see anything that is not repetition of primary source material (news reports). Nobody actually says anything about the woman or her exploits., therefore it is not secondary. Quite properly, everyone is ignoring the blog commentaries. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G4. This stub doesn't even attempt to create anything resembling a biography. Two sentences strung together that not only fail to establish any sort of encyclopedic notability, but gives the exact reason that the article should not have been created to begin with, much less recreated. Kari Ferrell is an American con-woman who attracted significant tabloid media attention for minor offenses says it all. NOTNEWS covers tabloid garbage; the fact that she's known for nothing but her crimes is BLP1E; the fact that those crimes were so insignificant falls on WP:PERP; and the fact that this article doesn't even attempt to overcome the issues made in the first AFD makes this CSD#G4. Lara 13:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article easily asserts notability by describing the significant coverage the person received. Wikipedia is not a judge as to why reliable sources give significant coverage to somebody, but that the reliable sources do give significant coverage. Any judging of them is personal POV.--Oakshade (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's received a lot of sensationalistic coverage and was a tabloid story for a while. This does not indicate encyclopedic notability. Lara 22:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know this article was bigger, so what happened and why was it deleted without consent? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe some of our problems with sparse content—"two sentences strung together"—might be resolved by returning to the revisions prior to the first deletion. I do not have the privilege to do so; is there an administrator in the house? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 13:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain: Judging from the present article, it would be a textbook example of BLP. But the earlier article was very much fuller, and I see no reason not to restore it, since the BLP material in it had sources. I'm not sure why this version was the one restored, since it contains the statement clearly prejudicial to notability ", the pinnacle of which was gaining a small job at Vice Magazine in New York City." Actually, the pinnacle of her career seems more likely to have been getting on the Salt Lake City Most Wanted List. The easiest way for the moment to show the material will be cut-and-paste, since there's a unique item in the new version also. If kept, it can be properly merged later. Minor crimes, but although I !voted delete last time, saying "small crimes, small coverage", I think there just might be enough material
'I urge those who !voted before this and saw only the new article take another look. DGG ( talk ) 15:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for restoring content from the earlier revisions, DGG. I have integrated it with Bjorn's material. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the sources clearly demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources show notability; not just in the news once, she's an alleged criminal with a national crime spree who attracted Intrenet and tabloid attention. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sourced and covered, seems just enough above the threshold. --Cyclopia - talk 00:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I said in a previous one, this still comes back to one event to me. A crime spree is an event, not a collection of individual acts that people can call "multiple events". And I am of the school of thought that just because the some of the news media has a fascination with the odd or unusual, that might make it newsworthy, but newsworthy doesn't always mean notable. Since the vast majority of any coverage is centered right around the event or trial, it gives the appearence of being just news rather than notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She is just as non-notable as last time. Some smaller cons does not make a person important enough for Wikipedia. There are a lot of news articles, but sometimes the news cover things that are not actually important but just funny stories. This shouldn't be taken too far: Paris Hilton is notable regardless of what anyone might think of her achievements. Kari Ferrel is just a one-time strange story. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are actually arguments to keep. It is the editorial decisions of reliable sources to decide what topics are notable, not Wikipedia editors. Sometimes funny, stupid or nonsensical things are notable. We're not in a position to say "Reliable sources are wrong." We don't decide what is notable, "the world" does. --Oakshade (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, using judgment to decide what to include is part of making an encyclopedia. Letting the tabloids decide for us does not make a better encyclopedia. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count seven verifiable and reliable citations from six reliable sources, including the New York Observer, which is a reliable source and a tabloid. Tabloid newspapers—the Daily News, Boston Herald, Chicago Sun-Times, The Times (of London), and Newsday, as examples—are reliable sources, unless one is talking about something worse than the National Inquirer. I'm not including Gawker, since I haven't checked them out yet. Oakshade is correct as to notability being determined by RS, not us. — Becksguy (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you feel using personal judgment is the proper method to decide content and your personal judgment is that there should not be an article of this topic, that's fine. But Wikipedia has notability guidelines that lay out inclusion standards for this encyclopedia so topics are not subject to editors personal subjective opinions. --Oakshade (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not questioning the reliability of the sources or the truth of the article. I don't think The Times is a tabloid though, and I did not mean the paper size. I am saying that not everything in the papers is important (notable) enough for Wikipedia. Good judgment is not making stuff up willy-nilly. Trying to turn editing Wikipedia into a robotic task is not a good idea. Your last link is a user essay that in my opinion is wrong on many points. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The NY Observer feature on her as Oakshade mentioned in both AfDs and in the article is compelling. The ABC piece is clearly more than a mention. Also the other RS listed, including SLC Tribune and CBS. They are clearly multiple, independent, non-trivial, and reliable sources, per WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY. I don't see how this could be characterized as one event, as it's clearly many events comprised of different alleged crimes, and in different cities. It therefore fails WP:BLP1E as a delete rationale. Keep per Oakshade, J04n, Bearian, and others. — Becksguy (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I know this !vote may seem odd coming from me, but I tend to be deletionist on articles like these. My personal view is that to be notable, a person has to do something that is notable in the first place, regardless of whether there happen to be 1,2, or 10 findable references--unless it becomes a really major meme of at least national significance. The news sources here, though major and reliable, are local to the events. But if the consensus is that we are still using coverage in RS as an over-riding indication of notability, this would be kept. When I came here I too would have said keep, on the basis that major newspapers are better able to determine notability than we are--having much more experience with stories like these by now, I am not so sure at all. There is also the consideration of BLP do no harm, in our recording a minor though extensive criminal career. I tend to take things like murder as intrinsically more serious, though articles on murderers -- even multiple murderers--without something widespread coverage do tend to get deleted here, again using the same RS standard. Maybe I see it upside down, but that's how I see it. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As the nominator this time around I didn't want to give comment one way or the other until other people had had their say, but I cannot see how this woman is a notable topic for an encyclopedia article. News agencies and police services release reports on criminals every day. That's their stock and trade so we can expect that there will be reliable sources to support the claims made in the article. That is not however "notability" WTR an encyclopedia (which is different to "newsworthy" WRT a newspaper, for example). If there were books or wider discussion of her and her crime, it would be different, but we cannot have an article on every street-corner mugger and shyster just becaue the police have a file on them and a newspaper does a report on their arrest. If the crime is not notable then its hard to see how the criminal is. Delete. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Meets notability. BLP1E does not apply since tthere has been extensive coverage over not a single event but a series of criminal acts. Claims that there is simply "newspaper coverage' are inaccurate in that the individual has been covered by magazines as well. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and national network news coverage. J04n(talk page) 17:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mifter (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gall Force Canonicity[edit]

The Gall Force Canonicity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure original research doesn't cite any source, barely has any content to begin with, and goes against WP:NOT. Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 00:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Is currently OR, and even if sourced would probably fit better in the main article (I do like all the story arc splitouts though). 159.182.1.4 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quoting the article first sentence: The Gall Forcecanon, has seemingly no clear source or indication of the metaseries's true canonicity, due the fact that the franchise's creator has never made any knowns statement in regard.. Original research at full throttle. The "i'm not sure it exists because there is no proof of it and yet i'm writing an article out it" is kind like digging its own grave. --KrebMarkt 19:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--esp. since the article doesn't seem to properly use the term canonicity. Besides, I don't see the point of a canonicity article in the first place (Herman Melville doesn't even have one). Drmies (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of current members of the United States Congress[edit]

List of current members of the United States Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is essentially duplicative of List of current United States Senators and Current members of the United States House of Representatives. Rrius (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redundant as per nomination. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of current United States Senators and Current members of the United States House of Representatives rather than delete. This isn't an exact duplicate of those two lists, and it has some useful information that the other two tables do not, specifically the committee assignments. I believe that it's more relevant than a person's religious denomination, although there's no reason the two can't exist. With a merge, at least, there would be a consensus that the other two tables could be expanded and that the committee information would not be reverted. Mandsford (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list up for deletion only has House members up to Georgia's 1st district. Everything alphabetically after that simply isn't there. What's more, it is difficult enough keeping up with the changes in committee membership at the committee and legislator articles. This adds just one more place that would actually have to be finished before being added. Finally, while you might not think a legislator's religion is important, yours is not the only opinion on the matter. -Rrius (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh now, I didn't say religion wasn't important, but it is less important than committee assignments would be. I see no reason that both can't be mentioned, however. Committee assignments do not change constantly; there are about 20 in each house, and the assignments of membership are formally approved by the entire body at the beginning of the term. It might not take an act of Congress to switch committees, but it does take a House resolution. Obviously, I'm not saying the list should be kept, but that there's some relevant information should be merged. But, as they say, mine is not the only opinion on the matter. Mandsford (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. House membership sometimes does change with resignations from committees and the like. What's more, there is no compelling reason for having committee membership in the list. All members of committees are listed on the committee pages, and all members have their committees listed at their articles. It is a lot of information that is difficult to compare side by side (making it of dubious usefulness in a list) and that difficulty is compounded by the need for abbreviations, which make the information even harder to read. Finally, once again, more than half of the House is missing from the list. As such, pausing to merge the tables is silly because not all the information is there. If you think it is worth doing, copy it into your user space to preserve it. If you do decide to add committee assignments to the relevant lists, I recommend you suggest it at the lists and WP:WikiProject U.S. Congress first. I say that because doing it is likely to be contentious, and it would be a waste of your effort only to have it reverted. -Rrius (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I took your suggestion that a legislator's religion is less important than his or her committee assignments to mean you though it unimportant. I'm not sure how I'm wrong there, but your "oh, now" suggests it is. I didn't think that was a huge leap, but I'm sorry I offended you. -Rrius (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And just to be clear, to my understanding, we are both talking about importance for the list, not in the abstract. That wasn't clear, but I thought, in context, it would be. -Rrius (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm good, and no offense was taken. I'm interested in seeing how others weigh in on what you and I have said. Mandsford (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list could be amended to form part of a hierarchy of lists. Deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's information on here that shouldn't be lost, but how much of an amendment would you propose? Almost all of this is, as others have pointed out, redundant. Mandsford (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what you mean? I'm afraid I have no idea what "a hierarchy of lists" means or how it would be "amended" to make it so. Could you also explain why it is worthwhile to keep this list that simply lacks 75% of the House of Representatives? -Rrius (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I would like to say that I have been working on this page but it is very time consuming and have not had time to finish it. Please do not delete it because I have not had enough free time to work on it. Thanks Theking17825 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bringer of Storms[edit]

Bringer of Storms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a two part nomination. This article, and the prequel Beyond the Summerland. Reason: Does not appear to be a very notable book. Tim1357 (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional war[edit]

Fictional war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is no more than a POV list of unconnected fictional wars which is neither comprehensive nor encyclopaedic. Its compilation appears to be original research and the subject is not notable and is not independently verified. Cyclopaedic (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this or a similar article named List of fictional wars was previously deleted by Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional wars Cyclopaedic (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the main reason for the delete of the other article was the OR problem, which still hasn't been fixed. An ongoing war is often an important part of the background in a series of books or television episodes, as well as some books that were notable in their own right, and this could be sourced. I can't say that I agree with any of the grounds for nomination other than the one about original research, which is a valid point. Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - essentially a re-creation of a deleted article. Even if not deleted for that reason, I'd delete it as an unsourced personal essay. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What isn't OR, is already explained (much better) in Space warfare in fiction. Would a redirect be out of the question from here to there??? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the entries on this list wouldn't be wars in outer space. Mandsford (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the subject matter is treated in a more encyclopaedic manner in other articles such as War novel. Cyclopaedic (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, that article seems to be about fiction with a setting of a real war like World War II or Vietnam, where inclusion of a fictional war would be grossly inappropriate. The more I read the suggestions of where the information can be merged, the more I see that this subject isn't very well covered. Mandsford (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. there appears to be a consensus that this material is not peroperly sourced so it becomes original research and is therefore not a mergable target Spartaz Humbug! 06:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Trager[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Kyle Trager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Also nominated -

    Delete - all of these articles fail WP:NOT#PLOT as they are nothing but overly long in-universe plot summaries. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that attest to the separate notability of the characters. Fails WP:FICT as it currently exists, with only the first article possibly qualifying as a "titular character in a number of widely distributed works which have received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" and only then if there are national reviews for the two novels. Many of them have been tagged with a variety of issues, including notability, in-universe, lack of independent sources, etc. List articles already exist for the characters and the episodes and given that none of the material in the nominated articles has any reliable sourcing there's nothing to merge. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Combine - Recommend combine and concise all information into a Kyle XY Characters article. It would be a shame to lose all of the information that has been entered. --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, nothing is referenced to reliable sources so there is nothing to merge. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not a single reference to all of them. Some of them consist only of "family trees". -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The information can be cited eventually; please don't slash and burn it all in the meantime - Draeco (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If no reliable sources exist then 1) the information can't be cited and 2) the characters are not independently notable. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge all into a Kyle XY characters article. Allow de-merging/spinoffs without DRV only after WP:N or related criteria satisfied. Enforce on the honor system or through a subsequent AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to those complaining about sources, as with any in-universe character, there is an implicit "Sources: The canon of the universe, including all aired episodes" at the bottom of each article. While Wikipedia encourages in-line citations, it strictly speaking does not require them. Therefore, arguing that something should be deleted when it is unsourced doesn't get you very far. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia certainly requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources per the general notability guideline. The episodes are not independent of the series or characters and so do not confer notability. The argument is not that the articles are not currently sourced; it is that there are no independent reliable sources that establish the notability of each individual character, along with additional issues. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is true for the initial establishment of notability, but not for other unsourced in-universe statements. To use a clearer example, "The character Spock has been featured on the cover of TV Guide" to establish notability requires an outside source, "Spock is a Vulcan" does not require an outside source or even an in-line citation, it's "source" is "Star Trek, seasons 1-3" and more, all of which are implicit when discussing an in-universe character. That said, specific in-line references are highly recommended and should be added where missing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep, Relist separately' It looks like there are potentially sources out of universe for Kyle Trager himself. Moreover, as a main character of a popular show, it is much easier to presume notability. Thus, that one should be considered separately from the others. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all This is excessive, unsourced, in-universe material. It should all be trimmed and merged into List of Kyle XY characters. Reywas92Talk 21:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to the closing admin: If the results is MERGE for any particular name or for all names, please do so with prejudice, requiring a DRV to revert the protected redirect. I recommend against deletion because valuable information and edit history will be lost. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge to List of Kyle XY characters. Abductive (reasoning) 03:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trim and merge into single list, or into article on show. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete everything and do not merge. There is a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications here. JBsupreme (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vinica (Bosnia and Herzegovina)[edit]

    Vinica (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Most of it is not encyclopaedic, the remaining parts are of a too low standard and the violations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style are beyond salvageable. Law Lord (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep per nom. The nom has only provided reasons to improve this article about a verified town [12], not delete it.--Oakshade (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reason to be condescending. I would advice you to remember that humour often does not read as intended when written instead of being spoken. Writing "Keep per nom." may have been your attempt of being funny, but I read it as an insult, since my nomination was for deletion, not for keeping. A fact of which you were well aware. Maybe you could be aware of this aspect of polite communications in the future. As for the article topic, I agree that it is verifiable but it does not meet any of the other core policies per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Overview_of_the_AFD_deletion_process, hence my nomination for deletion. I have edited the article and left everything that conforms with policy. The information in the article is nothing more than what Google Maps can offer. --Law Lord (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Verified towns are inherently notable regardless of size. Not only is it verified [13], but there appears to be a notable church in the town. [14] A verified town like this would never get nominated for deletion if it was in the US or Britain and to delete a similar one simply because it's in another country would be systemic bias. Now that the article has been reduced to a stub that can grow to improved standards, I advise the nom to withdraw this nomination. --Oakshade (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your advice is unwanted and insincere. Rather, it would be well-received if you were to improve your tone as I have advised you to. My nomination has nothing to do with the country of the town, and I very much disagree with your assessment that the country has anything to do with the nomination. Since I am the nominator, I am the only one who knows what caused the nomination. The reasons are stated above, and they are all stated. --Law Lord (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that all the stated reasons ("violations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style" etc.) for the nomination have been corrected by the nom, those same stated reasons for a continued AfD are nonsensical. We're simply left with a stub about a verified town and based on that, this AfD will likely end in a unanimous "keep". That's why I'm advising to withdraw the nomination. That's sincere. --Oakshade (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. I withdraw the nomination. --Law Lord (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - articles on towns, villages,etc need never be deleted; it is so easy to improve them. No specialist knowledge is required. Even if the article were simply to say "Vinica sucks" and nothing else it still should not be deleted, just rewritten to read "Vinica is a town in Bosnia-Herzegovina". Jameswilson (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. All verifiable currently inhabited populated places are inherently notable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination withdrawn – As I already posted on 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC). --Law Lord (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, sorry. I didn't spot that. For future reference, when withdrawing a nomination it's often a good idea to note this somewhere near the nomination statement. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Doyle Wolfgang von Frankenstein. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Annihilator guitar[edit]

    Annihilator guitar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable guitar. Has not received any coverage in books or news. It's already covered in as much detail as it deserves on the Doyle Wolfgang Von Frankenstein page. This is wp:fancruft. Conical Johnson (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge and redirect to Doyle Wolfgang von Frankenstein UltraMagnusspeak 20:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge anything not present in the musician article. Anyone looking for this information would head to the musician/band page anyway, so I'm not even sure the redirect is needed, although its probably harmless.Ben Kidwell (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I agree with merging. Is it possible for me to end an AFD I started? Conical Johnson (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy keep per consensus. (Non admin closure) LAAFan 19:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    Leinster Senior League (association football)[edit]

    Leinster Senior League (association football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Consisting nearly completely of red links and lacks references, would be better implemented as a category. RadioFan (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep - whilst I understand the nomination, by this editor, of the articles of some of the clubs this I regard as bizarre. This is a major regional league, with a number of notable clubs, that lies at level 4 of the Irish pyramid. In any case, the page obviously does a job not that cannot be carried out by a category. If it is considered that there are too many red links, then the answer is to write more articles since there are several notable clubs without pages. TerriersFan (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. TerriersFan (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment notability of the items on the list do not make the list itself notable. This isn't List of Leinster Senior League football clubs, it's Leinster Senior League and the intro is scant at best. If the league is notable, the article should be expanded with information about its history but that hasn't happened in the nearly 3 years the article has existed. It lacks any 3rd party references. I see the league mentioned in books and news articles but I'm no football expert so its difficult to tell if these are passing mentions identifying notable teams or if there is sufficient coverage where the league is the subject of the articles. These references are not optional.--RadioFan (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep - agree with TerriersFan, a bizarre nomination - the article is 10000% notable; it needs improving, not deleting! GiantSnowman 21:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep This is effectively the fourth tier in the Republic of Ireland, and is inherently notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep Agree with the above, this is a good article but needs work. Govvy (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, one of the main leagues in Ireland.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WorkTime[edit]

    WorkTime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article fails WP:NOTABILITY Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - I don't see the coverage to establish notability. The linked references in the article are the company website and two download links from CNET. I found this brief mention but that falls well short of what is needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mifter (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chapter One: The Prince Who Would Be King[edit]

    Chapter One: The Prince Who Would Be King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    Let The Game Know (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non notable album by a Non-notable artist with no article. I can't find any sources about the artist or the album. Amazon confirms that it sells tracks from the album, which is great, but that does nothing to confer notability. The artist has a myspace page as well; again, not a reliable source. I speedied at first, but then decided that this article has been here for two years, and an AFD is in order to make sure I'm not missing anything. I include one of the singles from the album, for the same reasons. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

    I had it wrong; the artist does have an article, but it is up for deletion as well. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MC Lazarus. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. The article consists of two sentences, nothing to merge, really... Tone 21:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Atascadero - Bus Shelter (Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach station)[edit]

    Atascadero - Bus Shelter (Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is just a bus shelter, just like hundreds of thousands of others around the world. All that can encyclopaedically be said is that "Atascadero, California is served by Thruway Motorcoach.", which can be said in fewer words on the Atascadero, California and Thruway Motorcoach articles. The Amtrak website even says that the stop has been in a different place to that mentioned in the article since at least April this year. Railway stations are notable, bus stations can be, but except in truly exceptional circumstances bus shelters are not. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing to merge, really... If anyone is willing to do the work, I can provide the content. Tone 21:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    El Segundo (Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach station)[edit]

    El Segundo (Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is just a curb-side bus stop, just like hundreds of thousands of others around the world. All that can encyclopaedically be said is that the settlement is served by Thruway Motorcoach.", which can be said in fewer words on the Thruway Motorcoach article and the article about the settlement. Railway stations are notable, bus stations can be, but except in truly exceptional circumstances bus shelters are not. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I respectfully disagree. Granularity in transportation topics is very helpful to Wikipedia users. // Internet Esquire (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing to merge, really... If anyone is willing to do the work, I can provide the content. Tone 21:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adelanto Junction (Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach station)[edit]

    Adelanto Junction (Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is just a curb-side bus stop, just like hundreds of thousands of others around the world. All that can encyclopaedically be said is that the settlement is served by Thruway Motorcoach.", which can be said in fewer words on the Thruway Motorcoach article and the article about the settlement. Railway stations are notable, bus stations can be, but except in truly exceptional circumstances bus shelters are not. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree completely. Adelanto, CA is not a little insignificant "settlement". It has a population of 18,000 and home to George Air Force Base.  kgrr talk 21:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean that the settlement is not significant. My comment was that all that can be encyclopaedically said about the subject of this article (i.e. the bus stop) is that the settlement is served by the coach. I apologise for not making that clearer. Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete and burn with fire this could snowball horribly, no way can wikipedia have an article on every bus shelter in the world --UltraMagnusspeak 21:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a valid argument. Please see [WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS] "When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain." Many, many other Amtrak Thruway articles already exist. It is notable because it's the only Amtrak Thruway stop in Victorville, CA. Adelanto Junction is a stop for Amtrak California Motor Coach service connecting Amtrak California's San Joaquin trains in Bakersfield with stops in the high desert area northwest of the City of Los Angeles including Mojave, Lancaster, Palmdale, and Victorville.  kgrr talk 21:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thruway Motorcoach stops don't always follow Amtrak routes. Often the stops are used to carry passengers from one Amtrak station to another through an area where there is no Amtrak service. This route is used to connect Southwest Chief and Amtrak California's San Joaquin trains in Bakersfield, California. This is a bad precedent to start.  kgrr talk 21:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, figure this. The Thruway coaches, from what I see, will either 1) spur off a mainline to feed areas that have demand for service but are off the beaten track, as it were, 2) connecting two rail routes as you point out, or 3) used as an ersatz route replacement when the need arises for whatever reason (breakdown, track failure, maintentance, phase of moon, etc.). Here, I work off of 1, and that is my rationale for the merge. Granted, there's not much to merge, except that there's a thruway station in Adelanto CA. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree.  kgrr talk 21:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The presented arguments thusfar in my opinion do not satisfy the notability requirements per WP:LOCAL. We need independent sources to show that this is notable, not just that it exists. Also, see WP:TOWN as a good outline of what I'm trying to convey, particularly the part about "run of the mill" places. Being the only stop in Victorville may be a fact that can fit into the Victorville article, but does not pass the guideline for article existence. --Triadian (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree.  kgrr talk 21:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is It Your Money?[edit]

    Is It Your Money? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Contested prod. No indication that this mixtapes meets WP:NALBUMS, only references are to primary sources RadioFan (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment the artist's page is up for deletion discussion as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eldee --RadioFan (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I found zero sources for this. Joe Chill (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy deleted as attack article (WP:CSD#G10).. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    St. Mary's Catholic High School (Woodstock)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    St. Mary's Catholic High School (Woodstock) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Pure vandalism. Friginator (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mifter (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Iranian presidential election, 2013[edit]

    Iranian presidential election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Wiki is not crystal ball. This article is against WP:BALL, because is full of speculations. Yopie (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. I agree there is no need for this article yet. All we can say about the election so far is that it will occur in 2013. There is no useful information in the article and it can easily be remade nearer to the time - Dumelow (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While AfDs close together can be considered disruptive, a 'no consensus' closure is the closest thing to an invitation for more discussion. There was a lot of commendable hard work put into finding sources, but the delete voters not only had the numerical upper hand, but were able to discredit the assertions of notability. This decision was swayed by the consensus opinion that the evidence did not establish the subject as passing our notability criteria. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Shells (folk band)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    The Shells (folk band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Written Roads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable band; the only criterion of WP:BAND that they even come close to meeting is #1 (non-trivial coverage), but all of the coverage seems to be either trivial (tiny blurb in Seventeen) or from sources that were tagged as questionable.

