Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 20

< 19 October	21 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. No consensus to keep - no prejudice to creating a redirect Kevin (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Levey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability per WP:BLP1E, has not proven notability beyond their appearance on a TV show. Proposed redir page to main Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 6)‎ article SpikeJones (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE or REDIRECT - Notable as a Reality show winner, not to mention the Daniel Veltri, Christina Machamer, and Heather West articles which are winners of the same show. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too soon for his own article. Re: Heather Christina and Danny, let's deal with these one at a time.Tlatseg (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a response, why are AI contestant articles allowed to be created during the show, if a HK WINNER article can't even be created AFTER the show? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't compare apples and oranges. Hells kitchen is not American Idol. Also American Idol holds a different place in the American culture than Hells kitchen does.Tlatseg (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reality show = reality show. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apples to oranges. "because other pages do it" is not a valid WP argument. SpikeJones (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you say it's "too soon", and I demonstrate a case where another reality show has CONTESTANT articles prior to the end of the show, I think it's a safe comparison. If we can't compare one reality show article to another reality show article on this site, what's the point of categorizing them in the first place? What can we compare? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC

Saying that other reality show contestants have their own articles therefore Dave Leavy deserves his own article also is not a valid argument. With the exception of stating where he was born and on what date he is starting work at the Araxi, both of which are of trivial importance, all the other information is contained in the main Hells kitchen season six article. Wikipedia is not a fan site. All of us who have made significant contributions to the season six article are fans of the show but still we have to follow the Wikipedia policies.Tlatseg (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the argument. The argument is other reality show CONTESTANTS have articles, yet this contestant isn't just a contestant, he's a WINNER, and there is a category for WINNERS. The other argument is reality show CONTESTANT articles have been created while the show was in progress. This WINNER article was created after the show ENDED. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a winner of a major reality TV series which runs over multiple episodes. The win garnered press coverage of non-trivial nature as documented in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reality show winner definitely does not meet criteria for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.101.57 (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into article about show. The award for winning was a one year position as a chef, a position that itself in not inherently notable.--Pink Bull (talk) 20:03, 27 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 - defaulting to delete Kevin (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Emilio Hernández Ibarzábal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Good faith searches (for most common name, not title of article) find no significant coverage in RS and no suggestion that the subject meets WP:CREATIVE. ^Bongo_matic 23:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 13:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:51, 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 Deleted under G4. Content moved to WP:Article Incubator/Joel Warady for further evaluation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Warady[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article lol. NobleOwnage (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep If he is notable enough to be quoted and interviewed on NBC Nightly News, Fortune Magazine, CBS Money Watch and multiple magazines, I think think this is proof that Joel Warady is a respected leader in the marketing industry. Furthermore, Warady is a notable speaker and has held professorship positions at several universities. FunnyDuckIsFunny (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. Fails WP:N. Also written as an advertisement. Basket of Puppies 00:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted under G4. Since it appears to have some potential (see GNews Search), I'm going to send it to the article incubator here shortly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:37, 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 Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Bermudez Pereira[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author lacking GHits of substance and with no GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. The author of the article removed a PROD. ttonyb (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notable third party coverage. -Drdisque (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Book appear to be published using a vanity publisher. ttonyb (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Ttonyb1. If it's not on Google, it doesn't exist. Well, it does, but it's not notable, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A long article, but the only thing even vaguely asserting notability is his book publications... and they're published by a vanity press and not mentioned in any readily discoverable reliable sources, so... yeah. —Smeazel (talk) 05:00, 24 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) 00:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Ho Show Chennai[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable org, and no reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 23:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero gHits, dubious claims of notability -Drdisque (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise the author of this article to pursue a career in popular music journalism, as this article is written in exactly the right style for that genre. It is not, however, an encyclopedia article, but a review of a concert by a very notable artist without any indication that this individual concert is notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wikipedia is not a repository for concert reviews. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 26 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) 00:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurs Bootcamp[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable and no reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this event. Joe Chill (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Drdisque (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a local sales and training presentations workshop. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 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 Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nanua Chaprasi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, no reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiable claim of notability -Drdisque (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Edward321 (talk) 00:01, 22 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. This was a promotional piece in a pretty straightforward manner. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Mayol[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability and reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious vanity -Drdisque (talk) 04:01, 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 Keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Model Nonprofit Corporation Act[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. non-notable. possibly a hoax. page has been created by a sockpuppet (Thespian Seagull) of a banned user (Sarsaparilla). this banned user is known for creating hoax articles. page has no substantial edits by other users. page contains only one external link; this link is broken. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any model act promulgated by the ABA is notable. Not a hoax; see [1]. TJRC (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —TJRC (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, yet new, Uniform law. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. many sources are available, see here and there. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The law is relatively new, it will take time for google searches to give abundant results. There are plenty of laws that are hundreds of years of age that one will not find reference to on google. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 17:32, 25 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) 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested proposed deletion. Non-notable, non-consumer, unreferenced software or web content: a web-based Project and Portfolio management application aimed at satisfying a business' governance needs. Google News archives yield nothing about this business on the first several pages, although hits to Cardini's, a restaurant involved in the history of Caesar salad, are plentiful. That's a notable business. This is not. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:38, 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. No arguments to keep - defaulting to delete Kevin (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Fernhout[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although it may be a case of FUTON bias, I don't see much anything on this person. No books, no news. I can't even find a reliable source for them on the net. I have to assume that the one book cited has a lot of info on the person, perhaps all the info in the article, but even if it does that is only one source and so does not constitute significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Odie5533 (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a claim of notability here -Drdisque (talk) 04:04, 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 keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the original nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religious (R. Kelly song)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination for IP. Original nomination statement below, pasted from article's talk page. lifebaka++ 18:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fails the criteria for music singles. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have charted, so I am not sure in what way it "fails the criteria for WP:MUSIC." Rlendog (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NM criteria. Should be considered to be merged to the parent article, in this case Untitled (R. Kelly album), should the article not grow beyond a perma-stub. — ξ ^xplicit 04:08, 23 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) 06:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nagaruki Ryu Jujitsu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Non-notable martial art variant. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 ghits, one of which is this AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:15, 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. sourcers need to be demonstrated not claimed Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Society Institute[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it seems there are actually some sources out there for this organization, I found them just by using the 'find sources" links above. However, the article needs cleaned up and needs the sources added to the article.Wacko Jack O 13:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references listed in article, no indication of notability. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there seems to be two such societies - one in Estonia and one in Slovenia. Bearian (talk) 00:58, 28 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) 22:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Othman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