    The first AfD for this page was disrupted by repeated ranting about a non-notable local award that the band was nominated for (did not win): the "Best Breakout NYC Artist Award", which had MTV's name attached to it but was trivial, was never broadcast on national TV or mentioned on MTV's website, and which was only one of 8 or 9 similar local awards for other cities; its article has since been redirected after an AfD determined it was not notable. Thus, this band does not meet any of the awards-related criteria of WP:BAND. After the last AfD was closed as 'no consensus' (due mainly to the disruption), I waited about a month until their first album was released. Now it has been released, and has generated no new coverage (I searched Google Web and Google News and saw nothing that wasn't already around before) and as far as I can tell has not charted or anything. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: The article Written Roads, about their non-notable album, is also set to be merged here (see Talk:Written Roads#Merge?). If this is deleted, that article should be deleted along with it instead. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Unless anybody objects, I am making this into a formal AfD on both articles. There is no need to deal with them separately. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note: User:Epeefleche, when he comments here, is the article creator (User:VMAsNYC, who created the article, was a former alternate account). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete both. The band is not notable. The album has not been reviewed in the national press. The album does not seem to have been reviewed by the regional press. The album does not even seem to have been reviewed by the specialist folk music press. So what have we got in the way of notability? Being selected for, but not winning, the regional leg of a competition under the auspices of MTV (but not broadcast nationally)? That's something but it is not good enough in itself. A very brief feature in Seventeen? Even allowing for Seventeen's terse style, 92 words is not "significant coverage". And then there is all the PR stuff, which is worthless. What we have here is an aspiring band that doesn't meet the notability requirements at all. Maybe they will one day but they need to get some reviews and sell some records first. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both per DanielRigal's well-explained rationale. There are absolutely no significant secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both, insufficient secondary-source coverage to comply with the notability policy. The award nomination did initially give a potential for meeting WP:BAND, but with the now-apparent local and obscure nature of it it confers minimal notability. ~ mazca talk 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both since the band fails to meet the notability requirements. The MTV award is a regional rather than a national prize, which they didn't win in any case. That leaves one mention in a magazine, which does not constitute the kind of coverage required to establish notability. Their album isn't available to buy from any major music supplier and seems to be download-only. Nor has it been reviewed in the music press. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per WP:BAND, a band may be notable if it "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." I count three references that qualify. (1) The Seventeen article, or blurb if you prefer. It's brief, all right, but it's about the band, and it's in a major publication. (2) The article in the Queens Chronicle. A full fledged article, in a local newspaper. (3) Several paragraphs in a longer article in The Improper, which I just found and which is not referenced in The Shells article. The Improper appears to be an independent and reliable online arts and entertainment magazine. When the guideline talks about "non-trivial published works", the intention I believe is to exclude things like being mentioned in the weekend entertainment listings of a newspaper, or having your own article in your Boy Scout troop's newsletter. Then there's the nomination for Best Breakout New York City Artist Award. Okay, it's not really a major award, but it was associated with the MTV Video Music Awards, so it's not nothing either. In summary, it seems the band has three non-trivial independent references, plus, for whatever it's worth, the award nomination. I do think the album article could be merged with the band article for now though. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is how I see it:
    • The Improper: May or may not be RS. Clearly just a passing mention of the fact that they played a joint gig at an event organised by their PR agency in conjunction with the The Improper itself. The extent of the relationship between The Improper and the band's PR agency is not clear but there obviously is one. In short, this is possibly PR coverage a definitely PR event. Trivial.
    • Queens Chronicle: This is a simple plug for a local band. Not sure if it was ever published in print form. Nothing wrong with that, as it is done openly and honestly, but it does not impart much, if any, notability. I could make hundreds, no, make that thousands, of articles if we regard that coverage as imparting notability, just by scouring the UK local newspapers for articles that boil down to "Local band has a gig/event in town. Please go support them.". Trivial.
    • "MTV": This band is not even on MTV's radar. Search for "The Shells" or "Written Roads" at MTV.com. See anything? Me neither. The competition, irrespective of its questionable linkage to MTV, would be worth something if they won, which they didn't. As it stands, it is worth a little. Slightly better than trivial.
    • Seventeen: This is the best thing so far but it really isn't much. It is RS and it is better than trivial.
    So what does that add up to? It is not significant coverage in my eyes. Give us two or three more featurettes like the one in Seventeen or just one proper gig or album review in a good RS source and then I will reconsider my vote. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to DanielRigal:
    ♦Seventeen: I'm pleased we agree it is a reliable source w/more than trivial coverage (as defined by WP:BAND). We're then halfway to notability, as we need only agree on one more such source to satisfy WP:BAND criterion 1.
    ♦Queens Chronicle: While you disparage it, comparing it to a "local" UK newspaper discussing a band "in town", in fact its readership of 400,000 is greater in size than all but the six largest cities in England. Second, its discussion of the band far exceeds WP:BAND's "triviality" test, as discussed below. Third, your uncertainty as to whether it ever appeared in print form is irrelevant, as WP:BAND criterion 1 makes clear ("This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as ... online versions of print media").
    ♦MTV: "Not even on MTV's radar"? "Questionable linkage to MTV"? Is this a joke? Just watch the MTV video below. Do you think that was fabricated by someone other than MTV? Simply read the MTV Official Rules below. Are you suggesting that someone other than MTV fraudulently created that MTV legal document?
    ♦Competition: Your comment that it "would be worth something if they won, which they didn't" is helpful. Because as WP:BAND makes clear, the fact that they were one of the top three nominees (out of 190 bands) is sufficient—they are treated precisely the same as winners for purposes of criterion 9 under WP:BAND.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Both. The band article clearly satisfies WP:BAND. The guidance's test for notability is that the band meet any 1 of 12 criteria. This band meets 3 of the criteria. Three times what it must meet to qualify.

    1. Subject of Multiple Non-trivial Independent Reliable Public Works. One criterion that the band meets is # 1. Because it has "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the [band] itself and reliable."

    First, the review of the band by Seventeen Magazine (reporting for 65 years; its circulation of 22 million is the 39th-highest in the US)[1][2] two months ago states:

    Band Spotlight: The Shells

    August 5, 2009

    Album: Written Roads (coming out October 8!)

    Myspace: myspace.com/bombshelltrio

    The vibe: Indie folk-rock mixed with a little R&B. Very Dixie Chicks meets Indigo Girls.

    Why you should listen: These three gorgeous girls wrote most of the songs on their new album themselves! Their original sound was dubbed "cosmo country" — a blend of city pop with folk. Love it!

    Our fave songs: Give a Little Take a Little, Wrong from the Start.[3]

    Seventeen's review plainly surpasses the guidance's "triviality" threshhold. WP:BAND's triviality test is not based on the number of words in the reference. But rather on the nature of the content. The guidance specifies that "trivial" refers to those articles that do not do more than: “simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.” Seventeen's review clearly does much more than that. It provides the reviewer's actual reviews and opinion of both the band and the band's CD. The review is in the magazine's concise format of choice. That format appears to work for Seventeen, inasmuch as the magazine is the largest-selling magazine to US college freshman.[4]

    Second, the review by Queens Chronicle last month (a newspaper which has been reporting for 30 years and now reaches 400,000 readers) says among other things that:[5]

    "The Shells, one of the hottest rock groups around, are one of three finalists vying for the MTV Best Breakout NYC Artist Award. The trio consists of singers Jessica Waltz, Melanie Klaja and Carrie Welling, who lives in Astoria. Along with a set of backup musicians, they frequently play shows in western Queens and elsewhere in the city.... [T]he MTV competition [is] set for Sept. 11 at the Fillmore New York at Irving Plaza in downtown Manhattan....
    These sirens warrant it. They’re great performers and are about to release their first album, “Written Roads,” next month. Winning the best breakout artist award would be the icing on the cake, as it brings with it performance and licensing deals with MTV. The award will be presented during the network’s Video Music Awards, set for Sept. 13 at Radio City Music Hall."[5]

    This article also meets the guidance's standards, and is clearly non-trivial. These two reviews together are sufficient to satisfy WP:BAND's first criterion.

    They are of course in addition to the article mentioned above by Mudwater, which appeared last month both in The Improper and The Examiner (by Keith Girard, Editor-in-Chief of TheImproper, who has been a journalist for more than 30 years and an Editor-in-Chief for more than 15 years at publications such as Billboard magazine. His syndicated column appears in The Washington Post, Boston Globe, and San Francisco Chronicle.). And this is without even giving any consideration to OurStage's article, or MTV's interview, or blogs such as this one, or this Dutch review.

    2. Nominated for Major Music Award. A second criterion that this article meets is # 8, in that the band has been "nominated for a major music award."

    The MTV Video Music Awards (VMAs) are clearly major music awards. And the band was nominated for the "MTV VMA Best Breakout New York City Artist Award".

    (a) That the award is an MTV VMA, you can clearly see from "MTV's VMA Best Breakout NYC Artist Contest Official Rules".[6] MTV's Rules repeatedly refer to the award as an MTV VMA (see, e.g., Sections 1 & 2).
    (b) Also, the MTV VMA logo attaches to official releases regarding the award, clearly identifying it as the "MTV Video Music Awards '09 Best Breakout NYC Artist Award".
    (c) And this MTV video clearly refers to it as an MTV VMA.[7] The video not only starts off with the MTV VMA logo (indicating the MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, "hosted by Russell Brand"). But at the end it says: "To see who wins the VMA for best breakout artist, tune in to the VMAs on Sept. 13 at 9 PM". The official VMA ceremony was of course hosted by Russell Brand on Sept. 13 at 9 PM. Note: This MTV video is hosted on a Time Warner/partnerships/MTV url. This accords with references by MTV in Sections 14(a)&(b) of MTV's Official Rules to an MTV co-branded website with TimeWarner.
    (d) Official communications refer to the award as a VMA as well.[8] Note: MTV's co-sponsor is OurStage (identified as such by MTV in Section 4 of MTV's Official Rules).
    (e) (added Oct. 18) This MTV VMA was awarded live at the official MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, as announced by TimeWarner and MTV on their joint website in an article entitled "Hundreds Entered. One Emerged. Road Runner and MTV are Proud to Announce the VMA winner in the Best Breakout NYC Artist category".[9]

    3. Won or Placed in a Major Music Competition. A third criterion that this article meets is # 9, in that the band has "won or placed in a major music competition."

    The competion for the above award was a major one, in that:

    (a) it was an MTV competition (MTV being a major name in the music field);
    (b) the competition involved 190 bands;
    (c) the competition between the final three nominee bands was held at a major venue (The Fillmore at Irving Plaza; a significant 1,100-person venue); and
    (d) the panel judging the finalists consisted of an MTV person and two VMA performers (Fefe Dobson and a singer from Cobra Starship).[5]
    (e) (added Oct. 18) as mentioned above, the VMA was awarded live at the official MTV Video Music Awards ceremony.

    Note: The winner and the other two nominees are treated precisely the same for purposes of notability under criterion 9 of WP:BAND. (added Oct. 18) The Shells "placed" in the competition, satisfying criterion 9, in that they and the other VMA nominee that did not win the VMA were "First Place Winners" under the MTV Official Rules (while the VMA winner was a "Grand Prize Winner").

    Album page. The WP:Album convention is that where the band article is not deleted, the band's album article likewise should not be deleted. See discussion here.

    Irrelevant discussions. The band only needs to meet 1 of the 12 WP:BAND criteria. That notability test does not involve assessing the band relative to criteria that have not been cited as indicia of this band's notability. Therefore, discussion as to what criteria the band does not meet (e.g., how many CDs it has sold, through what channels, on what label) is just irrelevant diversionary red herrings.

    Deja vu. If editors experience a sense of deja vu here, it may be because this same nom previously nominated this article for deletion.

    ♦ This nom's effort to garner consensus support for deletion failed a mere 15 days prior to his renominating it for deletion above. Nine editors spoke up indicating that the article was notable. Its notability obviously did not lessen over the past 15 days, so I would submit it clearly it is still notable today.
    ♦ This nom then protested the decision to the closing admin. Without success.
    ♦ This nom then appealed the closing nom's determination. Without success.
    ♦ This nom then sought to delete the Category "The Shells albums". Without success.
    ♦ This nom continues by now renominating this article for deletion a mere 15 days after his last nomination of the same article failed, and 5 days after the band's debut CD release.

    WP:DELETE says, in pertinent part: "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Such is the case here.

    Furthermore, this nom—invited to the page in the first instance by an editor who was wikihounding me (as discussed at the first AfD)—has for some reason consistently and aggressively gotten in the faces of other editors who don't share his view. Even himself wikihounding me to other pages, as here—where he received a sharp rebuke from the editor whose talk page he followed me to. He has also repeatedly exagerated, made overreaching characterizations, and even made untrue assertions (e.g., above as to the basis of the closure of the prior AfD). I've for the most part avoided detailing them, and instead—in contrast to his approach—have delineated the relevant points in the guidance, and provided sourced basis for this article meeting the guidance criteria. I question however whether this is productive activity on his part that is in the best interests of Wikipedia.

    In summary, this band clearly meets the WP:BAND criteria. Three times over. I'll leave friendly notices at a limited number of spots for editors who may have reason to have interest in this discussion. Thanks.

    References

    1. ^ US Magazines by Circulation
    2. ^ "Seventeen Circulation"
    3. ^ "Band Spotlight: The Shells". Seventeen. August 5, 2009. Retrieved August 30, 2009.
    4. ^ "Seventeen is the Number 1 magazine Subscribed to by College Freshmen"
    5. ^ a b c Mastrosimone, Peter C. (September 10, 2009). "The Shells need your vote in MTV contest". Queens Chronicle. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
    6. ^ "MTV's VMA Best Breakout NYC Artist Contest Official Rules"
    7. ^ MTV Video Music Awards: Meet the Band: Exclusive Interview with The Shells (Flash) (Television production). New York: Time Warner Cable/nynj/about/partnerships/MTV. August 2009.
    8. ^ "MTV Video Music Awards '09 Best Breakout NYC Artist"
    9. ^ "Hundreds Entered. One Emerged. Road Runner and MTV are Proud to Announce the VMA winner in the Best Breakout NYC Artist category", timewarnercable.com/nynj/about/partnerships/mtv, accessed October 18, 2009
    --Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am surprised to see Epeefleche harking back to the first AfD, given that his behaviour there got him blocked for a while for sockpupetry. To answer the point about 15 days. It is very clear that the first AfD was botched due to the confusion caused by the sockpuppetry and the misleading arguments put forward. It would have been perfectly legitimate to have started a second AfD immediately after the deletion review was turned down. In fact, that was what many people on the deletion review suggested. We were being very generous by waiting to see if the the album's release tipped the band over into notability. It hasn't. I was planning to give it until this upcoming weekend and then, if redoing the searches still turned up nothing convincing, nominate the two articles for AfD myself. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not accurate. First, the sock complaint was brought on the unfounded suspicion that I had used as another account the "Holtzman" account; the Checkuser showed that account to be unrelated. The block was contested as unjustified, and quickly lifted with an apology because I had not engaged in sockpuppetry. I had used more than one account for maintenance purposes, however, which of course is acceptable, but to avoid even the appearance of impropriety I suggested that I would abandon my existing maintenance accounts.
    Second, it is a completely unsupported fabrication for you to write "the first AfD was botched due to the confusion". The admin closed the AfD writing: "The result was no consensus. There is no consensus for deletion per WP:GNG or for retention per WP:BAND; neither argument came on top here." When the nom then aggressively (while making some misstatements/mischaracterizations) protested the admin's decision, the admin responded to the nom: "I didn't see either argument on either side come up on top as I stated in the AFD closure (hence the "no consensus" close). I did read through it, and I don't think it would have made much a difference with the sock !vote in there or not, as the registered users on the "keep" side made their point clear." After the nom noted one more time that he disagreed, the admin replied: "We saw two different things."[15] What of course makes this an even starker result is that there was in fact no sockpuppetry.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept that you were not Holtzman but you were several other accounts. Rather than argue further I will simply suggest that anybody interested can have a look at your talk page where they can see the details and draw their own conclusions. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again—There was no sockpuppetry. Only permissible alternate maintenance accounts that had nothing to do with the AfD; hence the admin's lifting of the block, and apology. And it is a completely unsupported fabrication for you to write "the first AfD was botched due to the confusion".--Epeefleche (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: As it turns out, there was a sock involved in that vote. It was an editor, however, who voted in favor of deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Epeefleche: The Examiner article you link is not real coverage, it says nothing more than "they played at this thing" (and they're in the middle of a long list of other non-notable bands). The OurStage thing is a press release (not a RS, just fluff). The blog is also not an RS. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a mischaracterization. The Examiner article says more than that. Specifically:

    "More than 200 people from the media and music industry, as well as fans ... turned out for TheImproper.com’s 'Live at Gibson Studios' music showcase Sept. 17. Four up-and-coming New York bands performed .... Fans came from as far away as Canada to ... hear the bands.... The featured bands ... played in the same storied space where Michael Jackson and Jimi Hendrix recorded. ... Carrie Welling, Jessica Waltz and Melanie Claja, known collectively as The Shells followed up with the urban flavored rock and country hits. The band is a finalist in MTV VMA’s Best Break Out Artists competition. The band will release their first full-length album, Written Roads on Oct. 8 at the Canal Room in New York City." --Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

    • Epeefleche, half of that quote is not about The Shells, it's just general mumbling about the venue. And the rest is not a review, it's just stating facts ("they have album coming out! they're in a contest!"). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a review but non-trivial coverage is not limited to reviews, and by your own admission your previous statement that "it says nothing more than "they played at this thing"" isn't entirely true either. As you noted above, it states at least 2 other facts about the band: it also mentions their musical style. It's not extensive coverage by any stretch of the imagination but the 2 little paragraphs devoted to The Shells do say something about the band.Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest rereading them carefully and considering my points above. They are not as impressive as they first look. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep this article which is extensively referenced for WP:V, thus also WP:NOR. Fairly WP:NPOV as well. It clearly meets the other content policy guidelines, so I won't belabor them. Notability, though against my philosophy, is well-argued above. The (re)nominators need to give up the ghost. - Draeco (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment -- Speaking of deja vu... epeefleche, how many times do people have to tell you it's not necessary to copy and paste the entire Seventeen article into this page? Do you not realize how annoying it is? Do you think editors don't know how to click the link and read it themselves? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying to get back to the subject and move the discussion forwards, I would like to make some suggestions:

    1. Can the people who are voting "keep" but who have not made it clear what they think should be done with the album article please clarify their stance on that?
    2. Can we try to dig up a bit on the band's record label "WeThreeRecords"? I am not getting much on this. Are any other bands on it? They don't seem to have a website. (www.wethreeerecords.com seems to be a completely different thing with the same name.) Is this a vanity label set up for the band but with an established label (indie or major) standing behind it (the option that points towards notability), or is the album actually self-published (the option that points away from notability)?
    3. Can we try to get an idea of how widely the album is available for sale? It is on CDBaby but I can't find it anywhere else. It is not in Amazon.com or Google Shopping. Is it exclusive to CDBaby and, if so, does that count as indie or self-published?

    --DanielRigal (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As for CDBaby: I have college buddies whose bands have multiple albums sold through CDBaby (and published by real record labels), and they are not notable. Selling your own album on CDBaby does not notability make. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So albums on CDBaby can be either self-published or not? Is that right? If so, their presence on CDBaby doesn't tell us much either pro or anti notability. OTOH, if they really are only on CDBaby (which we still need to be sure about), and have no traditional record deal, would it be fair to say that this makes them an unsigned band? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not 100% sure, but I think they can be published under a made-up label (i.e., a label that was created just for that band) with the help of a professional producer. For an example, look up the band "Walk the Moon" there—they have some things on CD Baby which were produced by their own label but also had a professional producer involved in some way or another. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. WP:NM guidelines exist to stop editors from using Wikipedia to plug their mates' band which sold 37 copies of a self-published CD down the pub or whatever, not for us to argue about whether an MTV award category with 190 initial contenders is "major", or whether a review in an indisputably major national magazine counts as trivial! The definition of "trivial" in this context seems reasonably clear: "such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." It refers to things like this. An actual review expressing an opinion of a particular band or release is obviously non-trivial even if it is short: the notability guideline has no express or implied minimum wordage limit, and I've read reviews which waffle on for hundreds of words yet still say less about the music than Seventeen's review, whose terse format is typical of that particular publication. In addition to the local newspaper article, the article which appeared in The Improper and The Examiner tells us a bit about each of the acts covered, including The Shells, so it just about qualifies as non-trivial. As for the assertion that the album Written Roads has not charted or generated any further non-trivial media coverage, give it a chance - it was only released about a week ago! However, I would have no objection to merging its article with the band's article. Both articles are well written and well referenced but also fairly short, so I see no harm in merging them. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're not really "arguing over whether the award is major"; it was already decided at AfD that it wasn't. (Who cares that it had 190 contenders, I've seen elementary school talent shows with 190 contenders.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, because the AfD determined it was not notable enough for its own article. Redirects are navigational aids, not indications of notability. Also note that the redirect was quickly followed by a discussion at Talk:2009 MTV Video Music Awards over whether or not the NYC award was worth including at all (and the discussion was initiated by some other editor totally unrelated to me, the big bad one-man crusader/stalker/whatever else you like). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. The convention with all MTV VMA Awards for 2009 (and nearly all Grammys) is to list them on one main awards page, rather than on separate pages. The redirect of the MTV VMA simply quite properly comports with that convention. Clearly Grammys and MTV VMAs are notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both I even helped epeefleche improve the article, but I just can't see sufficient coverage. The Seventeen review, no matter how much you go on about the meaning of 'trivial', it is very minor, brief and it alone is not significant enough for two entire articles. I don't see the significance in the MTV either, much larger awards wouldn't be enough coverage to satisfy me on the matter. Now that the album has been released, there has seemingly been no further exposure, the release through CD Baby seems minimal and as mentioned above, no more than just anyone could do. The label doesn't bring up anything on searches, and is very dubious. As for keeping the band article and merging the album, that is out of the question. All or nothing. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both Fails both WP:BAND and WP:GNG, TD;DR wishful thinking above notwithstanding. Wikipedia band entries should reflect the readers' desire to find info more than the band's desire to get the word out. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's actually my point too. Wikipedia isn't a magazine: readers aren't likely to stumble across an article on a subject which doesn't interest them while searching for something else. Those who look up a particular article generally do so because they're already interested in the topic: without that initial interest, Wikipedia articles do nothing to promote their topics.Contains Mild Peril (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking at this. I have done a bit more digging on this and I am pretty certain that this is a completely unrelated, UK based, record label which just happens to have the same name. Their home page is http://wethreerecords.com/ and they appear to be dedicated exclusively to reissues by British post-punk band The Raincoats. Their "buy" links go to the Rough Trade Shop website were prices are quoted in UK pounds. I would be amazed if they had any connection to The Shells. Everything about The Shells seems New York based. I can't see them choosing a British record label with no US presence for their album. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, OK. Thanks for checking it out. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both. Seventeen is certainly a RS, but their coverage of The Shells is trivial. The Queens Chronicle article is so promotional that it can’t be regarded as a RS. The Improper article is about an event that The Improper co-sponsored with The Shells’ PR firm; so it is not independent, and even then its coverage of The Shells is trivial. Then there’s MTV: As has been mentioned before, mtv.com has no mention of The Shells and no mention of "Written Roads". It also has no mention of "Best Breakout" for this year and no mention of the winner, MeTalkPretty. —teb728 t c 19:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep This is the second time around. This time, the nominator, Rjanag (who is an administrator and ought to know better), tries to elevate himself with cheap-shot tactics alluding to how the common riff-raff in the previous AfD got all excited and engaged in “repeated ranting”. Moreover, his quick mentioning of “repeated ranting” seems to be the basis for his justification for bring this issue up for a second time. I think the bottom-line issue is that the “repeated ranting” over which he finds great disfavor amounted to nothing more than “discussion that lead to an outcome he didn’t like.” So here he is again with a second try. If there isn’t a Wikipedia policy against this sort of thing, there ought to be. As I stated before, I note that Rjanag’s interest in this article seems to have started over cover art and non-free content and the exchange there makes for interesting reading (“the “f-word” being used once by an editor who weighed in on that thread). It also appears, in my humble opinion, that this is much to do about ruffled feathers and edit disagreements. Bottom line: Any rock band that got so close to wining an MTV award is clearly notable enough, IMO, for inclusion in Wikipedia. Since I last looked into this issue, this bickering has brought about so many header tags in the article about its supposed shortcomings that the wording of the tags exceeds the word count of the body of the article (202 words vs. 164). I encourage the nominator to drop this. It may be that a WP:WQA will be required here. No editor should have to put up with so much flack to add to Wikipedia. Ample electronic white-space is available, below, for the nominator to make politically correct protestations over how I “fail to assume good faith” regarding his intentions. Sorry; your actions, Rjanag, speak louder than your protestations of having motivations as pure as the driven snow. I suggest you drop this and go find something more productive to do. Greg L (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It might help if you explained exactly where you feel the convincing demonstration of notability lies. All the supposedly significant coverage has been debunked leaving the same minimal level of genuine notability as before. It is not nothing but it is not significant either. If you don't like Rjanag, fine, but please judge this article on its merits. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I addressed two things in my above post, all of which is easily parsed for those who care to actually read it: 1) How I find Rjanag’s behavior in this matter to be abhorrent, and 2) Why I think the article is sufficiently notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia.

    As to point #2, I addressed it following the bold “Bottom line”, above, so it was rather hard to miss: Any rock band that was one of the three finalists for wining an MTV award is clearly notable enough. If you, DanielRigal, don’t *like* the basis for my opinion, that that is your right. But please don’t bother to suggest that I didn’t “judge the article on its merits” because I did. M’kay?

    As to point #1 (Rjanag’s behavior): I think this is a classic example as to how a single editor who ‘just won’t let go’ can make so many others have to jump through hoops and waste time. In this particular case (the second AfD on the same article after he didn’t obtain the desired outcome in the first), this is as utterly needless as it is disruptive. Wikipedia affords individuals far too many opportunities for this sort of thing and it all amounts to oh-so-much Wikidrama.

    As for what facts in the article have been “debunked”, I couldn’t possibly care less; the only criteria for notability is evidenced by what is in the article now. Given that Rjanag has employed every quasi-permissible Turkish butt-stabbing on the editor responsible for this article, I am assuming that facts such as nearly winning an MTV award are A) true, B) sufficiently cited, and C) quadruple checked. That’s all that’s need to demonstrate notability. Greg L (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why single me out? I'm not on a one-man crusade, as I'm not the only one who "didn't obtain the desired outcome in the first AfD". Check that AfD, and this; many editors desire that outcome. This is not about me or any other editor, this is about a crappy article about a non-notable band. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why single you out? Are you serious??? Because you’re the one who started the first AfD and you’re the one who started this one after you didn’t like the outcome of the first. That’s sort of a Well… Duh! reason, don’t you think? There better not be a third Afd on this article too. It would be unfortunate to see an admin called to the mat over such behavior. If you’re sharp, you’ll walk away from this. I swear, if there was a “This article smells like a diaper pail”-tag you’d have slapped it on the poor The Shells article by now. Greg L (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    And, as detailed on this page, you (Rjanag) are the one who has twice protested the close of the first AfD to the closing admin (without success). Then appealed that decision (without success). Then sought to delete the Category "The Shells albums" (without success). Then brought this second AfD a mere 15 days after the prior one closed (calling it "about a month"). And exaggerated/misstated facts numerous times in both this AfD and the prior AfD and in other discussions. Wikihounded me even to the doorstep of other editors' talk pages—one of whom wrote to you there: "It's a tad sad that you follow someone around an entire website trying to get a single article deleted". Mischaracterized the Seventeen article three times—on September 29, and called the Seventeen article "tiny" in this AfD, and incorrectly stated how long it was in the prior AfD—and then amazingly turned around and publicly chastised me writing: "epeefleche, how many times do people have to tell you it's not necessary to copy and paste the entire Seventeen article into this page? Do you not realize how annoying it is?" (if it were tiny, it could not have bothered you, and in fact you were the only one who had objected previously). And that's just the tip of the iceberg.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Twice, Epee? Dare I ask where the second one was? (Hint: there was no second one. Just DRV. So much for Mr. "The Truth" crusading against editors who "misrepresent the facts".) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I had suggested to Rjanag that we focus only on WP:BAND and WP:DELETE issues here, and move any other discussion elsewhere out of consideration to the editors. I can't control his posts of course, and the next thing he did was post the above question here. I can control mine, though, so I've moved my answer here to let this page breathe.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow Greg L (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow indeed. What is the point in this whole delete action if the category page exists?  HWV258  07:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DELETE contains no rule against re-AfDing articles where there was no consensus. I never misrepresented the length of the 17 article, it is tiny and almost every editor here agrees with that (just read the discussion, if you haven't yet). Really I'm just amused to see you guys shooting yourselves in the foot by obsessing over these personal battles and forgetting to address the article itself. You can complain about me all you want; it won't do any good for the closing admin. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Untrue. I've already quoted the pertinent part of WP:DELETE above. Your violation of it is IMHO flagrant and disruptive. Without any new information you brought another AfD disruptively 15 days after the close of the first one. For guidance as to what a reasonable period is considered to be, we have this.
    And yes, you did misrepresent in the first AfD on Sept. 13 that "all I see is three sentences in Seventeen". When I then quoted the article, pointing out that you had misrepresented its length, your response (to that and the rest of what I wrote) was, dismissively: "Way too long." Another editor intervened and responded to you: "Nonsense. WP:TLDR applies to policy pages and guidelines, not arguments. I, for one, appreciate the thoroughness."
    You then on Sept. 29 again misrepresented the extent of coverage in the article here. When I corrected you, you chastised me for quoting the article.
    You then in this AfD avoided preciseness and instead disparaged the article's length (calling it "tiny"). And then again criticized me vociferously for quoting the entire (tiny) review.
    Your many innaccurate statements (always one-sided innacuracies), bullying of me in an effort to keep readers from reading the truth, mischaracterizations, and wikihounding have been intensely disruptive. They interfere with editors being able to make a determination based on accurate facts and reasoned discussions.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All WP:DELETE says is "allow a reasonable amount of time", which was allowed. You are free to argue about whether you think the time was reasonable, but don't accuse me of breaking "rules" that don't exist. It doesn't reflect well on you. And as for the "guidance" you cite, that's a tiny talkpage section, not part of WP:DELETE.
    • As for my "effort to keep readers from reading the truth"...oh goodness, sorry I got in the way of your efforts to spread The Truth to the poor unenlightened masses. I suppose while my arguments against you are terrible attempts to hide The Truth, your arguments against me are well-intentioned efforts to fight against the evil administrator. Gosh, I feel so bad. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I tried to make clear, it is your series of flagrant one-sided misrepresentations, mischaracterizations, wikihounding, and bullying that I find disruptive. I gather from your response that I'm getting nowhere, however, in raising this to you.
    As to WP:DELETE, your reading as to what is a reasonable amount of time is severely at odds not only with what I believe reasonable (what do you think is a reasonable cutoff then? 5 days? 1 day? an hour?), but clearly at odds with what the best guidance we have on the issue suggests, the discussion involving editors including an admin at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, which I referred you to above.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you even read the discussion you linked above? It has nothing to do with this article. DGG's message in that old discussion are about nominating an article after two failed AfDs (not one), and they're about how long is long enough (not about how long is not long enough). Totally irrelevant. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Also, how am I bullying? By putting your article up for deletion—when lots of editors think it ought to be deleted? You're going to need a thicker skin than that to edit here; everyone, including me, has articles of theirs get put up for deletion.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As another example of your incivility, the above message came to me from you with the following edit summary: "learn how to read".
    Yes, I read the discussion. It is relevant. It is clear from the discussion IMHO that a second AfD as here, a mere 15 days after the first closed, with absolutely no new information supporting it, is not what the editors viewed as being a "reasonable amount of time". And, as WP:DELETE says: "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."
    As to your request that I give an example of your bullying, your berating me for my quote of the ("tiny") Seventeen article is one example. And this. Perhaps we should stop this back-and-forth, or move it elsewhere. I doubt others care to re-read you saying things aren't true, me demonstrating that they are, followed by you moving on to another subject as though we never had the discussion. My point in this thread was that I share Greg L's amazement that you responded "Why single me out?" at the top of this thread. I've detailed why. I suggest we close this, and let people focus on WP:BAND, WP:DELETE, and the facts here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "No editor should have to put up with so much flack to add to Wikipedia"—agree completely with GregL. We are seeing an ugly side of the policing of WP. This is precisely the sort of thing that drives people away.  HWV258  07:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only thing ugly is how much some editors are crying about a normal AfD process, and turning an AfD into a wikiquette alert. If you guys want to complain about how terrible I am and how I've hurt your feelings, WQA is thataway. This page is for talking about the article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't say that there is too much normal about this AfD process. It is becoming increasingly obvious to all that you simply didn't get the outcome you desired, and are unable to simply walk away. But I do agree that "ugly" is entering into it now. It's not to late for you to simply leave it alone, take a deep breath, and find other areas to help improve WP. Please.  HWV258  07:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wake up and smell the coffee. You can rant about me all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that plenty of other editors also desire that outcome (deletion of this non-notable article). I may be the one who started the AfD; that doesn't mean I'm the only one who wants this article deleted. Have you bothered to read the discussion? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wake up and smell the coffee"—keep digging that hole. "Rant"? I don't think you know the meaning of the word, but your use of it does help us all to understand how you are interpreting this particular corner of the world. Thanks! "...Plenty of other editors also desire..." both sides of the argument. I have bothered (as should be obvious from the fact that I never suggested that there aren't other editors who want the article deleted). Of course, whether those other editors would have gone to the extraordinary length of starting another RfD so soon is another question.  HWV258  08:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. For the reasons given above. Looking forward to !voting a third time :-(  HWV258  21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hopefully your third vote will be more useful than your first, which was hands-down the most useless comment in the entirety of that AfD. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again ignoring the issues. I'm sorry that your onerous policing duties have closed your mind to other points of view at WP.  HWV258  07:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm quite open to other points of view when they're expressed articulately; inane comments with no point are not "points of view". Your comment at the last AfD was not only useless, it was ridiculed by other editors. I don't consider that a "point of view". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did express a reason (rendering your comment above of "useless" incorrect). I'm truly sorry that your black-and-white policing point-of-view closes your mind to the way another person expresses their opinion at WP.  HWV258  07:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Idea: Sorry to keep wading in but perhaps it is worth thinking about this a bit differently. Perhaps we should ask ourselves whether there would be any "keep" votes for an unsigned Norwegian heavy metal band who had received minor coverage in the Norwegian teen press, entered but not won the Oslo leg of a competition loosely affiliated to a Scandinavian TV network and who had a single, non-charting, self-published album? Please ask yourselves honestly what you would do with such an article? My guess is that such an article would stand less than no chance of survival, if it even got as far as an AfD in the first place. Is there really anything that makes this one any different apart from the glamour of New York?--DanielRigal (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how useful that analogy is since New York City has a greater population than the whole of Norway, but if your hypothetical band reached the finals of their leg of the hypothetical competition and also had significant coverage in a regional newspaper with an estimated readership of 400 000 then yes, assuming I was aware of the deletion debate, I would still vote keep. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you should think about why you want to deny the poor Norwegian teens the opportunity to find out about a new entry on their music scene (and I'm going with a band name of Aërøsmîth)? E.g. imagine the disappointment when a downtrodden 15-year-old from Kristiansund in Møre og Romsdal hears about a new band from his friends, but then finds the "Encyclopaedic" WP offers not a Krone of help to discover more? Now I'm the first to point out that said teen would be far better served experiencing the works of Handel, but who am I to tell other people what they should/can be reading? <rhetorical question alert>Aren't there better things to do on WP without deleting articles?</rhetorical question alert>  HWV258  00:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop trying to rephrase this in terms of a deletionist/inclusionist debate. That disagreement is far bigger than any one article and we're not going to solve it here; your comment (and Epeefleche's below) says nothing useful about this article and only focuses on trying to tear down people you consider 'deletionists'. Whether deletionism (or inclusionism) is bad or good is beyond the scope of this discussion, and we're not going to remake the Wikipedia community in one little discussion of one little band that no one cares about. This AfD is about a particular topic, not about rambling about intangible wiki-philosophies. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And no doubt you'll help to organise a third RfC when you don't get your way with this one. You've simply shot yourself in the foot with telling comments like "crappy article" and "one little band that no one cares about". Logically, that's incorrect (as at least some people have demonstrated care). In terms of "crappy", please remember that there is no deadline on WP, so perhaps instead of trying to tear-down articles, you should spend equal effort in trying to improve them.  HWV258  05:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never organized an RfC in my life, much less a second or third one. I don't know what you're talking about.
    • As for "trying to improve the article": for the millionth time, whether or not it can be improved is precisely what's at issue here. The whole argument of all the people voting 'delete' is that this band is so non-notable there is nothing else worthwhile to say about them and thus it can't be improved anyway. That's one of the key meanings of WP:N. This is not a brainstorming session for how to clean up an article that needs help; this is an AfD for identifying when an article doesn't belong here in the first place. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I didn't realise you didn't follow. "RfC" means "Request for Comment". When the article is put up for deletion, the community is being requested to comment. Regarding "doesn't belong here in the first place", I (and others) believe that (via the first delete attempt) when the question I see no indication that they meet the requirements in WP:BAND results in The result was no consensus, then there is enough grounds to keep (and work on) the article. I don't presume to change your mind, so please pay me the same courtesy. I will simply suggest that you move on and find something else to turn your talents to on WP.  HWV258  06:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or perhaps we should ask: Why are you pursuing a second AfD without any new news (15 days following the close of the prior AfD)? Instead of (given your interest in Norwegian metal bands) spending time either improving or putting up for AfD the following Norwegian metal band articles that lack any indicia whatsoever of WP:BAND notablity: 55 Escape, Spiral Architect, Artifact, Bloodthorn, Faustcoven, Limbonic Art, and Triosphere. This discussion is simply a diversionary red herring. If the band meets WP:BAND, its article should not be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Rjanag. Untrue. Irrelevant. And non-responsive. I obviously took no position on "deletionism". How does the phrase "either improving or putting up for AfD" possibly sound anti-deletionist to you? You are simply starting an irrelevant diversion here. Diverting us admittedly from the first irrelevant discussion that your colleague began above—which we were civil enough to respond to.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, the hypothetical "Norwegian heavy metal band" was my casual example, not Rjanag's and I could just as easily chosen a similarly notable/nonnotable bhangra band from India (which might have been a better idea as the population is much larger). For the record I do put non-notable bands up for deletion when I see them. I don't have any specific grudge against The Shells. I have nothing against an aspiring band trying to punch above their weight. I just wonder why some people insist on treating them as if they are more notable than they are. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I am looking at those Norwegian band articles you mentioned now. I agree that most of them (apart from Bloodthorn, who are more notable than you would guess from reading the article) and the associated album articles are obvious deletion candidates so I am PRODing some and tagging others. If we can get rid of some badly unencyclopaedic articles then at least some good will have come of this AfD. I would caution against using the WP:WAX type argument though. Just because you can find several worse articles in Wikipedia doesn't mean that this one should stay. The question is whether each band meets the inclusion criteria, not the relative lacks of notability in a notional hierarchy of non-notable bands. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Good luck to whoever has to read all of this for the closure, what a joke. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rjanag, I have no problem in your expressing your opinion, but I'm disappointed that you're not setting an example—as WP:ADMIN requires of you—in bringing calm, ordered resolution to this discussion. If you're upsetting a lot of other users in the same place, it's time to self-reflect. Thank you. Tony (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What Tony said.

    Epeefleche: drop me a post on my user talk page when this AfD is closed by an uninvolved admin. If the decision is that there is no consensus for deleting the article, then the article—of course—stays. There is seldom a clear consensus for anything controversial on Wikipedia (just a lack of a consensus to make a change) so there is absolutely no justification for The Shells article to be brought up for a third AfD. Accordingly, the allegation that more AfDs can be brought up by the nominator as long as there isn’t a clear consensus to keep the article is beyond specious; it doesn’t work that way.

    The reason, Epeefleche, that I want you to contact me after this AfD is closed is that I’ll go to The Shells and delete each and every one of those header tags if they’re still slapped all over the article; none of them are needed. That article has been struggled over by opposing parties for so long that there probably isn’t a single sentence that ends with a preposition and its facts are about as well-established and cited and quadruple-checked as those in any article on Wikipedia.

    Furthermore, the article could use a photograph of The Shells. Since “fair-use” of non-free content is a bit of a grey area, and given that you have gotten under the skin of an admin who isn’t exactly upholding the best principles of Wikipedia lately, you aren’t going to get the benefit of the doubt. So I’ll advise you on how to go about obtaining a GNU-licensed photograph from The Shells and help you to run it through the proper channels so it can be added to the article. Nice decorative photographs really enhance articles.