imdb only shows her in this one role, the film is a short, and imdb doesn't make any mention of any awards. Claims of notability, but there are only 74 Google hits for her and zero Google news hits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexius08 (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some people seem to assume that just having any IMDb credits is sufficient to establish notability. It isn't. —Smeazel (talk) 03:15, 24 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 of the arguments for keep fail WP:AADD; the former fails to address the issues of notability and the latter is simply a vote. The deletes give sufficient rationale to have a consensus among them to delete this article. NW (Talk) 20:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Drift[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination for IP. Original nomination statement below, pasted from article's talk page. lifebaka++ 05:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced, no indication of notability. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I suspect it will be notable once released. [2] might count as independent and is likely reliable. Searching around I found a number of similar sources... Hobit (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Posted by BlackJacketStudios" - so no, not independent. Marasmusine (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite This is a note-worthy game, even if it's a little obscure. It's getting a release on Steam, and it has the some mention-worthy talent behind it (the team who did Tribes). There's no reason to delete it, especially considering it'll finally get an active community next week once it's released. 147.9.230.78 (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. There are some press releases doing the rounds, and some commentry on those press releases [3]. Start again if magazines can be bothered to review it after release. Marasmusine (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the arguments to keep are stronger than delete -Drdisque (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm still unable to find much information and it's not even an updated title on main gaming news websites. I agree that it might well become notable because its on Steam, but until there are outside sources past press releases and at very least third-party game reviews, it should go. Being a Steam project doesn't give automatic notability by legacy. ...Last, I know it's not actual grounds to delete, but I'm still always suspicious toward single-purpose accounts that have no other contributions even though they've had ample time to improve the page or work elsewhere. A PROD tag was deleted without reason originally and the author hasn't done any real work sense the AfD tag more than a week ago. Opportunity has certainly been given to improve but hasn't happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datheisen (talk • contribs) 13:17, 22 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) 05:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euan Blair[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following talk page discussion and per WP:NOTINHERITED. His only claim to fame is being the son of Tony Blair. Pontificalibus (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it is noted that there are a number of reliable sources mentioning him, this is not enough in itself to justify retaining the article and does not preclude deletion. None of those articles are substantively about himself other than in relation to his actions as the son of Tony Blair.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1,420 google news hits, some of them have to establish notability UltraMagnus^speak 21:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones, exactly? A search engine result page is not a source citation, and hit counts mean nothing at all, as should be well known (at least by Wikipedia editors) by now. Uncle G (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first three Gnews hits are from major UK newspapers, and as you should know, Gnews tends to only show reliable sources --UltraMagnus^speak 05:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: That assertion is not true at all. World Net Daily shows up in Google News, and it's not an acceptable source. In addition, Gnews brings up tons of hits to non-notable blogs. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. Agreed. The percentage of Google News hits that is reliable is much higher than that of general Google web hits, but we still need to examine each individual potential source to determine its reliability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I agree that individuals shouldn't have a page on Wikipedia just because they are related to somebody notable. However, Euan Blair has, rightly or wrongly, attracted a lot of media attention for various reasons, so I'd say he passes the GNG that way. I certainly don't thing WP:NOTINHERITED should be interpreted so that all media coverage arising from an individual's association with a notable person should be automatically disregarded. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although his notability primarily derives from being the son of Tony Blair, Euan Blair generates enough media attention in his own right to warrant his own article. In that regard he is different to perhaps the younger Blair children (Nicky, Kathryn and Leo) or the Cameron children whose notability is only ever in the context of their parents. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to his parents. So far he has achieved nothing notable apart from being his father's son. This led the press to pick up and report his doings what would be WP:TRIVIA for any one else, but that does not stop them being NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the record - I originally closed this as keep with merging discussion on the talk page. Per a subsequent suggestion, I reverted the close since this is a WP:BLP, after all, and there are some concerns about sourcing. Tim Song (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-public figure. The only things that he is known for are that he behaved like a typical sixteen-year-old when he was sixteen, and that one of his mother's indiscretions involved his student accommodation. The subject has not sought publicity, or done anything that would have come anywhere near being notable if he wasn't his parents' child, so we should leave him in peace. The only bit of content that is at all encyclopedic is the sentence about the controversy over his student flat, and that is already covered in Cherie Blair's article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Phil Bridger above. I just removed a paragraph that discusses his appendectomy. Talk about trivia. I also notice repeated BLP violations that are hanging around for months at a time - almost six in this one example. At best it could be merged to Cherie Blair, but right now it's just a classic example of WP:NOTINHERITED - Alison ^❤ 01:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is not notable in his own right, tabloid style media coverage is not enough to show notability. Kevin (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How is any of this notability not related to his father, and more importantly how is anything that goes into the parent article independent of what goes into the subject article? Shadowjams (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: he cannot inherit the fame from his father. Alexius08 (talk) 11:51, 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 delete. the !vote by the anonymous IP must be discounted because its only edit is this AfD discussion. If better sources can be found then consider deletion review (you could do it anyway, but more sources would help the case) Valley2city^‽ 03:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Edward Battista[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for deletion because I believe it does not assert the notability of the subject; specifically, the subject does not meet any of the WP:BIO guideline's conditions for creative professionals. The article reads more like a resume than an objective piece about a notable person. Furthermore, I believe there may be some WP:COI/WP:Autobiography issues, as the original author and main contributor has the username User:EddieB317, a name very similar to that of the subject's (Thomas Edward Battista). Aka042 (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is from a reliable source. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:11, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 12 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. This is significant to Indianapolis.
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage in reliable sources, doesn't meet any of the criteria for inclusion. Lara 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not believe that the article noted by Eastmain is sufficient to show notability. With this depth of coverage we need to see several similar articles. Kevin (talk) 21:59, 22 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 Close per nominator request at the bottom of this AFD. Non-admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A mass deletion of The Asylum's movies. I am using this deletion as prescient.