    I would though, like to see a 200-word (or less) explanation as to why it is OK for articles like Bang-A-Boomerang, which feature cover art of albums that have fair-use licensing such as this, and why the same treatment is not suitable for The Shells. I note also that promotional art, such as this pre-release movie poster (and this lets “artsy” movie too) are used without reservation on Wikipedia. I am not familiar with the details of your battles over fair-use of non-free content. Do you feel that there has been a double-standard here? Did you try to Greg L (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply to Tony (or anyone else w/the same concerns). I'm at a loss as how to address the sustained pattern and many instances, detailed on this page, of disrespectful, uncivil interactions, misstatements and mischaracterizations (always one way), edit warring, and wikihounding by an admin in an apparent effort to game the system and/or make editing by me and others unpleasant. I find this especially troubling, as his statements here are presumably given greater weight by many editors due to his status. I believe it is disruptive and is poisoning this AfD process. I personally find it demoralizing. I've already tried addressing it with him directly many times to no avail. Short of starting some involved process (we have enough of that here), if you can leave a suggestion on my talk page as to how to address the situation I would appreciate it.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A no-consensus close would not mean there suddenly is consensus to remove a {{notability}} tag—the whole purpose of the tag is because there is no consensus as to whether the subject is notable. If the AfD is closed as Keep, then there would be a valid reason to remove the tag; if it's closed as no consensus, then the concerns raised by editors are still relevant. The other four tags on the article are all irrelevant and will all be gone soon: the AfD tag will be removed (by definition) after the AfD is over, as will the article rescue tag, and the {{merge}} tag is a tag for Written Roads, not this article, and will be removed once Written Roads is dealt with (most likely by merging it, as no one has expressed an opposition here to that proposal).
    As for fair use: the article you cite is an article about a single, not about a band. Guidelines for using non-free cover art in a single article are different than for a band article; the examples you cite are not relevant to this article, there is no double standard. (And even if there were, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as tags go after this is over, you are raising all sorts of wikilaywering reasons for why endless wikidrama should continue on this dreadfully unimportant issue. I’m not in the least interested in being a sounding board for you to test your latest legal theories for why what you are doing isn’t simple disruption. In the end, it amounts to nothing more than whining by yet another editor whose DNA seems to render them utterly incapable of accepting defeat and getting on with life—someone who insists on exacting his pound of flesh from some unfortunate contributor who had the misfortune of placing non-free art here and getting crosswise with you. They lipped off to you and you summarily dismiss him with “all these articles will be deleted soon anyway”. Nice move.

    However, what would just thoroughly please you (have tags slapped perpetually all over the article) doesn’t improve Wikipedia one iota as far as our readers go. And that’s why we’re all here: to improve Wikipedia; not to provide a battle ground for you to endlessly draw out your wikidrama. The article has been a battle ground long enough, has more than enough citations to buttress the facts of the 164-word stub, and the band is notable enough.

    If the upshot of this page is that there is no consensus to delete the article, the tags will be removed when this is over. If you want to put them back in (an exceedingly unwise option in my opinion given your record on this drama), that is your prerogative. The only tag I think will be appropriate is a {{Rjanag didn’t get his waaaaay}}‑tag. I’ll let that one stay. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    One tag is not exactly "slapped all over". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Rajang. Your assertion that "no one has expressed an [sic] opposition here" to the proposal that the Written Roads album page be merged is incorrect. See my discussion at the heading "Album page" above. In addition, k.i.a.c wrote: "As for keeping the band article and merging the album, that is out of the question. All or nothing."
    As the discussion at WP:Albums reflects, where the band page is not deleted it's "generally accepted" for album pages to be kept. Indeed, its for that reason that a former admin in that discussion restored the album page. The applicable guideline is WP:NALBUMS, which states: "In general, if the ... ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Under the guideline merger is reserved for album articles that don't--unlike this album article--have photos, reviews, and personnel information in the article ("Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article ..."). Furthermore, as the discussion at WP:Albums reflects, if there were a merger it would result in a loss of the photo and track listings (and presumably the personnel information), as the convention is to not reflect those on the band page; this further militates in favor of retaining the album page.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment and further references I don't actually care who's right or wrong in some previous conflict between particular editors. If it is ongoing and spilling into this discussion that's unfortunate, but it's still not the point. What I see now is a decent concise, properly referenced article on a topic which easily exceeds the required notability criteria. For those still debating the notability of significant coverage in a major local newspaper and a review (short but useful) in a hugely popular national magazine, here are a few more snippets of media coverage:

    For what it's worth, "Lost in Sound" is a self-published source, it was in the article weeks ago and was removed (not by me) as a non-RS. I don't know anything "Charger Bulletin", but it appears to be a student newspaper, so maybe it's halfway between RS and non-RS; I'll leave that up to someone else to decide. As for "Time Warner", they were the sponsor of the "best breakout" award and the piece you link is a press release. I don't know anything about the "Mothpod". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just glad to see that we are looking at sources again. The stuff CMP digs up is mixed. No one thing there would prove notability on its own but some of it is better than nothing and adds to the other minor coverage to get the band a bit closer to the finish line. It is moving me slightly towards a weakening my "delete" !vote (on the band) in the way that all the bluster has not. I am not formally changing my !vote yet but I could be persuaded if we can dig up a little more or firm up what we have. Are we sure that the Time Warner thing is a press release?
    What I still don't see is any RS coverage of the self-published album since its release. I think the album article has to go no matter what happens to the band article. In fact, I am considering changing my !vote on that to "strong delete". I would again urge any "keep" !voters, who have not yet made their stance on the album article clear, to say what they think about that. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Time Warner is a press release, Time Warner was a major sponsor of the award (see [16] and [17]). They also sponsored the Los Angeles version of the awards; Comcast seems to have done the others. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: Rjanag, could you please clarify what you mean when you say Lost in Sound is a self-published source? "Self-published" by whom? The website's "About Us" page lists 6 "current authors", none of whom appear to be affiliated with The Shells (the article in question was credited to "admin" rather than one of the named regular writers). As far as I can see, the magazine does not invite article submissions from readers. The article itself is quite obviously a third-party review: "I went to see The Shells last Thursday night" clearly isn't a statement from the band itself or a quote from a press release. Admittedly the author was probably invited by the PR agency which organised the show, and the review is quite upfront about this. A substantial proportion of "reliable source" media coverage is PR-generated at some level. The Lost in Sound review is PR-generated but expresses the author's own opinions of the band and their performance. I see no evidence of any self-publication, but maybe you know something I don't? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean self-published by the band, I just mean self-published. It's a blog, not an RS. Somewhere in the article history you can see it getting tagged {{Verify credibility}} and being removed. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Found it. I was the one who first tagged it, but User:CharlesGillingham is the one who removed it, calling it an unreliable source in his edit summary. (This user also voted 'keep' in the original AfD, so it's not like only the big bad meanies like me were criticizing that source.) These old versions can also give you a good flavor for the overly-promotional and mostly plagiarized ([18][19] nature of the original article that Epeefleche wrote. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that might be stretching the definition of "blog" somewhat, but thanks for the clarification. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that the writers of this site aren't hired by anyone or subject to editorial review, they appear to have just gotten together and started writing whatever they want. Such a blog can sometimes be an RS if the writers are themselves notable in their field (see, for example, Language Log), but I don't see anything particularly special about this one. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak keep I'd likely recommend a redirect if there were a place to redirect to. But the limited press and placing in a 190 band contest sponsored by MTV imply a degree of notability that indicates we should cover the band in some way. (this is for "the Shells" no opinion on the other). Hobit (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Question/Suggestion: I note that The Shells is already pretty much a stub. I note also that if any general consensus can be deduced here, it is that The Shells—while perhaps being sufficiently notable for inclusion here—are certainly not the most notable band around. So why would we not merge Written Roads into The Shells?

    The virtues are that by putting Written Road as a section within The Shells, that section (the part addressing the album) could show the cover art, (finally) bringing an illustration of some sort to The Shells. That would improve the look of the article and better serve our readership. Also, even after redacting redundant text from the section dealing with the album, The Shells-article will be expanded, which would also be beneficial. It seems to me that simply providing a redirect for “Written Roads” (pointing to The Shells) will best improve the sum of these articles and best improve Wikipedia; which is to say, best serve our readership.

    Can we all make peace over this proposed resolution to this mixed bag of issues? You know; sorta like that 70s commercial where we all join hands and sing about improving the world through love, planting apple trees, hugging bunnies, and drinking Coca Cola? Greg L (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • keep Agree with all of the keep rationale, as weel as merging Written Road. Combined, there seems to be enough notable references between the articles. When more surface, someone can laboriously separate the articles. Luminifer (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both. All I've seen is PR stuff, maybe-it's-reliable-maybe-it's-not sources, and trivial coverage. As mentioned before: The award that they were nominated for was simply sponsored by MTV, Time Warner and Comcast, and as mentioned before, The Shells nor the actual winners of the award, MeTalkPretty, have any mention on the MTV site itself. WeThreeRecords was speedied a month or something ago because it was not notable. I do not see anything "saveable" from these articles. If The Shells does survive this AFD, however, redirect/merge Written Roads into The Shells because the album does not pass WP:NALBUMS. talkingbirds 15:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article are not of the depth that would establish notability; WP:N is not met. I have analyzed the sources in the article as of this revision on 09:03, 15 October 2009.
    Analysis of the sources in the article

    1. This press release from Absolute Pitch PR does not establish notability. Press releases are not independent of the subject and have not received the editorial fact-checking that newspaper articles have received. Published on July 20, 2009, this press release calls The Shells "an aspiring female trio." Aspiring music groups that have not passed the notability threshold do not belong on Wikipedia.
    2. This article from a local source does not establish notability. The article's title, The Shells need your vote in MTV contest, clearly shows that the article is solely for promoting The Shells. A sample quote: "These sirens warrant it. They’re great performers and are about to release their first album, "Written Roads," next month. Winning the best breakout artist award would be the icing on the cake, as it brings with it performance and licensing deals with MTV."
    3. This interview from Time Warner Cable provides no independent coverage about this music group.
    4. Ourstage.com, a press release, is not a reliable source.
    5. This page from ourstage.com doesn't even mention this band.
    6. This article from Seventeen is not significant coverage. Save for providing the genre of this band's music, the rest of the information in the article qualifies as trivial coverage. WP:MUSIC states that "[w]orks comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories" are insufficient to establish notability. Furthermore, this, too, is written in a promotional, non-neutral form. Sample quotes: "These three gorgeous girls wrote most of the songs on their new album themselves! Their original sound was dubbed "cosmo country" — a blend of city pop with folk. Love it!" and "Our fave songs".
    7. This press release from Fly NY does not establish notability. A quote from the article: "The Shells are proud to debut “Change” with Fly NY." This is clearly not a secondary source that is independent of the subject.

    This band fails WP:MUSIC. It has not been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable"; see my analysis of the sources above. It has also not been "won or placed in a major music competition." As teb728 wrote in the previous AfD:

    Winning a non-notable local competition that seven other bands won is not an indication of notability.

    The released album has not charted and has not received significant coverage. I did a Google News Archive search and Google News search for "Written Roads" and was not able to find substantial coverage.

    Since neither the band nor the album passes WP:GNG, neither the band nor the album is notable, both articles should be deleted. No prejudice to recreation if/when The Shells receive significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of points:
    It is not necessary for all sources of media coverage which contribute towards evidence of notability to be referenced in the article itself: it is enough that they exist. More references which arguably point to notability have been mentioned on this discussion page but omitted from your analysis, so it is not a complete analysis of all relevant factors with regard to WP:NMUSIC criterion #1.
    Your dismissive analysis of the Seventeen article is somewhat contradictory. You quote the WP:NMUSIC guideline:

    "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories" are insufficient to establish notability.

    and you then go on to say "Furthermore, this, too, is written in a promotional, non-neutral form." Of course it is; that's kind of the point of a review, and its very non-neutrality sets it apart from the sort of coverage (information limited to release dates etc) which notability guidelines define as trivial. The magazine's "Band Spotlight" format is specifically for positive reviews. The fact that a source completely independent of the band has featured them in such a positive (non-neutral) way supports notability. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having reviewed the discussion above, I am unable to find any reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the band. The sources mentioned above have all been refuted by other users as being either passing mentions or coverage in press releases. If you have new sources that you wish to post here, feel free to list them here so that I can evaluate them.

      I cannot see how my analysis of the Seventeen article is contradictionry.

      I may be wrong about how the tone of the Seventeen source factors into its reliability, but this source does not count as significant coverage. The WP:NMUSIC quote you provided above specifically says that trivial coverage does not establish notability. As I said above, save for providing the genre of this band's music, the rest of the information in the article qualifies as trivial coverage (eg. 1. The band's album release date was Oct. 8; 2. Why should I listen? - The "gorgeous" trio wrote most of the songs themselves; 3. The editors of Seventeen's "fave songs" were "Give a Little Take a Little" and "Wrong from the Start"). Cunard (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Agree w/Contains Mild Peril. Your discussion ignores the WP:BAND statement as to what consititues "trivial" coverage. The coverage here clearly is far above that bar, and since it it is non-trivial it satisfies criterion 1. Also, it is curious that you refer to the QC article as "promotional". It is a positive review by an independent 30-year paper w/a circulation of 400,000. For a NYC band, competing against 190 other NYC bands (so much for the hometown bias). If a writer for the Sporting News says I think that Jeter is great, this is why, he may get a Gold Glove Award, here are some details as to his performance, vote for him for the All Star team -- that's not a promotional press release. Its an article. The MTV discussion is similarly unconvincing IMHO (for the reasons discussed above; its totally at odds with what MTV says about the award, their communications, the MTV Rules, and the MTV video). And the discussion of matters not cited as indicia of notability is a red herring and not relevant (also for the reasons discussed above).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain how the Seventeen article provides significant coverage; I have already explained why I believe this is insignificant coverage.

      The QC article is basically an advertisement in a local newspaper that asks readers to vote for the local band (To vote for them, you don’t go to a polling place, you just have to hit the MTV competition ... And you don’t even cast an actual vote —you’ve just got to make more noise for the Shells than their competitors ... These sirens warrant it. They’re great). The information about the age and circulation of this newspaper does not change the fact that the article is an ad.

      As to the sentences about how the MTV discussion is unconvincing, please provide evidence to back up your claims that "its totally at odds with what MTV says about the award".

      As clarification of what I said about the pseudo-VMA, The Shells is a band that competed in one of eight local pseudo-VMA competitions. The Shells competed in the New York City section of the pseudo-VMA and did not win that local contest; it was a runner-up. Competing in a local contest and losing it does not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I explained at my first major entry above what the triviality bar is that the Seventeen article must pass, and how it passes it.
    As to QC--not so. For the reasons already stated. And, as pointed out, its not "the" local band -- there were 190 local bands. It was the one band that QC chose to support, out of all of the 190 competing local bands.
    As to MTV, I again point you to the MTV refs in my first main entry above. Please stop calling it a "pseudo-VMA" without any sourcing, while I've provided sources that reflect that MTV repeatedly refers to it as an MTV VMA, and MTV awarded it live at the official MTV VMA ceremony.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The explanation in your first entry does not explain how my analysis is invalid.

      The QC article was published after this band defeated the other bands in this local competition. When QC published this article, there were only three bands left in the competition, not 190.

      MTV itself did not provide coverage on their website or elsewhere for this award's ceremony. As Rjanag (talk · contribs) said below, "MTV rubber-stamped it with their name but was not necessarily very interested in it." Additionally, at the previous AfD, Psantora (talk · contribs) wrote: "After further review, ... it seems that there were other local bands that won "Best Breakout Artist" and presumably the award was televised in place of the NYC artist in their local area on MTV2. The Band was never televised nationally." Cunard (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)-[reply]

    • As to Seventeen, I can't possibly punish the other editors further by repeating myself, and therefore must stand on my first main entry above. As to QC, I stand corrected -- you are absolutely correct now that I reread the article that it was not at the voting stage (when there were 190 bands) but at the final stage (when there was a battle of the three bands and MTV, Fefe Dobson, and a Cobra Starship member picked the winner). Apologies. The same comment holds, though. All three bands are NYC bands, and this NYC paper was supportive of one of the three NYC bands. Again, not "hometown band PR" but rather a news article supporting one of three NYC bands. Finally, I again find it odd that you are quoting as a reliable source my former wikihounder. Who again was wrong. We needn't even discuss Wikipedia:No original research, because as the articles here, here, and here make clear, the MTV VMA was given to the winner live at the official MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, and the winner was featured on MTV during the live VMAs locally on Time Warner Cable and then showcased nationally on MTV2.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, your arguments about the Seventeen source in your initial vote do not explain how my analysis in invalid. The Seventeen source provides little context and thus does not establish notability.

      You write that the Queens Chronicle (QC article) is a news article that supports one of three NYC bands. True, but Queens is one of the boroughs of New York City. The Shells were likely covered because they were likely the closest (in geographical location) to this newspaper. This is "hometown band PR".

      Again, none of the links you provided are from MTV itself. MTV likely played an inconsequential role in this contest because its website doesn't provide any coverage about The Shells and its participation in the local VMA. It does, however, provide information about the official VMAs. Cunard (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong delete for both A list of trivial coverage in no way makes this pass WP:BAND, and per excellent analysis of Cunard. Triplestop x3 03:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment; MTV: I'm concurrently adding the following above where it belongs in the award and competition sections of my comment. But will post it here for a couple of days so that people don't miss it: The MTV VMA was awarded live at the official MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, as announced by TimeWarner and MTV on their joint website in an article entitled "Hundreds Entered. One Emerged. Road Runner and MTV are Proud to Announce the VMA winner in the Best Breakout NYC Artist category".[1]--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for providing this link, which states: "On Sunday, September 13, live at the MTV Video Music Awards, the Best Breakout New York City Artist Award was given to... MeTalkPretty." The first runner-up is the Red Directors, while The Shells is listed as the second runner-up. That link does not establish that The Shells is notable. Cunard (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My pleasure. That's incorrect. Nothing in the link says that. To the contrary, as with all MTV VMAs, no nominee was deemed to be either "first" or "second runner up". As we know from the MTV Official Rules Section 14(a), while the VMA winner was also a "Grand Prize Winner", the other two VMA nominees (one being the Shells) were "First Place Winners".--Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Made-up" language? Nonsense. It's not made up. It's right there in the MTV VMA Official Rules.
    But perhaps you miss the point -- which is that (contrary to Cunard's assertion above) The Shells were not "second runner-up". Rather, the two MTV VMA nominees who did not win the VMA both came in the same place (which MTV happens to call First Place Winner--not unheard of in music competitions). Since for WP:BAND purposes notability attaches to those who win or place in a major competition (criterion 9), as well as those nominated for a major award (criterion 8), it attaches to The Shells here. It doesn't matter if they place rather than win -- the two are equally sufficient for purposes of notability under WP:BAND.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never said you made it up, I said the rules document made it up. The fact that they throw the word "winner" in there doesn't mean The Shells won. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume we understand each other. Of course the "rules document" didn't "make it up" either. And no one "made it up" -- that's an innapplicable perjorative term. I assume that what you mean is that MTV -- which issued the MTV Official VMA Rules -- used the term "First Place Winner" to describe each of the two VMA nominees who do not win the VMA. And yes, I agree with that. And that's sufficient for criterion 9.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) The link you provided specifically states that The Shells was a runner-up to MeTalkPretty. They did not win first place in the competition; they received a ranking that was lower than the band that was a "Grand Prize Winner".

      The Shells is a band that competed in one of eight local pseudo-VMA competitions. An additional note: at the previous AfD, Psantora (talk · contribs) wrote: "After further review, ... it seems that there were other local bands that won "Best Breakout Artist" and presumably the award was televised in place of the NYC artist in their local area on MTV2. The Band was never televised nationally." Therefore, participation in this pseudo-MTV VMA competition does not enable this band to pass WP:BAND criterion 8 or 9 because it is neither a major competition nor a major award. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • In weighing the reliable sources quoted above, including MTV's VMA Official Rules, the MTV video, and other MTV communications -- vs. -- non-sourced pejorative phraseology used by an editor who was wikihounding me .... um, I'll take MTV's word over his. This is getting silly. The sources are all there above.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You write that I'll take MTV's word ... The sources you provided are all primary sources that are associated with the companies that sponsored this non-notable local competition. Not once has MTV itself provided coverage about this event, i.e. on its website. The lack of coverage from MTV itself strongly indicates that MTV had little to do with this contest. Cunard (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this a joke? Just watch the MTV video. Do you think that was fabricated by someone other than MTV? Simply read the MTV Official Rules. Are you suggesting that someone other than MTV fraudulently created that MTV legal document? Just read the joint MTV communications on the joint MTV website. Conspiracy? Just look at the MTV logos on everything. Just look at the joint MTV announcement "Road Runner and MTV are Proud to Announce the VMA winner in the Best Breakout NYC Artist category". Fabrication? Are you serious? On what basis? If you are right, then we have a much, much greater problem here than this AfD, involving all sorts of fraud by Time Warner, etc., or people posing as them, who used MTV's name and logo without permission and concocted this mirage.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cunard didn't say the award is fake. He said MTV rubber-stamped it with their name but was not necessarily very interested in it. Common practice with large corporations. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read what he said. Carefully. I see him saying something else. As far as "rubber-stamped" ... that's like your use of "made-up". Does the MTV video, the MTV Official Rules, having MTV pick the top three nominees, having MTV participate in picking the winner at a competition at the Fillmore at Irving Plaza, awarding it at the MTV VMA ceremony, calling it an MTV VMA, and playing the band on MTV locally and nationally -- sound like a "rubber stamp"? That's misleading and totally at odd with the facts. I'm supplying a cartload of facts, video, original legal documents, and official releases. You counter with bald mischaracterizations and baseless assertions curled around fancy phrases. I think that's misleading.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rjanag accurately explained what I meant in my comment. If I believed that this were a fraud, I would write, "MTV had nothing to do with this contest", instead of "MTV had little to do with this contest". Cunard (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take MTV's word for what? For the fact that The Shells lost the award? No one is disputing that. For the claim that The Shells are 'notable'? That's not for MTV to decide. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I made myself clear, and am assuming the above comment doesn't require a reply.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet another impasse. Here are some questions that may help: Was there a competition of this type the year before, or was this the first ever one? If there have been past competitions, this may give us a clue as to the longer term significance it holds. Did previous winners go on to compete (as of right) in any of MTV's national competitions. What about the competitions in other regions? Have they received much coverage? Does this competition have any track record of launching careers? Do these "breakout" artists ever actually break out? Who sponsored past competitions? How are they judged? Is there really an element of the "clapometer" about them as the QC article suggests? What are the prizes for winners and runners up? --DanielRigal (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignoratio elenchi.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you ask Daniel, I had a quick look around, though I didn't have time to research your questions thoroughly. It appears it is the second year the Breakout Artist Awards have been made, though last year's are not recorded in Wikipedia for some reason. I tried a quick Google search and failed to find a complete list of last year's winners (it's probably out there somewhere though), but I did come across The Ruse who were MTV VMA Breakout Artist LA 2008 nominees and have since had an album reach #21 in the Billboard Heatseekers chart. I also note there have been several MTV VMA categories which existed for only a short time: it's not unusual for a new category to be introduced, and we have no way of knowing how permanent the Breakout Artist categories will be, but they're just as valid as the others. Information on judging and prizes is in the Official Rules which Epeefleche posted. The prizes described are to do with prestige and publicity rather than anything more tangible, but since they were presented at an awards ceremony I presume some sort of trophy would be presented at least to the overall winner in each category. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:VAGUEWAVE, I ask that you provide direct links to the two (or more) sources that you believe establish notability. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed; could you please clarify why you believe they're sufficient? You're an experienced and knowledgeable editor, but when a debate has reached a point like this it's not really sufficient to just 'vote' without giving a rationale for why you think that way. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. I don't want to spend too much time on this as User:VMAsNYC (and other sockpuppets) have already wasted way too much of my time. I originally wanted to keep this article, but after learning that there were many Best Breakout Artist nominees I cannot honestly argue for keeping this band. I am usually a very strong inclusionist and I do not like removing other editors' hard work, but this article has become a black hole of wasted time (a large amount of which is mine) and I think Wikipedia would be better off it was not included in the encyclopedia. To get an idea of just how trivial the MTV award is just look at the section on it. There were 24 bands nominated and The Shells are the only band with a Wikipedia article. This is highly dubious and shows that the award was very trivial since none of the other bands that were nominated have amounted to anything yet. I am loath to even weigh in here since User:VMAsNYC has repeatedly attacked me personally (including in this AfD), calling me a "stalker".

    All that aside and solely judging this article on WP:BAND policy, the only criterion it has any legitimate chance of achieving is the first one. The band has had trivial coverage in Seventeen and non-independent coverage in Queens Chronicle, the rest of the references are glorified press releases at best and therefore are not valid for passing WP:BAND#1. Until some other sources are revealed there is not enough coverage to justify a Wikipedia article for this artist. ~ PaulT+/C 01:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • comment I don't think this is the appropriate place for sockpuppet accusations, or accusations of personal attacks - and stating it here can be considered misleading and inappropriate... Please file a sockpuppet investigation or a WQA if you have genuine concerns. Luminifer (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not making sockpuppet accusations, just pointing out facts (to make this clearer, I added a link to this in my reply). Regarding the personal attacks, what is a WQA? (Oh.) I have stricken that part of my reply, but the rest of my points are still valid. ~ PaulT+/C 04:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Psantora knowingly makes an unfounded sock accusation. Again—While there was a sock investigation and initial block, that was appealed as unfounded and the block lifted on appeal with an apology. For Psantora to make this misrepresentation in an effort to mislead editors, and sway this decision, is disturbing and disruptive.
    As for Psantora's "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this" argument, that is dismissed by WP:OTHERSTUFF. Which says: "because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should."
    Plus—neary all the other bands were added to that article by his fellow "delete" voter Rjanag just three days ago. And in an aggressive and disruptive edit war Psantora, Rjanang, and TEB728 spent the past 48 hours doing their darndest to delete sourced indicia of notability from that article (and add the opposite). Even deleting sources, and adding unsourced text (including unsourced text at odds with the sourced statements they deleted). Or asserting as their basis for adding unsourced text the "fact" that the unsourced text comports with “everything I have been told” (Rjanag), or is “according to the talk page (Psantora). See Rjanang here and here, TEB728 here and here, and Psantora here, here and here.
    Moreover, Psantora implicitly asserts that the other bands are notable on the one hand by redlinking them here. See WP:RED: "Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable. While the same day claiming in this AfD that they are not notable.
    If this "proves" anything, it is something about certain editors' disruptive tactics of deception.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're awfully quick to make claims of a cabal working against you. But when this many people are editing this way, all it really shows is that your additions are poorly written and needed changing. I didn't add the other bands because I'm trying to change anything's notability; I added them because simple logic dictates that if the NYT version of this award is worth mentioning in the article, so are all the others, as they're all equal—if you're really trying to make the argument that only stuff relevant to the Shells belongs there, then it's pretty obvious what your POV is. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The only reliable source is the Seventeen one, and that is such a small article that calling it significant coverage is doubtful. The award is not major in any sense - having 'MTV' attached to it does not make it major. I would expect more coverage than this for an article to be kept. Quantpole (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How about this one then? Detailed coverage in professional online magazine Pop Culture Madness (Alexa traffic rank in US 14,349). Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That appears to be a copy of this and this. Sorry, but I do not consider regurgitations of promotional material to be reliable. Quantpole (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Look again. The "Written Roads" section is indeed a straightforward reprint of a press release, but "The Shells Bio" is an original article (or section of an article) which is merely based on information published by the band. The biography text published by Pop Culture Madness is not duplicated anywhere else on the internet (not that Google can find anyhow. I tried several random short excerpts: the text appears to be unique). We can't discount sources just for using facts already published elsewhere: journalists simply don't have time and in some cases don't have access to the necessary sources to conduct original research in support of every datum they use. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an exact copy-paste, but it's still lifted from the reverbnation site and the Shells' own blog [20], with a few words changed here and there. It's clear that they were copying that; the similarity is close enough that on Wikipedia we would be calling it plagiarism. Copying someone's personal bio isn't really independent coverage. Compare, for example:
    • your source: However, at the same time, she was also chosen as a member of a female three-part harmony trio. She chose to stay in NYC and start her career as a member of The Shells and hasn�t looked back since!
    • reverbnation: However, at the same time, she’d also been chosen as a member of a female three-part harmony trio—her choice was to stay in NYC and start her career as a member of “The Shells!”
    • The Shells' blog: However, at the same time, she’d also been chosen as a member of a female three-part harmony trio—her choice was to stay in NYC and start her career as a member of “The Shells!”
    in the rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, and there are numerous phrases that are exact copies. There is absolutely no way this could be classed as reliable. Quantpole (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There were mentioned in Seventeen magazine, and MTV had them on a show, they winning the New York part of their competition at least. They have enough coverage to be notable. Dream Focus 17:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not someone “wins” a contest is entirely beside the point of what constitutes notability. That the band was written about in a major U.S. magazine directed the teen market speaks directly to that issue. Greg L (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do we know for certain whether they were on MTV, or any national TV channel? It would count in their favour if it could be proved that they were. My impression is that they were only broadcast regionally, although I admit that my understanding of how these regional awards work remains rather hazy. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both - the coverage provided is decidedly minor. The coverage in Seventeen is trivial. The Improper is covering their own event so it hardly independent. All we have is a community paper covering them. They were nominated for a local MTV music award. Addint hat in doesn't push them over the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Community paper"? The Queens Chronicle is a 30-year-old major local newspaper for a borough with a population of over two and a quarter million people - more than most cities and quite a few countries. Papers like the one for which I write sometimes, published only a few times a year and covering an area with a population of less than 40,000, are what I understand as "community papers". Contains Mild Peril (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than selectively focusing on just the age of the paper and the number of people in Queens, as you and Epeefleche do, it would really be nice if people would look at what the paper actually is. Check the Queens Chronicle article here—it's published only once a week (ie, it's not a daily newspaper) and it's handed out for free. That puts it on par, I think, with many street newspapers (in fact, some US street newspapers such as Real Change and StreetWise actually reach more readers—and those numbers are from reliable sources, whereas QC's are from its own website). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a weekly paper distributed for free that covers a defined neioghbourhood. So yes, it is a community newspaper. Odly enough, their own web site describes itself as "Queens Chronicle - Your Community Newspaper". As this represents the only coverage of signifigance, there simply isn't the coverage to satisfy notability. Please note that per notability guidelines, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." and that is what is being evaluated here. -- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, maybe the definition of community newspaper is slightly different in America, but I still see no reason that it shouldn't be considered a reliable source. It's evidently notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not discounting it as a reliable source. But it is the only substantial coverage. And as noted above, the quality of the source needs to be taken into consideration, and I am considering it as a community newspaper versus a major national daily. When the only article of any substance is a commnity newspaper, I simply don't see that as establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • More media snippets Maybe not individually significant, but when considered along with the other media coverage these contribute to the overall picture

    http://www.sohojournal.com/content/%E2%80%9C-shells%E2%80%9D-album-release-party SoHo Journal article. Lazy journalism: one original paragraph and a lengthy quote from a press release


    http://gritsnwhiskey.com/2008/11/09/fresh-the-shells-2/#more-219 Grits n' Whiskey article. It appears to be a hobby website probably run by a small group of writers, but its coverage is reasonably substantial and most notably it predates the MTV award nomination. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Web 1.0[edit]

    Web 1.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    "Web 1.0" can be discussed in the Web 2.0 article. Web 1.0 is not a notable term outside of the context of a discussion about Web 2.0. I have already added material to Web 2.0 to cover this topic. Octavabasso (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep 12,000 google news hits, seems to be a term notable enough to deserve its own article UltraMagnusspeak 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If I may: I'm betting that the vast majority of "Web 1.0" references in GNews are all in relation to "Web 2.0." I doubt there are any that explore "Web 1.0" in and of itself. Octavabasso (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    by that logic, the bronze age should be discussed in an article on the iron age, of course a lot of the references are going to be comparisons between the two--UltraMagnusspeak 13:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! Fair enough. But I do think that analogy might be a stretch... Anyway, we can cover this subject in the W2 article... the Web 1.0 article, as it is written, even says "It is easiest to formulate a sense of the term Web 1.0 when it is used in relation to the term Web 2.0, to compare the two and offer examples of each." That's in the intro.Octavabasso (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Due diligence: I've reviewed the google news results. The Gnews stuff is entirely in reference to either Web 2.0 or 3.0; 1.0 does not exist outside of the context of those other two. Per the discussion on the Web 2.0 page, the consensus is to merge 1.0 and 3.0 into the 2.0 page. 1.0 is not notable in and of itself.
    I still don't get your point, all the WIFI types have their own article, as do all the generations of mobile phone technology. --UltraMagnusspeak 05:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm starting to get yours. Can I withdraw the PROD? Octavabasso (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally posting a "vote" as withdraw or even just keep and waiting for an admin to close the AFD is sufficient (I have had to do similar myself in the past). I do not know of an official mechanism to withdraw an AFD nomination. (if anyone does know of one, I would be interested to hear) --UltraMagnusspeak 20:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - plenty of reliable secondary sources; the fact that the sources also mention Web 2.0 is not of itself a reason to deny this having its own page. Appropriate "see also" links on this page and on Web 2.0 can be used to avoid any undue emphasis. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Of course nobody used the term before they thought of 2.0, but once they had, the term became standard for the earlier generation. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tolka Rovers F.C.[edit]

    Tolka Rovers F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Contested prod. Unreferenced article about an amateur sporting club. No indication that it meets general notability guidelines. Lacks references to 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Further comment - Also, as TerriersFan would say, "The way forward is to add available sources and expand the page, not to delete". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment while consensus is growing that clubs in this tier are likely notable (which is great). However, general notability guidelines still require articles to have sufficient references to 3rd party sources where the club is the subject of the article. This article still has none. We cant just feel they are notable, it's got to be demonstrated via references.--RadioFan (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - DitzyNizzy pitches the arguments better than I could ever have done :-) TerriersFan (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. TerriersFan (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as my two colleague put above, level 4 is notable! GiantSnowman 02:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This team has competed in national cup competitions, which is enough to pass the general rule of thumb for football club notability. Also, Google News provides quite a few hits which I believe would be enough to pass WP:GNG. Bettia (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As I removed the prod because they play at Level 4 which is notable. BigDunc 10:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also, there is no clear claim of notability in the article. Amateur clubs can meet WP:GNG with sufficient coverage in 3rd party sources but there are none in the article. As it the article reads today, its not possible for anyone not familiar with this club or others in the league to distinguish them from any other amateur club and it does not meet WP:NSPORT guidelines which require international play.
      • That page doesn't make any mention of notability guidelines for clubs, only for individual players....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Best I've found to go on. Do you know of something better?--RadioFan (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:FOOTYN? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment that is an essay, has it reached consensus yet? I see lots of discussion on it but the tag on it indicates that it's not moved beyond an essay state. If so, WP:NSPORT should link to it as another source for sporting notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:NSPORT is also an essay, though, which means neither is more official than the other, so surely under those circumstances it is better to consider the one which sets out notability guidelines for clubs rather than the one which makes no mention of it at all...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mount Merrion YMCA F.C.[edit]

    Mount Merrion YMCA F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Contested prod. Unreferenced article about an amateur sporting club. No indication that it meets general notability guidelines. Lacks references to 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - plays at level 4 in the Irish pyramid which emerging consensus indicates as the threshold for notability. The way forward is to add available sources and expand the page, not to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - as TerriersFan says, level 4 of the Irish football league is notable enough. GiantSnowman 18:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - if this is a notable level to be playing at, there should be 3rd party references where the team is the subject of the coverage, could you add some?--RadioFan (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Level 4 team. BigDunc 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, appearance in the later stages of the FAI Cup pass notability in my opinion.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Crumlin United F.C. (Republic of Ireland)[edit]

    Crumlin United F.C. (Republic of Ireland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Contested prod. Unreferenced article about an amateur sporting club. No indication that it meets general notability guidelines. Lacks references to 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. 16:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - not only do they play at level 4 of the Irish pyramid, which emerging consensus indicates the threshold for notability, they have won that division, have won the FAI Intermediate Cup (equivalent to the English FA Trophy) and a number of international players have started their career at this club. The club have been the victims of a sectarian attack; here ; coverage here etc. Plenty of sources are avaialable and improving the article by adding sources is the way to go. TerriersFan (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - as TerriersFan says, level 4 of the Irish football league is notable enough. GiantSnowman 18:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - if this is a notable level to be playing at, there should be 3rd party references where the team is the subject of the coverage, could you add some?--RadioFan (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Google News provides number of substantial hits for this team, which should be enough to pass WP:GNG. Bettia (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While Google hits can indicate how well known a subject is, it's no guarantee of meeting notability guidelines. The article has been updated since nomination but I'm not seeing clear claims of notability in the article. The word "amateur" was removed which only further confuses things. Is this a professional or amateur club or is this unknown? Professional teams are generally notable but amateur teams could be as well with demonstration of sufficient coverage, this isn't there.--RadioFan (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Level 4 team. BigDunc 20:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Even the bit with Robbie Keane adds to notability and club pages have had more leeway than player articles. "The sum of it's parts!" Or something like that. Govvy (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, appearance in the later stages of the FAI Cup pass notability in my opinion.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cherry Orchard F.C.[edit]

    Cherry Orchard F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Contested prod. Unreferenced article about an amateur sporting club. No indication that it meets general notability guidelines. Lacks references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep - I'm not a soccer expert but it appears that this is a professional team playing at the highest national level of the sport in Ireland. WP:ATHLETE shows a bias to considering any professional athlete noteworthy and I'd think that would extend to professional teams. There's no shortage of web sources and the addition of them to the article can be fixed through normal editing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'd agree that a professional team would generally be considered notable but there is no indication that this is a professional team. Other teams in the same league are identified as amateur.--RadioFan (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - hence the "weak". I have to say that to a lay reader the entire network of articles on Irish football is nearly incomprehensible - it's impossible to tell which teams or competitions have a genuine following and which are just a bunch of kids on the local oval. If anyone involved in that project reads here, it'd be great to see better indications of notability in the lead paragraphs of almost all those articles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. TerriersFan (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - play at level 4 of the Irish football pyramid which is the emerging level for notability; the club has sufficient coverage in news sources. The club has an exceptional number of notable former players. TerriersFan (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - playing at level 4 in Ireland is enough for notability. GiantSnowman 02:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The team have played in the FAI Cup, which passes the general rule of thumb for football club notability. Also, Google News provides a few hundred hits, which should be enough to pass WP:GNG. Bettia (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As I removed the prod because they play at Level 4 which is notable. BigDunc 10:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, appearance in the later stages of the FAI Cup pass notability in my opinion.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bluebell United F.C.[edit]

    Bluebell United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Contested prod. Unreferenced article about an amateur sporting club. No indication that it meets general notability guidelines. Lacks references to 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. 16:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - plays at level 4 in the Irish pyramid which emerging consensus indicates as the threshold for notability. The way forward is to add available sources and expand the page, not to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - as TerriersFan says, level 4 of the Irish football league is notable enough. GiantSnowman 18:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - if this is a notable level to be playing at, there should be 3rd party references where the team is the subject of the coverage, could you add some?--RadioFan (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google News gives quite a few hits, mostly concerning their FAI Intermediate Cup final match against Crumlin. Bettia (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Level 4 team. BigDunc 20:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, appearance in the later stages of the FAL Cup pass notability in my opinion.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 21:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyrus Toulabi[edit]

    Cyrus Toulabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    According to the Wikipedia Policy on Biographies of living persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_who_are_relatively_unknown): "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Billrogerson (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Delete. Seems like a decent article, but notability is questionable. Maybe the article subject will later be more notable, but as of now... WildHorsesPulled (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. 130.126.71.229 (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It seems as if this article was created by the individual himself as a way of promoting his image, akin to an online resume. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, not a method for self promotion. Users should not create pages for themselves to be like personal websites. Billrogerson (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not sufficiently notable. Most of the article is unreferenced and about things he made up one day. Apart from the one award, there doesn't seem to be anything else noteworthy about this person. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep : Notable award, the article should be trimmed and better sourced but AfD is not cleanup. --Cyclopia - talk 17:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is a puff piece and the only remote claim of notability is the award. However, awards to students are in no way a guarantee of notability, or we would have articles on every single spelling bee winner. Local papers often write up kids who are, for example, National Merit Semifinalists and Finalists, but this does not entitle that child to an article. Not even winning the Westinghouse Science Talent Search gets somebody an article. Abductive (reasoning) 18:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A high school student puts video programs on at the high school and on Youtube. Some of his work received a high school recognition at a national level, and was given some degree of newspaper coverage. This does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. A National Merit Scholar, winners of youth talent competitions or national youth chess tournaments and many high school athletes get this much recognition and are not considered notable for it. Edison (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The claim to notability is too weak in this article. Kevin (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I find no reliable sources outside of Chicago for this subject. This is an international encyclopedia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Coverage insufficient to establish notability; award not of sufficient importance. Subject not notable, at least right now. Nice tie though. --CooperDB (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JLS (band). \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    JLS (JLS album)[edit]

    Previous AfDs for this article:
    JLS (JLS album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Recreation of deleted page

    I am also nominating the following related pages because they are orphaned pages of the original pages:
    JLS (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    JLS (debut-album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Speedy delete all - recreation. The album is still not notable. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge Released by a notable band on a notable label; I'm sure there're sources somewhere. If there isn't that much to say about it, merge/redirect to artist per WP:NALBUMS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - It's coming out on 9 November 2009, they're a notable band (especially considering they've had 2 No1s), it's got a tracklisting, etc etc. Merge the other two (JLS (JLS album) and JLS (debut-album)) to JLS (album). (PS - If the official JLS website isn't a permitted source for the information, what is?) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's permitted as a source, but it doesn't contribute to notability. snigbrook (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to the band's page unless article is expanded - WP:NALBUM indicates that generally any album of a notable band will be itself notable enough for a page. The exception is when the album article consists of little more than a track listing (as the article at this stage is). So merge, unless someone can add more detail than just track names. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: There is not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. Although it is likely (but not certain) to be notable when it is released, notability shouldn't be predicted, and inherited notability isn't valid. At present it looks like there is not enough coverage from independent sources, so it should be redirected (per notability of albums guideline) until more sources are available. snigbrook (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge per WP:NALBUMS. The band may be notable, but there's no assertion that their unreleased album will be. WP:CRYSTAL-cruft - deleting it may help creators and potential future creators obtain clue. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 16:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mifter (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    MC Lazarus[edit]

    MC Lazarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:SPAM. Article is entirely promotional. {{db-spam}} removed by IP editor after logged in editor was reprimanded for removing it. (Do I smell a sock?) Article is also a cut and paste copy of subject's Facebook page. There is some dispute as to whether such copies are copyright violations, as Facebook asserts that posters maintain the rights to their posts, but it is definitely overly promotional. No independent coverage found to assert notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as typical self-promo and spam, full of weasel words.--Yopie (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, as I can find no sources that indicate that subject is notable. Not seeing this one, I nominated the album and single for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapter One: The Prince Who Would Be King. The copyvio issue is not present with the album, so the debates shouldn't be merged - but they are clearly related, so I note the connection here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete - total spam of nn musician; probable autobio, I'm guessing. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Per Joe Chill.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete. Clearly spam. An IP removing a speedy template is not a reason to progress onto AfD either. Rehevkor ✉ 14:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. going for delete as merge requires the material being merged to be properly sourced Spartaz Humbug! 06:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Leavenworth (Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach station)[edit]