Tim1357 (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mass deletion - These films should be taken individually. One cannot say that all films from this company have received the exact same amount of coverage as any other. For example, Snakes on a Train had a review in Variety magazine. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you find an article who's deletion you contest, remove it from the above list (and don't forget to remove the template from the article). Please provide a brief reason why in your edit summary.Tim1357 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mass deletion - I think there are only a few instances in which mass deletions such as this are appropriate. Lumping 43 movies like this together isn't one of them. This doesn't fit any of the scenarios under WP:BUNDLE in which a mass delete is appropriate (articles with identical content, hoax articles by same editor, spam articles by same editor, articles of identical manufactured products). Throwing them into a mass delete only succeeds in making it more cumbersome to make the case that these movies are notable. They should be taken one at a time. Just a very preliminary Google search turns up several sources for Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus ([4] [5] [6] [7]). (For the record, I particularly oppose the deletion of that one.) These are independent, verifiable sources and even if they aren't much, they are a start; but by lumping 43 films into one place, it makes it impossible to make the case for each individually... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mass deletion: I participated in the 18-year-old virgin AfD, looked only at that movie, and didn't contemplate this kind of result. I think each movie needs to be addressed individually. Cumbersome perhaps, but the prior AfD didn't suggest that every asylum movie should be deleted.--Milowent (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist each individually on their own merits. There are far too many for this one, and there are at least a few in there that should be kept anyway. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as nom. Whoops i Guess I wasn't supposed to do that. I added them all thinking that people would remove the deletions like they do with PRODS. Can an someone with Rollback undo all the tagging of the articles? Or if they cant I can do it. Thanks for not yelling at me ! Tim1357 (talk) 00:21, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GroupMe![edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website Strongyards (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 15:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.-Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 22:25, 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. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rentwiki.com[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software Strongyards (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 15:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting idea, but don't see this being here. Yet. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:05, 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.

Film does not appear to be notable. A google search throws up no reliable sources, thus the information currently in the article cannot be verified or corroborated, never mind expanded beyond 2 sentences.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Wembacher[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesn't cite references, and I wasn't able to find any reliable sources independent of the subject, so the article seems likely to fail the general notability criterion. It appears that the article author might have a conflict of interest. HaeB (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are considerably more references out there of another Stephan Wembacher (Doctor of Medicine) that even seems more notable.. -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 22:34, 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 No consensus to delete. However, RadioFan's challenge to the reliability of the sources is a very strong one, and I would hope to see a more thorough discussion of that issue if this article is brought back to AfD in future. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Eldee[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested prod, lacks notability, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Largely promotional article. RadioFan (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search result for Eldee "Lanre Dabiri". There are several independent sources (e.g. [8],[9],[10]) sufficient for inclusion. Article needs to rewrite. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment existing of Google hits doesn't guarantee notability. The reliability of these sources is not clear. They appear to be self published.--RadioFan (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep due sources such as these: [11], [12], [13] & [14]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snorre (talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yanno, that latter one is not going to work, as it's a duplicate of the page here on WP - but those last three might just do it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:49, 25 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) 00:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin S. C. Filiberto[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Appears to just be an autobiographical resume. PROD declined by author - no reasons given. Singularity42 (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no claim of notability -Drdisque (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: CSD needs more than a generic notable flag, but in no way do I think that means the article should kept in its current state. With no resources or links whatsoever it's impossible to even evaluate under any normal notability or verification standard, and looks like a direct copy of text from elsewhere that read like WP:BIO concerns. The same text is actually on the user's namespace and has been edited there several times. That the user's talk page it titled a highly "suspicious" name if you compare with the article is a bit of icing on the cake. In all seriousness, user has been appropriately warned several times on his talkpage with the only adjustment to the article being the removal of PROD tag without reason given in the edit summary. Short of something dull to say, I'm going to drag a pile of policies around and plow them under one heap of WP:DUCK. Datheisen (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Actually, it does meet one of the CSD criteria, A7. Fer cryin' out loud, there's nothing here that even remotely asserts notability—an article like this would be perfectly suitable for Wikipopuli, but it doesn't belong here. —Smeazel (talk) 03:24, 24 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) 00:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Around the World in 80 Days - A Musical Abstraction[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find any references for notablity of this album, or even any clarification if it was just a studio work, or a recording of an actual musical/play, which some listings suggest. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pr nomination -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: db-album. Joe Chill (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An admin declined it and said to wait for the AFD to finish. What is the point? Joe Chill (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable production. Warrah (talk) 20:32, 26 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) 00:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U2 record sales[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is essentially a list of information that is also found and made available through U2 discography; it serves no real purpose. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are many U2 fans out there that want to see sales information for their country, or for a specific record, or for things other than albums. This is not well represented in U2 discography, and the by-country list is not there at all. I created this article because the information was not available in U2 discography. I refer you to similar articles: The Beatles' record sales,Records and achievements of Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley hit albums, Elvis Presley hit singles. Granted, some of these other articles have citation issues, but the desire to get accurate sales and certification information for a mega-selling artist, by album, by country, and in total, is valid. LaurenceDunne (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is beyond unnecessary. This type of information should be summarized in the discography article, not broken out like an essay of original research. And just because this article is useful doesn't mean it justifies its existence (e.g. WP:Useful). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this, merge some of it to U2 discography where feasible. I think this is a good faith effort and I don't see any essay or original research in it. However, it's too much detail and doesn't merit an article separate from the regular discography. The Beatles and Michael Jackson examples are different cases, as they are listing chart and sales records; U2 isn't big enough selling to have any of those kinds of records. The Elvis articles are also different in that he's got a really long and complex discography that's difficult to present easily, especially in the 1950s when there were many different kinds and makers of charts and he was on all of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see that the article has many good intentions. I started to fix the internal links until i realised just how many there are needing to be fixed. The organisation could be better, say by country alphabetically and then within each country to list releases chronologically. The cited examples by the article creator of like articles are not of a similar nature to this article. By its design this article has the potential to grow, not only with future releases by U2, but by adding in sales for every country. The article size is already 44kb. I can see this growing so large as to need to break it down into smaller articles, by say continents, and that seems excessive. Most people read the album or single article. Merging the data into those articles would be a more user friendly presentation of the data in the U2 record sales article. The claim in the lead paragraph that herein are reliable stats implies that other stated sales stats, including those in Wikipedia's other articles, are unreliable. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 04:47, 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 delete. NW (Talk) 20:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Butler Coomber[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Concerned that it does not assert notability. "won PR awards for its media relations" is a bit ambiguous, and the rest of it hints at advertisement. SGGH ^ping! 15:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: note WP:COI for article's creator. MuffledThud (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Added support for award and cleaned up article; however, I am concerned the article is too much like an advertisement. ttonyb (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still fits the typical spam profile, a an international boutique Public Relations agency that specialises in technology and the environment ... (m)arkets include security, mobile and wireless, storage, IT hardware and software. Unlikely that this business will ever become a household name. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Though Ihcoyc is correct in saying that it is unlikely they will become a household name they do appear to fall weakly within notability guidelines. Article needs serious attention from a non-CoI editor. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The offered references seem to be entirely press releases, and are moreover routine announcements that the business has been retained by one firm or another. Even my weak German can figure out the gist of Pressemitteilung. And neither "silicon.com" nor "sys-net.com" would appear to be sites with anything other than "limited interest and circulation", not widely read outside the field. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and self-advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snorre (talk • contribs) 23:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: spam article written by User:Grandbutlercoomber, who chose to focus on awards and list of clients. Alexius08 (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note also that the creator's account was blocked indefinitely for spamusername on the day the article was created. MuffledThud (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam which goes against WP:PROMOTION. Them From Space 00:27, 25 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 keep argument has clearly not swayed the other opinions present Kevin (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Al-Roumi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:BIO. References show only that subject's been on the board of directors on some companies ~~of unknown notability~~; very little available in English about the subject online. Article reads like a resume. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that this article shouldn't be deleted for the following reasons:

Reason 1: The article has been adjusted to be written from a neutral point of view and does no longer read like a resume.
Reason 2: The subject has been quoted many times in many international press releases such as:
http://www.btflive.net/exchanges/company.php?op=viewnewdetail&compid=71&newid=19326
http://www.gulfbase.com/site/interface/CompanyProfileSummary.aspx?c=872
http://www.da.gov.kw/eng/newsroom/newsDetails.php?id=2667

...to name a few.

Reason 3: The subject is a notable figure in Kuwait and has held very esteemed and noteworthy positions throughout his career.
Reason 4: There exist many other subjects listed in Wikipedia that aren't as notable as this.

Hope this issue is resolved soon. Kuwait78 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There exist many external links i just added that according to WP:RS applies as a secondary source. It also proves that the subject of the article is notable in Kuwait as he is constantly mentioned in press releases monthly and constantly meets leader heads in Kuwait, as posted in several of the external links in the article. In addition to the information posted in the article, he also served in several board member positions in internationally renowned banks and companies.The subject clearly satisfies several of the conditions posted in WP:BIO According to WP:BIOa subject is qualified if "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" and if "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Being head of the Parternship Technical Bureau, that as cited in many notable articles and releases such as http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidv52n38-3NC09/Kuwait%20Moves%20Towards%20Water%2FPower%20Privatization%20Through%20First%20IWPP/ The partnership technical bureau is a newly established governing vehicle incharge of all major government projects that involve the private sector from international and local companies. Therefore there has been a sparked interest about this governing body and head of the organization and therefore enables the subject of the article to comply with "worthy of notice" as "interesting enough to deserve attention" It also complies with "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" as being the chairman of one of the biggest companies in kuwait and being a highly ranked official in the government. To name one project that the partnership technical bureau is incharge of establishing that is generating huge interest is article http://www.roadex-railex.com/images/pdf/Kuwaitseekspartnersinthreetransportprojects29July09GN.pdf he is establishing three transportation system projects that include building a metro in Kuwait.

Does this prove enough that he does comply as an entry to the english wikipedia ?