    Leavenworth (Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No indication that the Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach station (ie: bus terminal) is notable under WP:N. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Merge into Leavenworth, WA. LEV is just as notable as any other Amtrak station or airport. Many Amtrak rail stations are both rail and thruway. In Leavenworth, WA, it's especially important since LWA and LEV are not at the same location. LWA is only rail and LEV is only bus. If your notability argument were correct, then we should rip out all airports, train stations and thruway stops.76.104.163.79 (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC) — 76.104.163.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    There is a difference; the Leavenworth rail station meets WP:N. However, the only sources I can find for the LEV station are minor trivial mentions and press releases - so it does not meet WP:N. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It's not notable enough to be in its own article. I already merged the information into Leavenworth, Washington#Transportation.  kgrr talk 23:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge to Leavenworth, Washington. From what I can find this is simply a bus stop without a shelter that also happens to be served by one long-distance coach route. There are probably thousands of these in the United Kingdom, which is significantly smaller than the Untied States and which has a far less developed long-distance coach network than does the USA. If this were a major bus station, acting as a hub for the local bus network as well as long distance coaches, then it might be notable, but individual bus and coach stops are not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The train station is notable and has had plenty of newspaper articles because it's new this year. The bus stop is a "trivial mention" because it's been there, but it is mentioned in newpapers and press releases. It is notable *because* the thruway stop is not in the same place as the rail station. It is no less notable than *thousands* of similar bus stops already in Wikipedia. See , Adelanto Junction (Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach station), El Segundo (Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach station), or Atascadero - Bus Shelter (Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach station). So it does not have a shelter. Neither do many of our rail stops. Whether it has a shelter or not does not seem to make a rail stop not notable. Without this Amtrak Thruway stop, the return trip to Seattle is in the middle of the night - the only time that the westbound Empire Builder comes through. Albeit, there are many non-notable bus stops along the way to Seattle such as Skykomish, WA and Monroe, WA. The relative size of England versus the US is irrelevant. Our transportation infrastructure is very different because the US is so dependent on the automobile. The re-building of a passenger rail network and its associated thruways are notable.  kgrr talk 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. The fact that other articles should likely be reviewed as well does not detract from this one failing to meet inclusion guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually according to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS it can go both ways. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Amtrak does list this stop: Amtrak LEV There is another article that is also the main topic of the stop.Leavenworth However, the article does not mention that the buses can be ticketed under both Northwestern Trailways and Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach That relationship is discussed in the Thruway Motorcoach article. Wikipedia is full of bus stop articles - most of them with no references. This one article has at least two references - the same as the article about the Amtrak rail station. I don't get your WP:BIAS. Please explain your WP:Pokémon test  kgrr talk 01:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First: I suggest you reread WP:Pokémon test. I had never seen that essay before; but after reading it, the format of that test/argument clearly more closely matches your arguments.
    Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article". Enough said.
    As to your quote from WP:N - the LWA has significant coverage from third party reliable sources. The sources listed on the LEV article are clearly trivial mentions - simply listing that it exists. Being the subject of the page does not in itself make the source "significant coverage", the actual content of the source page must be taken into account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am well familiar with the Pokemon test, if I weren't I would not have brought it up to you. Essentially it answers the question of how noteworthy something has to be before it can be included in Wikipedia. Since they initially did not want to include all 493 Pokemon characters included in Wikipedia, they devised the Pokemon test. Anything more than the least notable Pokemon character got an article, the rest did not. Now, each Pokemon, notable or not, has its own Wikipedia page. I really don't want to see all 500? or so Amtrak Thruway bus stops included in Wikipedia. After looking at many one line Amtrak bus stop pages, I would recommend that we treat this as WP:LOCAL and include the information into the city or locality of where the stop is located. I went ahead and merged the important information from this article into Leavenworth, Washington#Transportation. Since it's done, let's delete this article. kgrr talk 23:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My objection to doing this is this would complicate the Empire Builder article. I would much rather see a list of Thruway Motorcoach stops.  kgrr talk 01:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see precedence of doing this with articles such as the Baker, California article: Baker_(Amtrak_Thruway_Motorcoach_station)#Transportation.  kgrr talk 01:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see precedence of doing this with articles such as King Street Station (Seattle), Everett Station, Columbia Station (Wenatchee), etc. However, I have a strong objection in doing this in this case because the Amtrak rail station and the bus stop are in opposite ends of town. There is NO Thruway Motorcoach/Northwestern Trailways connection at the LWA rail station (Leavenworth (Amtrak station) = Leavenworth Icicle Station (Amtrak station)).  kgrr talk 01:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Feric Feng[edit]

    Feric Feng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Although there are claims in importance (museum shows, etc.), none are referenced and google searches for this artists name + name of each museum only come up with linked in entries at best. Zero gnews hits, zero gbook hits, ghits aren't showing notability in first half dozen pages. Previous prod contested without comment, speedy tags have been removed without comment (although museum show claims would make this ineligible for A7). Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • UndecidedWeak Delete Feric got 105000 ghits of which Feric Feng is the first entry. Haven't got confirmation of page claims yet but if he has been showed where the article claims he has he would be a notable artist. Article smells of CoI. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unclear on how you're doing your search. Using no quotes (which pulls up anything with Feric or Feng), I only get 8400; with quotes (to pull up only hits that have both words, adjacent, I get 353[22] as the number on the first screen, only 82 of which are unique[23] (you need to navigate to the last screen of hits, a well-known bug of google). --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is possible. Do any of those hits appear to be second party coverage on any of the reputed shows and features? Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Following your advice got 84 ghits. Still looking for anything that isn't facebook or linkedinSimonm223 (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing things like his website, facebook, and their mirrors, we get this which shows he entered, but did not win an award at, an unidentified show of the Society of Illustrators; a site or two selling his )apparently self-published) book, a blog that links to his site but does not mention him[24], and several deadlinks to other shopping sites.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a french link that may confirm the Ottawa event but it doesn't work from my work terminal. Based on what I've found changing my vote to weak delete.Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no google news, scholar, or book hits, non notable UltraMagnusspeak 21:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete - advertisement for non-notable artist. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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' Mifter (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Imaginary cookies[edit]

    Imaginary cookies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    PRODded as having no real sources (mathematical joke) to indicate notability. Author removed PROD, saying "There are no sources that can be quoted. Except maybe my blog." Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:NFT. JohnCD (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: Imaginary cookies were invented in 2006 by a group of friends in Finland. While infinitesimally tiny cookies may be a worthwhile subject, these are not. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:MADEUP --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh those wacky Finnish students! What will they think of next? delete. Mandsford (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • yummy delete non notable neologism, the article practically states that --UltraMagnusspeak 21:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is a blatant case of madeupitis. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete Seems like this kind of thing ought to be speediable as nonsense. Ben Kidwell (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Problem here is that it's not actual nonsense, Ben. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the feedback. To me this seems like "incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history" and the term "nonsense" is often used in everyday speech to label things that may be grammatical but are free of any substance. Regardless, I'm not currently doing any deletion noms, just comments on AfDs, so my broad interpretation of nonsense to include "silly things made up in school" won't victimize any content. Ben Kidwell (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as something made up in school one day. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 01:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ceduna Waters[edit]

    Ceduna Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    An undeveloped property with no indication of importance or notability beyond projected local impact, one article in local paper JNW (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the author of the article. I'm happy for it to be deleted on the basis that the title redirects to the Ceduna article. While it may not seem important to some people, it is the biggest development in Ceduna for many years! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajhshamley (talk • contribs) 02:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The standard is whether it meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability; its inclusion in the town's article is similarly questionable, per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:LOCAL. And please sign your talk page comments. JNW (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it's probably not a good idea to redirect the article while its deletion is still under discussion. I've reverted your edit. JNW (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ImpressPages[edit]

    ImpressPages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article about an open source product that's only three weeks old and still in alpha release. No Google news hits. Article contains no secondary sources at all. Lots and lots of advertising & peacock. Yes, it exists—but it doesn't appears to (yet) be notable. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kipkay[edit]

    Kipkay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unremarkable tinkerer and internet "guru". Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - I cannot find any reliable sources which would support his claims of notability. Crafty (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak weak weak keep He is somewhat notable as an online gimmick, but if the trail goes for delete I will go with them. He seems sort of like a modern version of those old traveling salesmen sort of gimmicks, but my concern is they are not very encyclopedic. --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:36, 2 October 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) 00:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete:Here we go again - Wikipedia, the cheapest billboard in the web.--SonicRay (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G11 by Fastily. Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kotick Marketing Group[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Kotick Marketing Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Lack of NotabilityJayZRulz (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: like an WP:ADVERT. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. The references suggest at least some notability, and someone with access to the relevant trade publications might be able to add more. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - the article DOES assert notability ("fastest-growing") but notability is not temporary; whichever company may be the "fastest-growing" at any particular time in history is of no interest unless the company is otherwise notable. Also, per WP:ORG, the company would require "significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". The cited sources are not significant coverage - they're merely the entry of the company on a non-notable list - and don't meet WP:ORG. Good faith searches for "Kotick Marketing Group" in news turn up little more than resume-style entries for its founder. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, would say speedy delete as blatant advertising, but for a 2d AfD it may be best to set a firm precedent here. This is a full-service, multi-dimensional marketing firm. Oonh, it's multi-dimensional we are, is it? What dimensions do you practice in besides this one? The agency’s focus lies in the strategic development of numerous industry brands and the creation of integrated marketing campaigns and promotions for Business-to-Business (B2B) and Business-to-Consumer (B2C) clients. In other words, empty, typical buzzwords, and referenced only to directories and internal sites. May be notable on Earth-2, but here, this is just spam. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    West Papua national football team[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    West Papua national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Lacking notability, fails WP:V, all the news coverage are NF-Board statistics. Hammersfan (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Being on the NF-Board doesn't guarantee notability Spiderone 16:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Strictly speaking, I'm not especially bothered whether this or the South Moluccas or Western Sahara articles are deleted. What I want is consistency. Why should the article I did about Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (which has played more games than either of these two) be treated differently? Is it because it is Chechnya? Hammersfan, 10/10/09, 13.44 BST
    • Keep - NF-board teams are notable. --SM (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in the interest of combating systemic bias toward the developed world. matt91486 (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What bias?!? If an article is notable, it's notable; if it's not, it's not. Geography has nothing to do with it! GiantSnowman 16:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a supporter of bias against the undeveloped world. That was a joke, but this article really should be deleted as it fails the GNGs. The title of this article is actually wrong as West Papua isn't a nation. – PeeJay 13:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Human suit[edit]

    Human suit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Minor plot device with no apparent real-world notability. PROD that was contested twice.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support deletion. Not even any coverage of this as a plot device. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The topic is notable and I have recently started development of it. Deletion is not helpful in this and would be contrary to our editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article has existed since 23 March 2006. How much longer do you need?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. How can this ever be anything but a List of things that disguised themselves as humans? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, hard to see where this could possibly go. And the Jesus mention is a tad bizarre. Moreschi (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, can't see this article being much more than a) a list of random stuff, b) a compilation of fan-cruft, c) a compilation of conspiracy theories or d) all of the above. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete although I confess myself intrigued to see what Col. Warden will come up with. Jesus' human suit must have been v. stretchy.   pablohablo. 16:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: the docetism material is unrelated, the 'Science Fiction' material is a combination of OR and material based upon a right-winger's joke that Al Gore was an alien (meant as a joke=not a RS if taken seriously). Nothing here to indicate that a coherent topic exists, let alone a notable one. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per every delete comment above. I highly doubt Colonel Warden is going to produce reliable secondary or tertiary sources discussing the phenomenon of the "human suit".PelleSmith (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not only is this topic bizarre, especially the Jesus thing, but I can't find any reliable secondary sources and I strongly doubt anyone else can either. 70.136.128.18 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.
    • Delete - I don't see how this article could ever be anything but WP:OR. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hrafn is right about stretching the one source cited. Several of the films mentioned do not, in fact, involve any such items. The Thing doesn't, for example. And the source doesn't even claim that they do in the first place. PelleSmith seems right to doubt, moreover. I can find no sources that discuss this idea. It's worth documenting, but no-one in the world at large has actually properly done so. Note to SF critics reading this: The world is in need of some good sources that link the Slitheen to the Visitors to the Chingers in Bill, the Galactic Hero. But until those sources exist, there's nothing to support an article here. Uncle G (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no evidence that it meets any notability requirement at the present time, is incorrectly categorised (though that can be fixed), and is a WP:OR magnet. When the WP:OR is removed there is nothing left. CWs "development" was detrimental to the article. Verbal chat 09:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for offering your opinion Verbal. A more cultivated view is that the Colonel's improvements are , as ever, most excellent. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha yes, like a yoghurt. Mostly trivia and non-encyclopaedic, and I'd like to see an WP:RS that some early Christians believed Jesus was actually God in a "human suit". Verbal chat 14:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We could do that, if youre agreeable for us to exspand the scope of the article so it refers to a more broadly defined disguise, not specifically a costume or item of clothing, then as long as the WP:RSs refer to the concept they wont have to include the exact phrase "human suit". FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Lets not narrowly focus on any one area here, this fascinating topic is broader than even religion and sci fi. The Human Suit concept is woven into the fabric of everday life in a variety of ways, as attested by its thousands of Google hits and hundreds of Google news archive hits. I share the view that the Jesus mention is misleading - as well as being a Holy incarnation of God, Jesus was in fact fully human, so he'd have no need of a human suit. However wikkipedia is about verifiability not Truth, so as a signifcant minority used to belief the heresy there is no harm in mentioning it. If anyone would like advice on more appropiate forums to make a stand for Truth, drop by my talk. Several sources have been added, but not of the highest quality so we havent neccessarily crossed the noteability threshold yet. However many of the most promising sources are pay to view, so there is no reason to think non trivial coverage in reliable sources doesnt exist. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And we are now moving towards fan-cruft. Still not appropriate for Wikipedia WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Simonm223: FeydHuxtable appears to have WP:INDISCRIMINATEly dumped in every usage he could find of 'human suit' used as a metaphor (not as its literal meaning), as though this is somehow relevant. Last I checked, Wikipedia was not meant to be a dictionary of metaphors. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I scanned a good 30 or so sources Hrafn, and can assure you I was most selective about which ones I added. The bands calling themselves Human Suit dont seem to be using the term metaphorically (figuratively perhaps.) The film titled does actually feature a literal Human Suit. The description of an angel running round in a human suit was possibly meant literally. Dont forget that a good 67% of Americans recognise the truth that Angels are literally active in the world. And many folk tend to view the world with simple tangible concepts such as a human suit, rather than a more sophisticated understanding of the miraculous transformation that allows angels to assume human form. I tend to agree livinginahumansuit.com is using the phrase metaphorically, but that possibility is surely fairly presented with the correct use of quotes? FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I would hate to see what you consider to be being unselective then. Are you claiming that the bands believe they're aliens, or that the murderer thought his "well regarded" victim was an alien? That's WP:Complete bollocks. the Biblical material you dumped in was pure WP:Synthesis. The whole thing has as much coherence as a Monty Python skit. Spiced ham anybody? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it would be, as it wasnt the murderer who described the victim as an angel running round in a human suit. The natural habitat of Angels is heaven , so in a sense they are aliens when they come to dwell among us on earth. Anyway ,while an interesting and enjoyable discussion this is all getting rather tangental. Im taking this page and the article off my watchlist for a few days, and hopefully others arrive to help rescue the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    67% of americans may believe the delusion that minor godlings float around playing harps but that doesn't make this article notable, encyclopedic or in line with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per the support of those above who've already articulated my views. Uncle G has it right: nothing to support an article here. Bfigura (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no indication that this could ever be a suitable article, and no coherent argument for its retention. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I'm sure there must be something nontrivial to write about the metaphoric uses of the human-suit trope to refer to the alienation inherent in modern life, or whatever, but until someone digs up a sufficient number of reliable sources that do so this will remain a worthless pile of in-popular-culture trivia. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No mention of the topic in reliable secondary sources. Skinwalker (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No RS found detailing this subject. Triplestop x3 23:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Click on Google Book search at the top of the AFD. It is mentioned, as something creatures wear to disguise themselves as humans. [25] many notable sources call it a human suit. I'll see about adding some references to the article. Dream Focus 14:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The expression was in even used by a very influential science fiction writer, in a bestselling novel of his. See Ender's Shadow By Orson Scott Card, page 185. Dream Focus 14:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inside MIIB: Men in black II By Brad Munson, is the official book of that movie, and it refers to the alien's disguise as a human suit. Two other books referring to that movie refer to it as such also, when I use Google book search for the term and one of the movie's the article says it was featured in. I added that reference to the article. Other things shouldn't be too hard to find. Dream Focus 14:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added more references. There was a short story published in a notable magazine in 1957 which called it a human suit, there an alien that squeezed into it each day, to pretend to be a human being. Anyway, will all those who said delete do to lack of references, please look over what is added, and reconsider your position. Dream Focus 14:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems to be a mix of trivia and OR. Also, these are a few stories that include the term, or variations, but we've yet to see any significant coverage of the term of use itself. It doesn't pass any notability guide, and is unlikely to.Verbal chat 15:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, the official book for a massively successful movie, Men in Black, calling it a "human suit", an alien hiding inside of it to pass as human, doesn't count in your opinion? And the other books I mentioned cover it just fine. Dream Focus 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, the official book of MiB (the movie was notable) uses this term, but doesn't discuss or explore the concept in anything other than a superficial in universe way. The same as with the other books. If you had a reference called "An analysis of the Human Suit in Science Fiction" that would go some way towards addressing my concerns. Verbal chat 15:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and in consideration of the work that has gone into this article since it was first nominated, and in consideration of the term finding wide use in reliable sources and many books (Who didn't actually look?). The article will benefit from expansion and further sourcing as the term exists, is used, and has a fascinating notability. All that need be recognized is the article's delightful potential for improvement and how it can be made to serve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the article has not been altered significantly since it was AfDed, so WP:The Heymann Standard does not apply. It's sourcing continues to range from none-existent (most of the SciFi examples) to (tangential &) extremist (Is Gore An Alien?) to questionable. The available sources do not demonstrate that this is a well-formed, coherent, term of art, but rather that it is a simple English description or metaphor (with "… in a human suit" being no different than "… in a cheap suit", "… in a tuxedo", "… in a dog suit", "… in sheep's clothing", etc). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been improved. That it still doesn't meet any inclusion criteria after being improved isn't a reason to keep. Verbal chat 15:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and sort out appropriate naming and if a merge would be best way to handle this subject which clearly should be included in the encyclopedia as an important and recurring theme in science fiction writing and storylines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you justify the "clearly should be included", with reference to policy and some evidence? For example, where is an WP:RS for this "important and recurring theme". Thanks, Verbal chat 15:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please understand that nobody is saying this trope isn't used in science fiction stories. What we need, to include a literary trope, is some evidence that it has been commented upon outside the direct context of the stories which use it. A review that critiques the trope would be a good example. Mentioning that a book about a movie says "so and so was wearing a human suit" doesn't really count. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To you, it doesn't count. To me, it does. I believe it is common sense. You have a notable aspect found in many different science fiction stories. Its called the same thing, and is about an alien living in a human shaped body to pass as a human being. It has been proven as something that exist throughout science fiction, is clearly named a "human suit", and always features an alien in a human suit for the purpose of passing as a human. Think for yourself, don't wait and let someone do it for you. You do NOT need someone publishing a book of science fiction tropes, and listing it, to tell you its notable. Dream Focus 16:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is found in many, but only a minority of all SciFi. You may think it common sense, but you'll have to change our policies to get them to agree with your view. What you describe would be OR. If you don't want to wait for others to do it, write it yourself and get it published (I might do it actually!) Until then, without RS about this, no thanks. Verbal chat 16:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would encourage editors who believe this article to be notable to show it by providing some non-primay RS that discusses the trope. Comments such as the ones here are not helpful for improving the article or for demonstrating why it shouldn't be at AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tangentially Related Comment I noticed that there is no Common Tropes of Science Fiction article. Such an article, with proper critical references and without fan-cruft would be a very good one. Anyone want to help? Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I renamed the article to Human disguise and added several citations to coverage in reliable sources, but those trying to delete the article have undone my work. Very uncivil and unhelpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Had you provided a single second party reference using human disguise most of those of us on the Delete side of this discussion would probably have withdrawn the AfD. As it is all you did was rename the article and proceed to expand the list of fan-cruft. Furthermore the person who undid your change to the title noted that discussion of changing the title should proceed after the AfD rather than WP:BOLDly doing it before the AfD has completed. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Improving an article and renaming it to a more appropriate title need not wait until after the deletion discussion is over. That would be ridiculous, especially if the article is headed for deletion in its previous state.
    If you don't care to improve the article, at least have the common courtesy not to interfere with those who are taking the time to source and expand it. Maybe you'd care to add something about the use of human disguises in stories about Satan such as those by Milton?
    No objection has been made to the new title which is more commonly used for the science fiction aspect, as well as the for broader subject. It's been reverted as a means to try and get the article deleted. That kind of behavior borders on vandalism and is very damaging to the encyclopedia. Please refrain from engaging in it. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Find a source. Any reliable source that comments on this trope! This isn't vandalism, this is application of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I created a new article in good faith because you and Verbal objected to this article being broadened and renamed (and reverted my attempts to work on it and improve it by deleting any additions of content and sources expanding its coverage). Now you are saying a broad article on a subject that you said couldn't be covered in this article (which you insist must narrowly focus on the Sci Fi aspect of human suits). And that sourcing and content that you said shouldn't be included in this article can't be covered elsewhere either? My head is spinning. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply, it's an abuse of process and in the way you did it violates the GFDL. Propose a merge or rename and try to convince people to change their !votes to keep. Verbal chat 20:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question I see WP:INDISCRIMINATE thrown around a lot here, what part of that are you talking about, as it does not fall under Plot-only description of fictional works, Lyrics databases, Excessive listing of statistics, News reports or FAQs.--kelapstick (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply

      Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works.

      from item 1. This has not been done in this article. This is all that I am asking for. Heck! I've asked for one reliable source discussing the trope. That's all. One source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is not about a work of fiction. I think you may be confused. There are several reliable sources in the article and additional ones at Google News. It's very strange that you remove the addition of sources and content and then complain that there isn't more sourcing and content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has alternately been about
    1. A trope within a genre of fiction.
    2. An indiscriminate list of things disguised as humans in fiction and religion.
    3. A trope within the Men_in_Black_(film) film series.
    At various times. The only connecting thread is that it is about fiction. Simonm223 (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For additional information on use of WP:INDISCRIMINATE read the WP:FANCRUFT essay. Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Idea. Resurrect Disguise, so that it does not redirect to deception. Currently that's a dreadful article, unbalanced to include a great chunk of material about ethics in psychology research. So it could do with some attention from those of us who have been drawn to this debate. Include a reasonably sized section on disguise in fiction, and the examples from science fiction can go in there. If it gets to the point that there's too much for one article, we could break out Disguise in fiction and then perhaps Disguise in science fiction. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds reasonable. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are far more disguises than just a human suit. A disguise could be a person wearing a simple mask or a fake beard. Dream Focus 22:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vellinila[edit]

    Vellinila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    • Delete. Local, self-published magazine with no indication of notability. No third-party references that indicate importance. Re-created after prod deletion. WWGB (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No indications of significance or notability of this magazine, in an article created by its editor. 0 mention by other english sources (maybe something in tamil?). The references consist of a link to the magazine itself and two blog posts (not english, so I cannot judge if at least independent), which cannot be used to indicate notability. Antipastor (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No signs of notability found through English or Tamil sources. Also, this article was once deleted by PROD as Vellinila wikipedia. -SpacemanSpiff 15:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 15:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept sir, this is the tamil anguage monthly magazine based for one town, the town name KAYALPATNAM, its one of most famous MUSLIMS( 99 %)living area, and this vellinila magazine is promote and provoke the education awarenerss and this magazine is refeered by one of the most famous tamil monthly magazine UYIRMMAI ( http://www.uyirmmai.com/uyirosai/ContentDetails.aspx?cid=1756) , and i have one doubt, this vellinila magazine may be go strong and well famous in coming year, this mgazine already circultes more than 19months correctly and regulerly., so is there any conditions to publish this magazine in wikipedia only when its MOST famous ? and for your kind info, its perfectly registered in INDIAN NEWSPAPER RULES , THIS IS THE LINK https://rni.nic.in/language1.asp?currentpage=268 --Sharfudeen (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)sharfudeen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.184.172 (talk • contribs) [reply]