Kuwait78 (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - :The organizations mentioned don't yet have articles on Wikipedia, though they do appear to be notable. However, being head of a notable organization doesn't necessarily make a person notable, and articles about CEOs of notable companies often get deleted here if the subject can only assert notability by being the company's head. Several of the English links posted in the article don't even mention him, and the ones that do aren't actually about him, but rather mention him in passing as part of a news story about a company or group, rather than as the story's subject. I can't find any news articles or other reliable secondary sources per WP:RS which are about the man himself. MuffledThud (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see where notability is established here by WP:BIO. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Lara 17:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable as per guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snorre (talk • contribs) 23:28, 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 No consensus to delete. The option of a merge/redirect to Diplomacy (game) was not sufficiently explored in this discussion, and perhaps it should have been. I would encourage exploring the idea on the article's talk page. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Lepanto opening[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. While there is (brief) coverage of the opening it is not enough, particularly since those sources available fail the test of being third-party, reliable and independent. Of the sources I can find one was written in an unreliable 'zine by the inventor of the opening and the rest are similarly unreliable (player zines that aren't just written by amateurs but, as player magazines, don't really work as evidence of notability). Ironholds (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few more sources, including a mainstream published book, and articles from Wizards of the Coast, manufacturers of the game. David^(Talk) 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"manufacturers of the game", yes. Hardly third-party and independent. Ironholds (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to violate WP:NOTHOWTO, as it's instructional material for playing a game. It's possible for an encyclopedic article to be written on a specific game strategy, but this isn't it. Powers ^T 20:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we generally keep notable openings/strategies around. [15] lists a 100 or so for chess, and [16] shows a dozen or so bidding conventions for bridge. I don't think diplomacy is in the same league as chess or bridge, but I also don't think this is any more a HOWTO than they are. And yes, I know about OTHERSTUFF. I just think this shows that we have a wide agreement that this type of article isn't in violation of NOTHOWTO. Rather it is documenting a notable thing, not teaching people how to do something. Hobit (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I noted, it's possible for an encyclopedic article to be written on a specific game strategy. Your examples merely illustrate that point. My main point, however, is that this article is not encyclopedic; it is instructional. A good article on a chess opening would include things like how the opening was developed, which notable players favor it, and in what notable games it was used. This article has none of that. Powers ^T 14:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak keep~~ although I believe that merging to a diplomacy openings or strategy would be a good idea at some point. The WotC articles are qualify as reliable and independent. Coverage is more than in-passing but not "in depth". The book appears to be self-published so probably not reliable though it has many more details.. The other two sources are of questionable notability IMO. Even assuming WP:N is met (and I think it is) it seems like a poor topic to have a stand alone article on. But it really should be merged somewhere. If no good target exists, I'd suggest this be renamed to an article on Diplomacy strategies. Disclaimer: I've played this game a few times. note, changed to neutral, didn't notice that WotC now sells the game so those WotC sources aren't independent. Hobit (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A classic strategy game of enduring popularity deserves a few articles of interest only to players. The Lepanto may have been the first named opening in Diplomacy (see here), dating from 1971. Googling "Lepanto opening diplomacy" gets you 31K ghits, a fair number. I say keep it. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Sharp's book was published in print before being moved to the web, and at least some of the player zines have consistently high quality and serious editor review, making them WP:RS. As for whether they are independent, insofar as there is no monetary stake in the game (such as, say, for employees of Hasbro), so I would say they are in the Wikipedia sense. This support is weak because, well, I am as capable of being swayed by strong emotion as anybody, and I was most strongly delighted at encountering so old and familiar a friend in so unexpected a place. Ray^Talk 15:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But even if the sources are reliable and independent, is there anything to say about the opening besides how it's done? Powers ^T 16:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I remember reading a detailed discussion, once upon a time (long before I started here on Wikipedia), complete with statistics and commentary, about its effect on the mid-to-late game, probability of success given various parameters, etc. So yes, I think the article has the potential for expansion. Ray^Talk 19:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, but I will have to continue to recommend deletion until such a source can be presented. Powers ^T 15:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:30, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelmina Baldwin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject's only claim to fame appears to be winning a local prize for students, and I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. None of the Google Books or Scholar hits linked above are about this Wilhelmina Baldwin, and the only ones of the Google News hits that are are diirectory entries at Artprice.com. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Questionable notability, but the greater issue to my mind is lack of reliable sources. There's an additional ref here [17], but it's not enough to really source the article to standard. --Whoosit (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and no reliable sources. Looks like self-advertising. -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -Drdisque (talk) 04:14, 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 Speedy deleted G7 by R'n'B (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) –Katerenka (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Word Alive[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also requesting that the page be salted. An article of a very recently deleted page. See the last deletion log. The result was delete. The author even agrees that he failed to look over the AfD, and apologize and wants the page deleted. I need extra help on this one. Some people aren't working with me.--Krazycev 13 20:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't read over or follow any guidlines or anything and I now believe that this page should not exist due to absence of relevance and notability. Loshgoobii (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominated, and pr author's request. Should be protected/salted -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 23:52, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Islanders in the United Kingdom[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic is of questionable notability. Article includes some statistics that are perfectly well covered by Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom and some coverage which is better placed at Fijians in the United Kingdom and Māori in the United Kingdom, but nothing much beyond that. It's not even clear whether there is a self-identifying "Pacific Islander community" in the UK rather than a small group of immigrants from each of a number of states in the Pacific. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --John (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 21:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pr nomination -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completionism taken too far. Abductive (reasoning) 06:34, 24 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) 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kházard[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional, role-playing character. PROD declined by author - no reasons given. Singularity42 (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per suggestions of discussion creator. It would appear that this started as a test/sandbox page for this editor if you look through the edit history and its quality was never significantly improved after its creation. Notification of original PROD was deleted off editor's talk page with edit summary "Replaced content with 'nah'". Though that can't be a direct reason here, to me it shows that some comment from the creating editor of this page would be all the more helpful toward an ASF; As the creator new user I hope this discussion can help with future article contributions. Datheisen (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. Lots of people love ale and cheese, including me - but that's not important right now. It's unclear as to whether this is a NPC or a player-created character, but any given character in WOW is not inherently notable, and it would be damn hard to achieve this to begin with. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification -- Technically, I think the claim of notability through acting like an inebriated mouse would still need to be verified with outside sources. Datheisen (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think A7 applies. Unless it can be argued that a World of Warcraft character is "web content", it doesn't fall into the narrow scope of A7. Singularity42 (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Though I know CSD is open to interpretation and there's some merit in the tag, I think the normal AfD process should suffice and it's appropriate to give a new user an opportunity to improve the article first before the actual delete decision is made by an admin. Datheisen (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE -- The AfD tag was deleted off the main article page by its creator here[18]. I undid the change with explanation given in edit summary. Datheisen (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also notified the user about removing AfD and CSD tags (although I'm still not sure if CSD applies to this article...) Singularity42 (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE -- The speedy delete tag was removed by an administrator here[19] so I assume things will continue as normal as an AfD discussion. Datheisen (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, no matter, I stand by my !vote. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh fine. Curse everyone's right to have an opinion around here. Worth actual mention though; A google search of the character name doesn't even show it having an entry in WoWWiki. I... suppose that also means it's not "web content" under A7 since there's no web content to contest. Datheisen (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Even if it's not eligible for A7 for being about a fictional character, it's eligible for A1, short article with no context. BlazerKnight (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also a fair point, but then I could say that G1 applies as to many possible visitors the only words on the page that look like English would be "cheese and ale". (Entirely in jest) Datheisen (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, and ROFL speedy please :) -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and ban creator for being an Orc Troll Wizard -Drdisque (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I googled the name and found several results on forums and RP guild sites - this appears to be a non-notable player character. Strangely there's far more information on those sites though. MorganaFiolett (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is one of the game's NPCs, then redirect to WoW. If he is a player, then speedy deletion under A7 is appropriate. Can anyone clarify which it is? Marasmusine (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned before, Google results are coming from IC guild websites etc. The most telling appears to be this one http://www.grs.webfire.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1139.0 which seems to be announcing Khazard Stormaxe as the winner of an in-game competition. If it was an in-game NPC, there would be something in WoWWiki, I'm sure. MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely tertiary video game characters don't usually meet criteria for an article and offering a redirect to WoW is a little generous; That gives it recognition of existence that is worth entry in Wikipedia all the same as its own article would. Games with comprehensive Wikipedia articles might have characters mentioned but very few can get farther. I know this is bickering on semantics in some ways, but redirects are generally for things that normally would either be merged or just fall into a larger category. We're not in the business of keeping a full list of NPCs from games (I think). Ship this mead-sipping chap over to his appropriate gaming Wikia, please. Datheisen (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Before anyone else says Speedy Delete under A7, please keep in mind that A7 has a very narrow scope, and video game characters do not fall in it. Administrators have already declined a speedy delete under A7 for this article. Singularity42 (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don't think we're in the habit of listing player characters at all, unless they're like Leeroy Jenkins. Which this guy, from what I can tell, isn't. MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:45, 23 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) 00:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Nalina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this model satisfies the GNG or any specialized guideline; listed "references" fail WP:RS and are mostly links to back issue magazine retailers; no indication article can be expanded beyond stub -- no Gnews hits, GHits appear to be only galleries and magazine retailers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies note 3 on WP:PORNBIO as a two-time Playboy Playmate. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to delete. Misread the playmate thing. !vote is per convo below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She's never been a Playboy Playmate (in fact, there's not even a claim she ever appeared in Playboy itself), and she's not a porn actress. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working off of the assertions that she's been in there. If she's not a playmate, she's not a playmate, but is appearance in the book of lingerie good enough for the purpose? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally not. The guideline links to the Playmate article, which defines its subject specifically as the centerfold model in the magazine itself. This model has appeared only in what are usually referred to as Playboy "newsstand specials," and those models aren't automatically notable. See, for example, List_of_Playboy_NSS_models_A-F. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a playmate, not notable per GNG or PORNBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To hot to Delete [20] & [21] -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable according to PORNBIO and GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:50, 22 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. I would like to commend Joe Chill on the work he did on this AfD, which was conclusive. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Ashford.com[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Infamous online spammer; speedy deletion declined; no reliable sources can document the notability of the company or the website. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], and [27]. Joe Chill (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over. The article should not be advertising ashford.com, it should be describing ashford.com. If they're an infamous spammer, as per the nom, that alone connotes some notability. That said, cite 6 that Joe Chill found is a good start. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to keep per work done by Sedoya. Good job. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been updated to include Joe Chill's links From USA Today and Published Books. Any form of promotional language WP:NPOV has been removed and WP:NOTE guidelines have been met Seyoda (talk) 14:09, 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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cavebones[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly not notable Norwegian band, nothing to suggest the contrary Random Time 18:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of the band. Delete unless this can be found. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems non-notable, but reliable sources are out there: [28] (Newspaper). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snorre (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by the same reasons given by users Jujutacular and Joe Chill.--Canniba loki 15:32, 26 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) 00:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protect Marriage Washington[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, one-note religious group that has never done anything but lobby to get a single political referendum introduced in one single state. He Died For Your Evil Sins (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree, fails WP:CORP. Sort of want to say fails WP:BLP1E but that's for biographies. Is there an equivalent policy for other categories of subject?Simonm223 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm not going vote since I created the article. I'm going to make a case though. Yes, they probably will fade away in a few weeks and are a "one-note" group but being a one-hit wonder doesn't make them non-notable. I disagree with them failing CORPS. Here is an article from the New York Times mentioning them. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/us/21signatures.html. Here is one from the LA Times. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-confidential23-2009oct23,0,7762080.story. The Supreme Court and the Washington State Supreme Courts have heard cases from them. Also, there is a keep vote in the talk page of the article if that helps my case at all. I'll go with the consensus though. P.S. Sorry, Wikipedia isn't allowing me to log in properly so I'm approximating on my time stamp. NeoJustin ^{(Talk page)} 03:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.214.252 (talk) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Www.apollo.lv[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as non-notable, and the article as it stands provides no context or information about the subject. It might be improved, but the notability issue is questionable. My attention was drawn to the article through this odd edit summary. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 17:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no views on whether this should be kept, it simply did not meet A7 criteria. I felt that being a nationally known website was a claim of notability. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find sources. Won't A7, TeaDrinker is right, it asserts notability. Somebody find more sources and change my mind? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this news source, but I'm linguistically challenged- if someone could translate, it could be a reliable source. If not, we're all doomed. :( A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 20:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Google Translate gives the following. While obviously not perfect, I can't see how this source is related to the Apollo site. BlazerKnight (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google translation

The prize of the contest the audience photos of the city of Ventspils, Aivars 2009 receives Kesteris

For an exhibition of photographs of the city of Ventspils, the relevant committee was selected 40 works that have from 21 to 24 September to inspect and evaluate the visitors Ventspils Portal (www.ventspils.lv).

With their vote was determined by the recipient of the prize spectators. The best work was recognized Aivar Kesteris "Dream Valdemārs", for which byly voted 115 visitors to the portal. In voting at the Ventspils portal participated in a total of 312 people.

Former liepachanin Aivars Kesteris, for three years residing in the city of Ventspils, in the competition Ventspils Tourism Information Office "Photos of Ventspils has participated for the first time. Aivars is a professional photographer engaged in photography 38 years. He still works in Liepaja photo studio and commissioned by the portal www.apollo.lv prepares photographic coverage of the city of Ventspils.

Sam rassazyvaet photographer: "My work often appreciate my friends, acquaintances and professionals in the field of photography, with whom I communicate with us www.draugiem.lv. Their advice helps me maintain the high quality of work. Photo Dream Valdemārs "was created during the event" Octoberfest "in the last year, when the town for a few minutes was covered in fog. Interestingly, viewers will get a prize on the day of the anniversary of this picture. "

At Ventspils organized tourist information center at the competition were presented a total of 563 works of twenty-five authors. With the help of the voting members of the competition commission identified conquerors of the first, second and third places. The winners received awards on Friday, September 25, at Ventspils ferry terminal (on the street Darzu, 6) during the celebrations on the occasion of the International Day of Tourism and the 10 th anniversary of the Ventspils TIC. Ibid place and the opening of the exhibition of forty of the best photos of the city of Ventspils. This exhibition will be open until the end of 2009. The above-mentioned event received a special prize and the winner of a vote on the portal of Ventspils Aivars Kesteris.