    — 122.164.184.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Magazine's objectives may be good, but no evidence of notability. Salih (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept I Know about this Velinila Tamil Monthly Magazine its nice Magazine, this widely spread over the muslim people's and this magazine spreading true news only so the people was like this Velinila magazine. Insha allah it may make new thought in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.19.60 (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    — 122.164.19.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Accept this vellinila Tamil Monthly Magazine its useful to us its widely read among Kayalpatnam (www.kayalpatnam.com) peoples. I hope its maybe make a history in future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.118.169 (talk • contribs)

    — 122.174.118.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete A self-confessed circulation of 2000 s hardly notable. --Deepak D'Souza 06:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept 2000 copies may be NOTABLE., but how the impact is must in magazine matters., crows may be more than dove, but which one is notable?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.118.169 (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    — 122.174.118.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. I had originally speedied another version of this article. I still see no good indication of notability and no inline references for the article's claims. delldot ∇. 02:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Based on the keep !votes, which clearly show the non-notability of the subject. Edward321 (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept Being one of the subscription holder (and I am a Regular reader) of this news magazine, I really admire the contents of this newspaper. They try to give fair space for all sorts of news. Even we can get cooking reciepe in this paper and I appriciate the question and answers by SAHANA. All sorts of science questions are answered briefly and informatively. Then they are regularly keeping quiz programs. Only matter that is not touched in this q&a is - religion. Totally a superb news paper which has a bright future - if we upliftit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirajdueen (talk • contribs) 10:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Khaled El-Khweldi El-Hamedi[edit]

    Khaled El-Khweldi El-Hamedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    non-notable per WP:BIO (previously deleted and re-created at least 4 times) Antipastor (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This was previously A7 speedy deleted, but not sure if same version exactly. I am putting it here because of many recreations just to avoid repeated independent deletions. I think it can be deleted per WP:BIO. Antipastor (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Unreferenced, no independent indication of notability as required by WP:BIO. WWGB (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This article has been recreated under multiple titles by multiple SPAs in the last 24 hours and is starting to feel to me like "Whack-A-Mole". All versions seem superficially identical, all seem to have no reliable sources and my brief investigation of some of the claims didn't find any meaningful corroboration. It is perhaps unnecessary to mention that people don't inherit notability from their parents. A complete AfD will help with speedying what are likely to be many subsequent versions. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, not notable. I also see several users that need bannination. Hairhorn (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This article has significant coverage of the subject (from "Email a raffica" to the end), but I can't find anything else other than this, which confirms one of the subject's positions. But, then again, I can't read Arabic. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting, although I can't read Italian to say for sure. I'm rethinking the notability part from start (no opinion for now), trying to see objectively despite the disruptive editing. Found this [[26]] too (needless to say that the article remains highly problematic, but could be fixable after all). Antipastor (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And as a note, searching for "Khaled El Hamedi" instead of the article's title seems to yield results. Antipastor (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough claims are verifiable. However, not convinced regarding notability (excluding Arabic sources too, but based on the English translation of the espresso Italian article found here [[27]] under the title "Double-Cross"). Antipastor (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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' Mifter (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BugAware[edit]

    BugAware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable software product by SPA, previously prod'ed. Haakon (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Scumrun[edit]

    Scumrun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I can't see what is really notable about this event, all reliable sources have to do with fundraising for its entrants, plus there is nothing salvagable about this article. Therefore fails WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY Donnie Park (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - There does seem to be enough secondary coverage about this topic.[28][29][30][31] Contrary to the nom's suggestion, sources don't have to be primarily about a topic, but just give significant coverage, even if it's in articles/books/etc. about other topics. In this case, the topic is covered very well in the Scumrun fundraising articles and a good argument can be made that sources about Scumrun fundrasing are sources about the Scumrun. And a topic only "fails" WP:VERIFY if it is impossible to verify which is not the case with this topic.--Oakshade (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment These links are of local papers, sometimes asking to raise funds for charity. I'm sure this is what anybody can do, how, contact the press office of a local paper, tell them that you are raising funds for charity to comepte in some self-indulgent charity event, after getting a photo taken by a press photographer and an interview, sooner or later, press coverage and brief fame. How do I know, a former work colleague of mine did that once to raise money to go for a skydive. If this decision was to be made keep, because of local papers in regard of fundraising activities, there I will say this, there is something wrong with Wikipedia. Donnie Park (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completely blind speculation as to why reliable sources covered a topic is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research and is not a proper basis to decide content. As for the "local papers" charge, WP:NOTABILITY does not and has never "banned" local sources as evidence of notability. As long as the sources are independent of the topic and have editorial control over their coverage, they are considered reliable sources. Besides, the sources aren't just local, but from all over the country (Carlisle, Ely and Worthing). But again, even if they were from one locality, the sources would still be valid per WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Donnie Park (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The Scotsman[32] is not a local newspaper. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — I'm surprised to see this nominated; it's an event that has been taking place for several years, involving at least triple-figures numbers of participants from (and in) several countries, and raising not insignificant charity funds. It has received media attention (significant amounts in various sports and custom car magazines). I haven't found an independent source (yet) but for what it's worth this year's event was launched by rather well-known publicist Max Clifford which suggests that it is "on the radar" in notability terms. – Kieran T (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I am willing to accept its notability and withdraw the nomination. Donnie Park (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mehdi Neghmi[edit]

    Mehdi Neghmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The majority of these articles were deleted as PRODs about two weeks ago. No improvements have been made since then and I still believe they fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG (I will strike those that pass):

    EDIT: I must also add that these players appear to have not made a league appearance Spiderone 11:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the Moroccan League fully professional? It doesn't say one way or the other on Wikipedia. If it is, then these should be kept.--TM 10:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody knows but unsourced Moroccan footballer stubs have been deleted before. If there is no source indicating it is professional then it is unlikely to be. To pass WP:ATHLETE it has to be certain. Besides, there is no evidence that these players have played any matches which is vital. Spiderone 11:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no evidence the Moroccan league is fully-pro. Regardless of this fact, none of these players have actually played, so it is a moot point anyway - they all fail WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 11:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - per GiantSnowman, there is no proof the league is professional, or any of the players have made a first team appearance. Eddie6705 (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - neither pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. A simple google search (and fair enough speaking french helps) proves that Neghmi and Moussamih at least have played for FAR.[33]. Didn't bother searching for all, but this corrects the inaccuracies stated above 8lgm (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - The league isn't fully professional still Spiderone 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nia Lyte[edit]

    Nia Lyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable per WP:BIO, unreliable references per WP:RS which only mention subject in passing, can find nothing notable about subject in news search. MuffledThud (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Seems like a trumped up resume. miranda 06:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Very little verifiable and not notable for an encyclopedia entry. Atif.t2 (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Xvand Technology Corporation[edit]

    Xvand Technology Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:SPAM, WP:COI, non-notable per WP:COMPANY, unreferenced, can find almost nothing about company in news search. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy delete g7 per author, see below. Doesn't seem significant enough for a redirect. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Corpus disease[edit]

    Non-notable fictional disease in a computer game. Proposed deletion was contested, so going to AfD instead. Delete. JIP | Talk 10:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    How? Will try it and see if I can; if not, I'll politely withdraw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. A Williams (talk • contribs) 10:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict) Comment: It's been acknowledged as fictional but that does not exempt it from our notability guidelines. The disease is not mentioned in the game article, so that either means it should be merged into it – or it's not worthy of inclusion. Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Article does not pass the proposed WP:FICTION guideline; redirect and perhaps include any encyclopaedic/citable information in the game article (if relevant). Fribbulus Xax (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, you can delete the articles or merge them; I'm a new user and unsure of a few things. My apologies for the inconvieniece. I'll be more careful next time! Au revoir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. A Williams (talk • contribs)

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Developmental Nanotech Initative[edit]

    Developmental Nanotech Initative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Just a far-fetching essay on a possible development of nanotechnology Materialscientist (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Keep - while this may sound far-fetched now, we must remember that the Nanotech Age is only about 15 years away. By then, it might be in the greater good of the global community to establish a developmental nanotech initative. GVnayR (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nomination; uninformative, "forward-looking" article containing vague predictions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment - I have made some steps to make this article more informative and less vague. Please consider changing your vote to keep. GVnayR (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      On my side, I've read the revisions, but consider them only a minor rephrasing which did not change the article style. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      How do you suggest that I should change my article style? I'm trying to make it sound as informative and plausible as possible. GVnayR (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      For example, to provide verifiable facts on development of nanotechnology, not speculations on how it may possibly develop. This field is very dynamic, with breakthrough discoveries coming every now and then - no long-term forecast is to be trusted. Materialscientist (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, I admit that I can't write Wikipedia articles about nanotechnology as good as other people might like it. Look at it this way - change the style of the article to whatever suits your fancy; don't delete it. This information could be important if I happen to have a son or daughter someday. GVnayR (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this is someone's essay. Miami33139 (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment - For the record, I did place two properly cited references. If it sounds too much like an essay, change it. Don't delete it because this source of "future knowledge" could be useful to our sons and daughters someday. GVnayR (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Valley2city‽ 04:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    49th Public Affairs Detachment (Airborne)[edit]

    49th Public Affairs Detachment (Airborne) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non notable, in accordance with discussions over non notability of company sized support sub-units eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States) Buckshot06(prof) 09:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unreferenced, and as stated by Buckshot notability has not been established. I would like it saved, but without significant references, I have to go delete. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Notability is not established, could not find any significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 12:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: seems to have no notability. Probably could salvage and merge a few bits into the article(s) for parent commands, though. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to List of Geelong Football Club players#Delisted players who did not play a senior game for Geelong. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan McKenna[edit]

    Dan McKenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Lack of notability - never played a senior game, delisted by Geelong ROxBo (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirect to List of Geelong Football Club players#Delisted players who did not play a senior game for Geelong as per WP:AFL standard.The-Pope (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi The-Pope. Can you be more specific on the 'standard'. I read the linked AFL page, and the discussion archives but could not find a relevant discussion or consensus. However I'm sure this situation is not new has come up somewhere before! Cheers ROxBo (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per The-Pope - it seems a sensible solution to this problem which allows coverage of people who were club players but are not sufficiently notable for their own article. Orderinchaos 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Other editorial actions (i.e. merge or move) can be discussed outside AFD. MuZemike 23:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nushawn Williams[edit]

    Nushawn Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:BLP1E, fails notability policy. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Don't think it's covered by WP:BLP1E because the event is notable, being the subject of not only news coverage but at least one academic book and various other papers, as well as presumably a lot of case law. How about moving it to something like "Nushawn Williams case" so it is no longer a biography? --Cedderstk 09:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Romulo Royo[edit]

    Romulo Royo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Contested proposed deletion & prod2. PROD removed with only note "its accompanying bibliography ISBN to authenticate the data". There's a conflict of interest with at least one of the 2 contributors, and no references to third-party sources. Apparently fails WP:CREATIVE Cedderstk 08:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stereotypes of highly committed wikipedia editors[edit]

    Stereotypes of highly committed wikipedia editors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Perhaps should be a CSD page, but doesn't meet any specific criteria (an argument for expanding the criteria). Article has no notability, better as a userpage (would support userfication) Shadowjams (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (Reconsidering comment on my part influenced by previous deleted articles of same creator) No objection if userfied. Antipastor (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Obviously not article namespace, but does it even belong elsewhere? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfy. Of mild interest to people who might happen upon it on a user page. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - essay, unless the creator wants to work on it, in which case userfy.   pablohablo. 10:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Destory It isn't notable. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Not prudish enough. Also, major BLP issues for wikipedia geeks. --Milowent (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      You're probably talking about this: "Another source for mirth may be that humours wikipedia vandal often appear to be more socially adept, by typically accepted standards than the editors themselves." I'm socially adept and I use the word mirth as much as possible. Shadowjams (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or userfy as a personal essay. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Strong delete as a personal essay that is lacking in humor and is borderline attack, per Sceptre. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignore all rules and delete under a wide interpretation of G10 Sceptre (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sceptre has a point; the essay may be a borderline attack page on Wikipedia editors in general. I may come back to this tomorrow and change my non-vote. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Done --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or userfy, someone's meditations on editing Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userify Somebody trying to crack a joke at Wikipedia expense and simultaneously drum up popular support for said joke in a rather recursive fashion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge to similar article If this is preserved it indicates wikipedians are open to criticism. If it is deleted the discussion will be preserved and it will indicate the opposite. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question for Zacherystaylor: How is the article in question appropriate for an encyclopedia? Whether or not Wikipedia editors are open to criticism, this discussion is about the article, which comes across as a personal essay of opinion. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There should be a place to discuss this if an article is not the best one the discussion that Jimmy Wales and Michael Snow called for might be a better one. here is a link to their letter for anyone who wants to participate: http://volunteer.wikimedia.org/ My opinion of committed wikipedia editors isn't the same as the article describes some of them are very fgood but others not so much. This does need to be addressed if wikipedia is going to be a sucess in the long run, otherwise it will be just another politically correct view of reality based on the biases of the editors which we may not choose to call biases. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CppDepend[edit]

    CppDepend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unable to find any coverage in secondary reliable sources and thus fails the notability guidelines. Also, article was created by possible WP:COI User:Issam lahlali who appears to also be the creator of the software: [34]. Odie5533 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Obviously, no home should be without a static analysis tool for C++ developers that provides 82 code metrics, several real-time code visualization panels, code base snapshots comparison, architectural and quality rules (edition and real-time validation). Any coverage such a thing gets is going to be of "limited interest and circulation", so this can never be really notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009 Taconic State Parkway crash[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    2009 Taconic State Parkway crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
    Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

    I just don't see what makes this so 'special'. It looks like from reading, it was just a woman who didn't know when to stop and a loyal husband stuck in denial. How is that any different from the many tragic stories that occur every day on our roads? The media coverage is not trivial, but it just a news item. No lasting notability; this story will just be replaced by the next tragedy. We aren't FOX News. For those in need of bluelinks, WP:NOTNEWS should cover it - there is not lasting notability beyond the sensational news reports (now two months old). \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: While this was a big story in the States, lasting importance has not been demonstrated yet. Perhaps it will be, so its the kind of thing I'd like to suggest shouldn't be deleted yet (oh look at all those references someone worked on!), but I'm not thinking of good arguments to support that view. --Milowent (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The crash is also still mentioned routinely in articles about other crashes, or about drunk driving and alcoholism, particularly among mothers (see this Google News Search for articles mentioning "Diane Schuler" in the past month), and was the catalyst for a Sept. 30 Dr. Phil episode on the subject of "Drunk Driving Moms." It's also worth noting that Governor Paterson was prompted by the crash to introduce stronger anti-drunk-driving legislation in August. Propaniac (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Ordinarily a motor vehicle accident with multiple fatalities and apparent alcohol intoxication as a cause would be a news story and nothing more. Wikipedia is not a repository of everything that makes the news. This one rises a bit because of the family's highly publicized denials of the implications of toxicology reports, and because the governor and legislators cite it in proposing stiffer penalties for driving drunk. (Of course, it is difficult to punish a dead driver). The case got covered beyond the usual coverage given a multivictim car wreck. (Are there personal injury lawsuits yet to be tried, where expert witnesses could hold forth on further data analysis and alternate explanations?) Edison (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the second October 9 article I cited above, it appears that such a lawsuit is planned, but I don't believe it has been filed yet. Propaniac (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I have to say keep for this. It's well sourced and has had significant media coverage, passing the greatest of article qualifications: WP:N and WP:V. As for WP:NOTNEWS, this one is right there on the line. I have to thus err on the side of preserving information, so keep. --Triadian (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Has received very significant ongoing media attention meeting WP:N. Has become a reference point for other drunk driving fatal crashes, e.g., [35] from just one day before this nomination was made. Ongoing coverage of the incident continues - this news report for example is far less than "2 months old",[36] further confirming its notability. Rlendog (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, per Propaniac, this crash has also become a political campaign issue, further demonstrating its notability. Rlendog (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Diego Traibel[edit]

    Diego Traibel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Suspected hoax. Article was created in 2006, but has never had any sources, and has contained some rather strange content at times, e.g. [37][38][39]. Googling, I can't find any mention of the name other than in numerous Wikipedia mirrors. I asked User:Góngora, who is Uruguayan and edits Uruguayan politics articles, to take a look, his opinion was "I decided to have a look at this man but I didn't find any results which may clarify what it seems to be a hoax. Given the results and the lack of sources, I dare say that this article is fake and has no relevance". Stormie (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —nominator withdraws the nomination. Closed per WP:NAC by Skarebo (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indiavision[edit]

    Indiavision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Appears to be a list of words or a "spam" article. Jwesley78 (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize. Jwesley78 (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess this could be now withdrawn/closed by non-admin. Not sure how to proceed though. Antipastor (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jungle Island[edit]

    Jungle Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Does not appear particularly noteworthy. The only provided reference is not enough to establish WP:N and nothing in the article itself really indicates what makes it notable. Much of it reads like an advertisement or promo copy. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Eden Fire[edit]

    Eden Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable album... No evidence that it would pass WP:NALBUMS... Was prodded, but prod was removed by SPA... Adolphus79 (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Decently sourced, has third-party reviews, released by a notable band on a notable label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - WP:NMG#Albums suggests that usally an album of a notable band will itself be notable enough for an article. Sonic Syndicate definitely appears to meet the notability guidelines, and the Eden Fire article itself is appropriately sourced. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawn - Sorry, I'm not sure what happened here, I thought I was tagging another of their non-notable singles/songs... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. per WP:SNOW — Jake Wartenberg 17:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    100 People Who Are Screwing Up America[edit]

    100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:NOTABLE and is a highly inflammatory topic. Nezzadar (speak) 01:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • How about a reason why it's non-notable?
    WP:NB 1) first dot point. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but prune hard with a weed whacker. The book itself has some notability, but the article on it is just being used as an anti-liberal coatrack. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Widely discussed book. Gamaliel (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep But it could be trimmed down. It is a somewhat notable book. --Pstanton (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The reception and response sections are what indicate notability. --Cedderstk 10:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It may be a crappy book, but it got sufficient coverage to be notable. Its more of a joke than inflammatory, in my view.--Milowent (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep: This never should have been made an AfD. See: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. gNews: [51] --Odie5533 (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Widely covered/discussed in various media, clearly meets the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as blatant and persistent attack coatrack. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't seem to be subject of any current edit wars or controversy on the talk page, and seems fairly NPOV to me as an outsider. If it's really a problem, why not request protection? --Cedderstk 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just discovered this deletion nomination when researching the controversy over claims of a quote from Rush Limbaugh that are attributed to another book by a diferrent author. Wikiquotes may have had the quote with another similar book (101 people who are really screwing America: (and Bernard Goldberg is only #73)) as reference but because the book does not say where the information comes from (lack of sourcing) it was removed. I have no opinion to keep or delete but thought this was interesting timing if nothing else.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep because it's a handy guide to conservative criticism of "lefty" celebrities. The list of 100 also inspired Wikipedians to work hard on creating dozens of new articles to turn the red links blue. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article needs to be rewritten. But despite the overtly political overtones of the book's contents, the subject appears to be notable enough for inclusion on this site. Warrah (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grudging keep: I think this book has more notable because it acts as a Rorschach test (and/or red-rag-to-a-bull) for readers'/reviewers' views than for any literary value or profound insight -- which means that achieving NPOV will be problematical. However, the book clearly has generated significant third party coverage, so the attempt should be made -- and WP:DUE weight needs to be given to these sources (and the complete list should probably be replaced by a simple EL to a reproduction of it). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Significant 3rd party coverage.--Knulclunk (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - notability has been established through coverage in reliable sources. The article might need to be improved (it's worth asking whether the actual list belongs in the article, for instance), but that's not a reason for deletion. Robofish (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Richmond Colts[edit]

    Richmond Colts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:NOTABLE, but not blatantly enough for a CSD A7 nom. Also creator has serious issues, see talk page. Nezzadar (speak) 01:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep It was a professional minor league baseball team for 50 years. That's pretty notable. Not sure what issues you are talking about, besides image issues. Not sure what that has to do with the article at hand, it is more or less and underhanded dig and is entirely unnecessary.Alex (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Professional minor league baseball teams are pretty much inherently notable, but if you're looking for sources a quick Google search yielded two books about baseball teams in Richmond (including the Colts), which would certainly satisfy WP:GNG directly. BryanG (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Lasting 50-years in a significant sized city is notable, there are many useful news references.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
    1. ^ "Hundreds Entered. One Emerged. Road Runner and MTV are Proud to Announce the VMA winner in the Best Breakout NYC Artist category", timewarnercable.com/nynj/about/partnerships/mtv, accessed October 18, 2009
    2. ^ "Golden Times 1937 Richmond Colts Were Team To Watch". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Apr. 16, 1987. Retrieved Oct. 13, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    3. ^ "Eddie Mooers Expected To Become Next Owner Of Richmond's Baseball Club". The Hartford Courant. Dec. 31, 1931. Retrieved Oct. 13, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    4. ^ "Between the Lines: Musuem Exhibit on Negro Leagues Tells Two Stories of Baseball Glory". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Nov. 19, 1996. Retrieved Oct. 13, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    5. ^ "Graveside Rite Held for Ex-Team Owner". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Nov. 15, 1989. Retrieved Oct. 13, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    6. ^ "Yanks Overwhelm Richmond, 20-12". The New York Times. Apr. 14, 1934. Retrieved Oct. 13, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (story on exhibition game in Richmond against New York Yankees, including a home run by Lou Gehrig that landed in the James River)
    7. ^ "Richmond Owner of Baseball, Grid Teams Is Dead". The Free Lance–Star. Jan. 4, 1960. Retrieved Oct. 13, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    8. ^ "Mooers Field Had One Benefit Over Park It Replaced". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Dec. 29, 1988. Retrieved Oct. 13, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    9. ^ "Richmond Signs Graves; Negro Pitcher Will Play With Colts in Piedmont League". The New York Times. Apr. 20, 1953. Retrieved Oct. 13, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (noting that the Colts became the fourth team in the Piedmont League to sign a black player; the league had no black players for its first 34 years)