Delete As the editor who speedied it in the first place, I believed that it was non-notable; 6th most visited in Latvia? But maybe a speedy A7 was too hasty. Delete as no context if article is not expanded. BlazerKnight (talk) 21:29, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1%er American Wealth[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a fork from Household income in the United States; even uses the same templates. Title must be a neologism. I watch the news almost every day and haven't come across it yet. The mentioning of those celebrities is unsourced and... well, I don't know what point the author's trying to make with it. The table itself can be found in the main article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sorry to say. Nice work to the author involved. However, already covered under Distribution of wealth. To the author, you may want to stop over at that piece and contribute. Your work would be a nice addition. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Distribution of wealth per Shoessss' comment. Excellent work, but it's probably better in that article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism invented on Wikipedia.--Dbratland (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unique to this article, no other appearances on the entire internet. Abductive (reasoning) 03:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork, also violates WP:NOR as synthesis. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:44, 22 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. The nominator is encouraged to pay particular attention to DGG's remarks concerning WP:BEFORE. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

List of giant animals in fiction[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is nothing but WP:OR. The list will never be anything beyond a list of characters that users like and think are moderately large. Unless there are reliable sources which describe a good amount of fictional characters as giant, then it will never be encyclopedic, and it would even be questionable then. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some animals may be disputable, but some are indisputable, like Godzilla; But if we don't want to use common sense, there we could finds sources for describing him as a giant: see a few thousand of them [29] in just Google Scholar , in fact, the third item on that search talks about both of them him and King Kong as giants in a comparison). So there are two at least which count, and so actual sources are possible for items in this list. I am frankly a little exasperated at people coming here with things they say cannot be sourced, when they haven't found the obvious ones in even the Google. WP: BEFORE should be an absolute requirement for any AfD involving sources or notability. Besides saving work for everyone else, it would guard people from making (some) public errors. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so we have two, but I doubt the list would get very large, and most entries would still be OR. On another note, why is this encyclopedic? Godzilla could also fit under List of fictional green animals, but that, and this list, violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – We have lists of List of giants in mythology and folklore – List of giant sequoia groves – List of giants – list of giant squid specimens and sightings – List of giant monster films and on and on and on. Why not List of giant animals in fiction? It is informative, can be easily sourced and is a viable search term. What more can we ask for an article here at Wikipedia. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I doubt that most entries will be original research. There is a lot of giant monster movies. Joe Chill (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note that all the lists given above are different things than the current list. In this list, "giant" is an arbitrary adjective that can be applied at an editor's whim, whereas the lists you gave include "giant" as a noun and giant monster movies are a film subgenre, and giant squid does not refer to squids which are giant, but to an actual unique species. In every case, those lists are not related to this one in any way; they are clearly defined, while this one is arbitrary and OR. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote has nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Shoessss is the one who used that argument. Giant monster movies is a film subgenre, but what is in many of them? Giant animals like giant spiders, fish, and lizards. Starting there would be a good start. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or mythical animals like Cerberus, griffins, Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot. Joe Chill (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need a definition. From Wiktionary, inadequate as I think it usually is for definitions, it's just "very large." American Heritage, which I think does things clearly, has "a person or thing of extraordinary size", which would imply a rabbit , or whatever, being presented in the film specifically as extraordinarily larger than typical for that sort of animal, or for animals in general. I consider OED useless for this sort of thing as it gives every meaning found. Variations are possible. I agree it's vague along the fringes. most qualitative terms are, but they still have meaning. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to apologize for accidentally putting my comment under the wrong person. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It reads like WP:OR and there are no references. It is also confusing because some of these animals are actually monsters from movies or characters from Pokemon cartoons. Warrah (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally as listcruft and more specifically as original research about a collection of information which is not notable as the list itself hasn't been duplicated in this manner in other reliable sources. We can't publish lists like this if they are not already commented-on in reliable, third-party sources. Bringing together a collection of notable entities as an article in itself is original research unless the list itself has recieved significant attention. Them From Space 00:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Not a very good article right now, but sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No one has provided evidence that the page is irredeemable. It's certainly notable. Abyssal (talk) 03:58, 27 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 under G4 - Recreation of an article deleted at AFD. This version is a word-for-word copy of the deleted article, so it fits the criteria and is deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pilat (Pilot)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested prod, not clear how this podcaster might meet WP:BIO. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources (zero relevant Google new, book or scholar hits) RadioFan (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE already deleted like 3 days ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Pilat (Pilot) Tim1357 (talk) 18:30, 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. Already deleted. Tone 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Studies Relating to A Closed System Drug Transfer Device[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This looks to be a synthesis of published material that advances a position (WP:SYNTH), therefore violating WP:OR. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising. There might be a possibility for a NPOV article on PhaSeal if it is indeed widely used in practice. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:05, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hopping Stone Vision[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sourcing or evidence that this story has any significance. It's been published only via an online press, and no evidence is given of any critical coverage, reviews, or other real-world context. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with C Fred's assessment. The author is a new user getting used to the Wikipedia environment. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally prodded it for the same reason. I commend the user for creating an above-average class first article though. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:43, 23 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) 00:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alaspin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to the list of planets already in the main article, Humanx Commonwealth or possibly at the page for whatever novel best applies. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete as per order of null. Simonm223 (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional element that hasn't received any coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:25, 22 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) 00:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tran-Ky-Ky[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete as per order of null. Simonm223 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional element that hasn't received any coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:27, 22 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) 00:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treetrunk[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as with the others already in the list in the main article or wherever fits best DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete as per order of null. Simonm223 (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional element that hasn't received any coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:28, 22 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) 00:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrassis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect as appropriate, as with the others. Somehow, this process does not seem a good way to sort these out. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with DGG; there is a process for an AfD on a group of related articles. AfDing each page is a pain in the lower-back region. Notwithstanding this the article, like the others, is an un-referenced fork of an un-referenced fork and as such notable material should be rolled back as appropriate (redirect, merge or delete, whatever works). I love Sci-Fi but I don't love fancruft.Simonm223 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional element that hasn't received any coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:27, 22 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) 00:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pitar (fictional planet)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a process for an AfD on a group of related articles. AfDing each page is a pain in the lower-back region. Notwithstanding this the article, like the others, is an un-referenced fork of an un-referenced fork and as such notable material should be rolled back as appropriate (redirect, merge or delete, whatever works). I love Sci-Fi but I don't love fancruft.Simonm223 (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional element that hasn't received any coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fancruft. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:31, 27 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) 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longtunnel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a process for an AfD on a group of related articles. AfDing each page is a pain in the lower-back region. Notwithstanding this the article, like the others, is an un-referenced fork of an un-referenced fork and as such notable material should be rolled back as appropriate (redirect, merge or delete, whatever works). I love Sci-Fi but I don't love fancruft.Simonm223 (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The novel Flinx in Flux introduced this planet to the Humanx Commonwealth universe." - I'd say that's a source. That being said, it's not as notable as many of the other fictional planets up for deletion. I hereby shrug and request no change from my two bits. InitHello (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional element that hasn't received any coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:26, 22 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) 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hivehom[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect"' as above DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a process for an AfD on a group of related articles. AfDing each page is a pain in the lower-back region. Notwithstanding this the article, like the others, is an un-referenced fork of an un-referenced fork and as such notable material should be rolled back as appropriate (redirect, merge or delete, whatever works). I love Sci-Fi but I don't love fancruft.Simonm223 (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and simonm223.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional element that hasn't received any coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:25, 22 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 Humanx Commonwealth. — Jake Wartenberg 23:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cachalot (fictional planet)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I said keep before because it was pointed out the material existed in multiple places. It would probably be enough to redirect to the novel or the series. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a process for an AfD on a group of related articles. AfDing each page is a pain in the lower-back region. Notwithstanding this the article, like the others, is an un-referenced fork of an un-referenced fork and as such notable material should be rolled back as appropriate (redirect, merge or delete, whatever works). I love Sci-Fi but I don't love fancruft.Simonm223 (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this material belongs in the artile on the novel only. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional element that hasn't received any coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE per DGG. Ikip (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note information copied to: http://scifi.wikia.com/wiki/Cachalot_%28fictional_planet%29 Ikip (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and set redirect to Humanx Commonwealth where the subject has its notability. Google books supports enough coverage for its inclusion there. While the article is tagged for possible merge, I saw no discussion on its talk page... so here we are... discussing merge at AfD. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Humanx_Commonwealth_planets#Cachalot which has all the information there. That's the best place for it. Humanx Commonwealth and Cachalot (novel) list the information as well. Dream Focus 02:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources establish notability for this fictional, non-existent place in the reality-verse. If editors interested in the book deem it worthy of inclusion in the article about the book (perhaps they have already) some small portion of this might have a home there.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:15, 25 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 Humanx Commonwealth. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AAnn[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect, as above. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yikes! Just when I thought it was over! There is a process for an AfD on a group of related articles. AfDing each page is a pain in the lower-back region. Notwithstanding this the article, like the others, is an un-referenced fork of an un-referenced fork and as such notable material should be rolled back as appropriate (redirect, merge or delete, whatever works). I love Sci-Fi but I don't love fancruft.Simonm223 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DelMerRed per simonm223. slippery slope to these kinds of articles. the key is, does anyone outside the fanbase for this series talk about this?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you weren't interested in it, you wouldn't find your way here to begin with, so wouldn't notice it. Someone reads one book, mentioning the things, they might look up information to find out more about them. Just like the notable monsters/enemies in Doctor Who and Star Trek. Dream Focus 02:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said in the last AFD for this article, which happened back in August[30] there is enough valid information to fill its own article, so it shouldn't be merged with others. They have been featured in enough notable books to have their own article. Dream Focus 02:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. I'm not finding any sourceable information to merge. Abductive (reasoning) 00:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per DGG and Abductive, to Humanx Commonwealth. The content appears to be cut-and-paste, so a merger will not work. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 28 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 Humanx Commonwealth. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hur'rikku[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hur'rikku