    --Milowent (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    101 People Who Are Really Screwing America[edit]

    101 People Who Are Really Screwing America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Does not appear to pass WP:BK Changed to keep.Tim1357 (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither does the Republican counterpart, and that one has survived, somehow. I say remove both, its clearly a well done flame war between editors without Wikipedia's best interests at heart. Nezzadar (speak) 01:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you don't think I was trying to promote my political intrests by nominating this article! I was just working off a list of articles that are books and are tagged as not notable. I would have nominated the Republican Counterpart if I had encountered it. Tim1357 (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I found this, but it's not usable because all of the reviewers are bias ("PROGRESSIVE BOOKS, MOVIES, AND MUSIC- FOR PROGRESSIVES, BY PROGRESSIVES, ON BUZZFLASH"). I found two brief reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: non notable. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep if the other one is kept - you cannot have one and not the other. That would furthermore smack of political bias.--Tris2000 (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If not kept, should be covered in 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, as this was a direct response to it. I haven't looked and don't know if this response book was separately notable; this book was riding coattails on the short train of popularity of the other book. --Milowent (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is not how WP:NPOV works. NPOV applies to the content of an article, as does WP:WEIGHT. Just because a critical response to a book exists doesn't mean it automatically passes notability for being on the opposite end of the political spectrum. e.g. The God Delusion has dozens of these types of counter books many of which don't automatically slide past notability requirements because they are critical of the book. I think it is a big mistake to base this decision on WP:NPOV.
    • Delete: No significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. I found two WP:RS ([52] [53]), one by the author himself. I went through every hit on Google, which was only 127 since after 127 Google said the rest are similar and have been omitted. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per article improvements and well-documented recent coverage regarding the book itself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Wait. Probably not appropriate for an individual entry, but the book has a lot of press today (author reportedly caught fabricating inflammatory claims regarding Rush Limbaugh (which is just lazy)) and enough coverage may be spawned. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting.[54][55] Limbaugh may have thrown a liferaft to this one. --Milowent (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem to be making many headlines. I'd say vote on what information is available. If it does become popular, there's still a week left of the AfD, and DRV is always an option later down the line. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:VAGUEWAVE. I see no significant coverage. Care to share your findings? --Odie5533 (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing a bit of work on the article. :) Cirt (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still confused. The controversy is about MSNBC, CNN, the book, and Rush Limbaugh. Which article does it belong on? Perhaps an article by itself? It seems the main thing the book has going for it is the fact that a larger controversy is based on it. But the controversy seems to become more than just the book itself, and the article can barely stand without the controversy. Perhaps move the section to an article and delete the book, or just leave it how it is and keep. I'm undecided. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It all originates with the purported quotes in the book attributed without details, then no comment given by author and publisher to Associated Press, and then the relevant portion from the book deleted by The Huffington Post after the author failed to substantiate it - all this leads one to surmise the focus is the book. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but I'm still not sure. The response concentrates on the author, and two quotes in the book. I guess I was hoping more reviews of the book could be found, or some critical recognition outside of the tight-knit liberal circle (HuffPo, Nation, NPR which borrows from Nation). If everyone else agrees that the section belongs on the book's article, I'm all for keeping it. Just can't quite make up my mind on that point. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly your point is a valid one, however like I said I am of the mind that the best place to include this material is the article about the book, as that is where it all began. And the controversy with regard to the book is significantly discussed in independent secondary sources, which is a good thing. :) Cirt (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Cunard (talk · contribs), for the kind words about my work! Most appreciated. :) Cirt (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I'd consider a 200 word review in the magazine the author writes for passes WP:N. Regardless, Cirt certainly has improved the article. Kudos. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. :) Cirt (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep sufficient coverage for notability. sephia karta | di mi 10:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Well sourced. Notable enough. -- œ™ 18:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as Nom the limbah incident happened after nomination, so i am changing my vote. Tim1357 (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, definantly had a short run of notability' ie coverage in every major news network in the US. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Crappy book, but it meets the criteria for inclusion, so... -- ChrisO (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G7; author blanked or requested deletion) by NawlinWiki. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Life internet[edit]

    Life internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    If sincere, a neologism with no google hits. Wikilinked to Mechanical internet, also posted to Afd with same issues. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 01:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Deleted under G7 midway through the AfD. Closed per WP:NAC by me,—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    Mechanical internet[edit]

    Mechanical internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    If sincere, it's a neologism with exactly one google hit, and a completely different usage at that. Linked to Life internet, same issue. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 01:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rution[edit]

    Rution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Likely Conflict of interest. No indication of notability, does not appear to be signed by a record label. Leivick (talk) 21:06, 6 October 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) 01:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    St Brendans GAA[edit]

    St Brendans GAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article is not notable and very few, if any, pages link to it. Firth m (talk) 20:54, 6 October 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) 01:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Tisdale[edit]

    Mike Tisdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:ATHLETE. Still in school, so not playing professionally. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - he is competing at the highest level of amatuer basketball in the United States. Dincher (talk) 20:34, 6 October 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) 01:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Highest amateur competition in basketball would at the very least by an international competition such as the Olympics. Grsz11 04:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The Olympics don't count, since pretty much every country now sends pro players. The same is true of the major FIBA competitions. Ultimately, NCAA Division 1 is the highest level of amateur competition for American basketball players. (That said, I don't fully agree with WP:ATHLETE anyway. If interpreted literally, we'd be stuck with thousands of microstubs. But if you're going to cite WP:ATHLETE, you should cite it properly.) Zagalejo^^^ 07:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, WP:ATHLETE clearly calls for the highest amateur level of a sport, not just the highest level in one particular country. --Stormie (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Tisdale is a respectable contributor for a major program, and has been the primary subject of several news articles: [58], [59], etc. I think WP:ATHLETE is a poor metric for evaluating American college players, so I'm just going to ignore it and go with my gut. Zagalejo^^^ 07:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I appreciate that sources were located, but these are from the newspapers in Bloomington, Illinois, and Springfield, Illinois, both of which have reporters assigned to cover the Illini games. WP:ATHLETE doesn't bar Tisdale from having an article, and it doesn't give him a free pass either. The concept, of every player for every NCAA Division I team getting his own page, has been raised before, and rejected for obvious reasons. For those persons who want to write about Tisdale, there's a page called 2009-10 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team that serves that purpose. Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 00:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Erikson (music style)[edit]

    Erikson (music style) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unsourced, non-notable, original research. JNW (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Street-Ed[edit]

    Street-Ed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No evidence of notability. Makes a claim of a chart hit, yet google hasn't heard of the artist or the song. Weregerbil (talk) 18:57, 6 October 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) 00:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Firdous Bamji[edit]

    Firdous Bamji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unreferenced BLP, probably doesn't meet WP:BIO; subject requested deletion at Ticket:2009100610052675. I am neutral. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, meets WP:BIO "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films" -Drdisque (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. From looking throught the Google News results linked above it would seem that there's enough coverage in reliable sources for the subject to pass notability guidelines, and I can't see anything in the article that would raise any libel or privacy concerns. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:11, 7 October 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) 00:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting comment. Since the subject is requesting deletion, more feedback is needed before a call can be made on this one. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There's very little to add to Phil Bridger's comments, except that the GNews hits also indicate even more stage work demonstrating notability. (He's also well known for being (or having been) the longtime companion of Hayley Mills, which isn't itself particular evidence of notability, but has led to at least one memorable note by Mills herself [60]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep With respect to the subject requesting deletion of the article about himself, the article has been slowly growing since April 26, 2006 and has seen contributions from numerous editors. Has the subject been requesting deletion since then? Multiple sources exist toward the subject's award nomination and his notability in stage, film, and television. There is no apparent libel in the article, and since the subject is a public figure with coverage in reliable sources, there is no violation of privacy. The article now belongs to Wikipedia, so as long as careful heed is made toward mainating a proper BLP, a keep would seem proper. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, any merger can be proposed in the normal way (NAC). RMHED 19:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Life caching[edit]

    Life caching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Neologism with only a primary source. Haakon (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment, there's this and this from The Guardian. There's a bit more stuff from other sources (e.g. [61], [62], [63]). Any article should probably be about the concept/trend rather than the neologism - whether there's enough for a stand-alone article I don't know. Guest9999 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Tag for citations, but the concept seems notable enough to warant its own page, if it doesn't have one already by another name (I'd be surprised if some psychologist somewhere hasn't made this into a -philia). Potential for article to be much better than it is; or just to list silly myspace nonphenomena. Declan Clam (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Suggest listing on Wiktionary Simonm223 (talk) 21:18, 6 October 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) 00:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep good amount of google news, books, and scholar coverage UltraMagnusspeak 21:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to Lifelog, or maybe Lifecasting (video stream)—this particular term may be new, but the concept certainly isn't. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Click the Google News search at the top of the AFD, and you can find places that mention it in its context. The Guardian's article seems to prove its notable. [64] Dream Focus 00:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Artifacts (software)[edit]

    Artifacts (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doesn't assert notability. No reliable independent sources - [65]. SilkTork *YES! 15:10, 6 October 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) 00:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: My website has more than twice the hits of theirs. No coverage in reliable sources. I'd also like to just note to SilkTork that assertion of notability is not required for creative works such as software. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, any possible merger can be proposed in the normal way (NAC). RMHED 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Texas A&M Wind Symphony[edit]

    Texas A&M Wind Symphony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This article is about a student organization at a university. There are not enough independent reliable sources to justify an article on this topic. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 6 October 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) 00:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Texas A&M University#Student life. Grsz11 04:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Without the main editor of this article (Kungaloosh; who is the main editor of the article on the conductor of this band, and not much else, and who has not edited in a while) to help, we may have trouble finding multiple articles from reliable sources other than school papers. They're not there yet. I'll leave word at the school page. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Texas A&M University#Student life. Racepacket (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I wrote a large portion of the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band article (A featured article on the main page) and can see the possibility of this organization requiring a separate article. The Texas A&M article is already pretty large and has many additional articles due to WP:SUMMARY. It has enough sources independent of the University to delve into such an article and it will populate over time. I recognize that it is a pretty weak article and many google sources are from the local area, but they were invited to play at Carnegie Hall so that establishes some notability. In short, the A&M article is pretty full and adding this to that article would only serve to provide precedent for adding every student organization. I can certainly see merging this into a new article about the musical programs at Texas A&M. Other thoughts on where to merge it? — BQZip01 — talk 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If as you suggest (I believe you are suggesting, at least) this has or can have two or more appropriate non-student articles as sources, I would support a keep as that would meet the WP:BAND criteria. Otherwise, a merge as you suggest to a new article on musical programs at Texas A&M sounds like an alternative (assuming that that more robust article meets one of the 12 WP:BAND criteria).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to go, but a quick google search reveals: [66]
    • Keep I go to Umass Lowell, and the orchestra here could get its own article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I believe the topic of this article clearly passes WP:LOCALFAME and its international touring and performance at Carnegie Hall is more than sufficient notability IMO. It's recordings are also listed in both Allmusic database and the FreeDB database. In addition, I do not believe this article could be neatly merged into either the main TAMU article or the Aggie Band article. However, if it is determined to fail notability per this discussion, I would recommend saving the information in a merged combination article on Texas A&M music programs per BQZip01's suggestion. On a separate note, this article does have an issue with several dead links in the article citations that need to be repaired. Additional source material should be searched for, especially in regards to reviews of the foreign tours which most likely exist, but these may not be easily obtained on-line or due to language differences. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: The Aggie Band is not the same as this institution as it is part of the Corps of Cadets. The wind symphony is open to all students. It's not so common among Universities and I could have been more clear; just so there's no later confusion. — BQZip01 — talk 19:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. and for the record I would like to thank Crablogger for being so gracious. Valley2city‽ 04:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    18 Year Old Virgin[edit]

    18 Year Old Virgin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This one is sort of on the line, however it appears to just barely fail WP:NF I am neutral Tim1357 (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: I can't significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Not a ton out there about this apparently very bad film.[67].--Milowent (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There are probably a hundred or more movies on Wikipedia that are just as notable as this movie, for instance, every movie by The Asylum. If this movie is deleted perhaps a massive afd is in order. I spent a couple hours trying to find useful sources for this article and it doesn't look like they exist People can still get the information from IMDB so there is no great loss in deleting this article. Mathieas (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As creator of this article, I have no qualms about the deletion of this article. I created it purely because I thought it noteworthy for an entry, but if others disagree, then I will not stand in their way. --Crablogger (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SG Records[edit]

    SG Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I would have speedied this, but I feel that this article might be better suited for the Italian wikipedia as there are probably more NON-ENGLISH sources, but since I cannot read Italian I cannot tell what is a notable source and what isn't, so I propose a transwiki to the Italian side. ArcAngel (talk) 14:35, 6 October 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) 00:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Martha Cotter[edit]

    Martha Cotter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doesn't meet WP:PROF. JaGatalk 11:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: ADS finds a number of papers by her, but none of them seem to be particularly highly cited, so I don't think she meets WP:PROF point #1, and none of her other accomplishments seem to qualify her either. One caveat is that ADS may not be complete when it comes to coverage of physical chemistry and chemical physics (although I'd still trust it over Google Scholar); it would be good if someone with access could check on Web of Knowledge or Scopus. Scog (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep. GS cites are 86, 43, 36 27... h index = 10. Borderline on WP:Prof #1. Invited lecture to Royal Society a plus. The article could do without the bathos of the subject's quotes. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:24, 9 October 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) 00:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A search on WoS for ("MA Cotter" AND Rutgers) gives 12 hits, cited a grand total of 338 times. Top cited articles 76, 63, 60, with an h of 8. --Crusio (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The subject has been an academic for about 4 decades and has an h-index of only 8. Seems to be a tenured professor, but does not have a title at the "distinguished" level, endowed chair, etc. Has been in administration, but does not appear to have risen higher than an "interim" (place-holder) position. All of these aspects fall short of their corresponding WP:PROF criteria. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete. Seems to be more of an administrator than a researcher, but clearly not at a high enough level for WP:PROF #6, and the citation count is unimpressive enough that I think she doesn't pass #1 either. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryan Allen Humphrey[edit]

    Ryan Allen Humphrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails WP:MUSIC. Multiple bands, yes, but only one was anywhere near notable, which doesn't justify a standalone article. "After his departure from ska/punk band Chase Long Beach they went on to sign with Chicago based record label Victory Records." - so essentially they were an unsigned, non-notable band when he was around. Hardly good evidence of his importance. Ironholds (talk) 10:23, 6 October 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) 00:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Marco Cremona[edit]

    Marco Cremona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Nothing asserting notability. The few non-socal network ghits I see are for a different Maltese Marco Cremona, an engineer. JaGatalk 08:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Article has been tagged as unreferenced for 2 1/2 years, that's long enough for someone to have found suitable references if there had been any. Cassandra 73 (talk) 11:04, 10 October 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, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can find documented a Galleria Cremona, dedicated to this person's works, but nothing that actually documents the person or the works in detail. Uncle G (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Monte Vista (Hong Kong). The consensus seems to be that this and related articles such as Vista Paradiso should be merged somewhere, if not to Monte Vista then an alternate target can be discussed on the article's talk page or at WP:HONGKONG. In any case it should be noted that there is no consensus to delete these articles and a "merge" close is a variant of "keep". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Man Lai Court[edit]

    Man Lai Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    insignificant housing estate comprising 4 buildings. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep housing estates in Hong Kong are fairly major, and 4 buildings is a very large one. Each building is dozens of stories high. There is a shopping arcade and seems to have a church and a YWCA. There are quite a few ghits in reliable sources, also the Chinese version: 文禮閣 has even more ghits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge This article should be merge into one location with other private estates in Ma On Shan. Tavatar (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments to Thryduulf: It is located at Sha Tin Town Centre, instead of Ma On Shan.
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge (I'm not sure whether it's better to merge private estates by location or by developer; but anyway that can be discussed at WP:HONGKONG). Unlike the other AfD which Ron Ritzman notes, this one doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. The GHits in Chinese consist mostly of real estate sales websites, not independent, reliable sources; similarly, most of the GNews hits are just passing mentions (e.g. for the purpose of establishing a location, like "a man jumped into the Shing Mun River near Man Lai Court") or short notes about single transactions (e.g. [68][69]). There's only one real instance of non-trivial coverage, about a group of tenants who went to court after their landlord evicted them for keeping dogs [70]. cab (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 10:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jarrad Coombs[edit]

    Jarrad Coombs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Editor Keeps Removing PROD and SPEEDY Templates, so i thought id bring it hear. Article's subject apears not to be notable. Tim1357 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above ugy obviously doesnt know hwo the fuck jarrad coombs acruyally is !— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexymandan12 (talk • contribs) — Sexymandan12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    It's not that I dont know who he is, its that I cant find any sources that show that he is a notable person. You could be right, he could be entirely notable and merit an article. However, that is why I brought the discussion here, so that it is not just an edit war. Tim1357 (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as A7 (or better yet, G3) and protect – this page was deleted five times already… Skarebo (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, 18-year-old who has a community access TV show (if the source is correct, but the link appears to be broken). Doesn't meet WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete and salt. Let this non-notable find somewhere else to play. WWGB (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per everyone above including Sexymandan12. Unsourced biography of a living person; of the two links provided in this article, one is broken and the other is irrelevant. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Monte Vista (Hong Kong). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vista Paradiso[edit]

    Vista Paradiso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    housing estates in Hong Kong are a dime a dozen, and there is nothing here which indicates how this might be notable. The sources are either directory links or are nnot independent of the subject Ohconfucius (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep It is one of the largest private housing estates in Ma On Shan, one of new towns in Hong Kong. Its existance can be shown in its developer's homepage. http://www.hwpg.com/en/properties/propertylist.asp Ricky@36 (talk) 00:21, 8 October 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, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tera Joy[edit]

    Tera Joy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - the article asserts her to have won several (presumably) significant awards. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:46, 30 September 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) 00:12, 6 October 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) 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting comment. Article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Notable award but absolutely no sources found, in Czech or otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails all points of WP:PORNSTAR. Grsz11 04:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO (did not win awards, just nominated), no indication of meeting the GNG or any other relevant guideline, no indication article will ever be more than a list of randomly selected credits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Way of a Man with a Maid[edit]

    The Way of a Man with a Maid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No references proving it is notable. I find the term used for other things quite often, but have not found any reliable sources mentioning this. Its just a rape fantasy book written quite some time ago. Dream Focus 03:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit: There are in fact notable references for this horrid book. The article should be less than just one big plot summary. Since its not possible to read more than a brief passage from the books mentioning it, I'm not sure what sort of article could be made. Dream Focus 15:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't anyone else ever notice when an AFD isn't formatted properly?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I followed the instructions on the AFD page. I figured it'd just cycle through automatically at one point, and fix itself. Thanks for the assistance though. Dream Focus 04:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're supposed to use {{afd2}} on this page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete Willing to withdraw if there is any indication of notability, right now: none. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete Per nom and simonm223. i could not find any indication that this is a notable piece of victorian erotica. lots of reprints only means its in public domain, and an easy reprint to make some cash on. funny, the only reference provided is from the bible...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep found this in Google Books. Agree, there's a number of other books on sex that include this name or phrase, but one of those two mentions appears to clearly reference this book. Also, I'm weighing slightly the fact that the text is in Wikisource. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It list it twice, the second time referring to something from the 1960's. The book mentioning it doesn't seem to be notable at all. Dream Focus 08:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    August 8th, 2009 is when someone added it to Wikisource. Anything out of copyright can be added, there no real requirements at all. Please do not let that influence your opinions. Dream Focus 08:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Has coverage in these sources:[71][72][73][74][75]. Also is referred to in what is widely regarded as one of the greatest novels ever written,[76] and in these sources:[77][78], although I can't see the text of the last two. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "The way of a man with a maid" is line 30 of Kipling's poem, "The Long Trail" where it is included in a paraphrase of Solomon's question(Proverbs 30:18-19)... Please read the links more carefully. I'll go through them now, but not every use of that term has anything to do with the book, and those who claim it is important seem to be only those who are trying to sell it on their websites. Dream Focus 15:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All but number 6 are about the book. Yes, it has notable coverage, despite being a horrid things, glorifying rape, saying women will eagerly enjoy it so its already to abuse them. The article should be more than a plot summary of course. Dream Focus 15:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You please read number 6 more carefully. If you read on (by clicking on the page number), you will see that it continues to say, but Bloom has in mind an anonymous late-nineteenth-century pornographic novel in which the "heroine", prudish Alice, refuses the "hero", Jack, only to be trapped and debauched by him. I remember that mentions in Ulysses have been accepted as contributory factors in keeping articles on Dublin streets, so similar reasoning can apply to this book. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops! My mistake. I click on it and read that yes, it does mention this book. Dream Focus 16:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, Wikipedia is not censored, the fact the user finds it distasteful is irrelevant. Initially hiding behind notability concerns she now concedes are not correct - I am left struggling to understand how "it would be hard to write a good article" is a reason for deletion. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This article badly needs rewriting, but there seems to be enough sourcing. WP:ZOMG!!!!!VICTORIANPR0N!!! is not in itself a valid reason to delete.   pablohablo. 20:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. On the criteria of notability, it beats many others on site. That it isn't tasteful, doesn't match existing criteria. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Laris Gaiser[edit]

    Laris Gaiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unreferenced, NN academic. Was deleted via prod, and undeleted yesterday at REFUND.-- Syrthiss (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete for now. If Il Telescopio were a notable think tank (and it might be), then the founder would have a bit of notability as a result - but I'm seeing no evidence of that. So we have a claim of notability without RS to support. No objection to keeping if sources (and notability) become apparent, but I'm not seeing it there, or on my admittedly brief google search. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:PROF, and Gnews hits are few, exclusively in a foreign language, and do not appear to be principally about him, so probably fails WP:BIO as well. Something weird is up with Gbooks. Like the previous editor, I'm open to changing my mind if somebody fluent in Slovenian actually finds substantial coverage. RayTalk 23:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, insufficient evidence of notability, not surprising for an academic who is relatively young/junior. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_October_13&oldid=1142643324"