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect, as above. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a process for an AfD on a group of related articles. AfDing each page is a pain in the lower-back region. Notwithstanding this the article, like the others, is an un-referenced fork of an un-referenced fork and as such notable material should be rolled back as appropriate (redirect, merge or delete, whatever works). I love Sci-Fi but I don't love fancruft.Simonm223 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
dmr per simonm223. i agree with his comments to the letter, and thats not a vulcan mind meld, just WP common sense.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject is a fictional alien race, not a planet. Edward321 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these non-memorable ancient extinct enemies of the Tar-Aiym have no Google News, Books or Scholar hits aside from Foster's own books. They are a less than an afterthought. Abductive (reasoning) 00:41, 28 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 Humanx Commonwealth. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tar-Aiym[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect, as above. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete, merge or redirect as above. Simonm223 (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
dmr as above.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject is a fictional alien race, not a planet. Edward321 (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Merging content about this fictional extinct race to other articles is not appropriate, as it is pure plot device. Abductive (reasoning) 00:38, 28 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 Humanx Commonwealth. Content remains in the edit history if a merge becomes necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midworld (fictional planet)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect, as above. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete, merge or redirect as above. Simonm223 (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete, merge or redirect as above. planet needs notability outside this fictional universe. example: inspiration for jungle planet from star wars series (which it is not i presume).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional element that hasn't received any coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:26, 22 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; the nomination was withdrawn after sourcing concerns have been met and there are no outstanding delete views. (non-admin close). Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lion and Unicorn Staircase[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, no third party coverage or references. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC) As much as it makes me look like an ass, the refs have been improved slightly so it doesn't look like a self congratulatory curcle jerk. Nom Withdrawn. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:02, 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. Kevin (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ningombam Bupenda Meitei[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this biography is not (yet) notable. Despite what appears to be prolific creation of material by the individual, good faith news, web, and book searches indicate that he has not attracted any ~~significant~~ coverage in reliable independent sources, nor has he won any awards, nor does he appear to satisfy any of the other criteria of WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Had the article's proponent[s] not repeatedly removed maintenance tags on the article, I would have waited a longer period of time before taking this to AfD, but it is clear that the key editor[s] of the article (despite my suspicion that [he is/they are] uniquely placed to know of any third-party material on the subject) have determined that it is capable of standing on the sources currently provided. ^Bongo_matic 11:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, the article is written ok and is not your usual gimme on AfD. I would lean toward a weak keep here or give time, but dang, really not one single source that I can see... Maybe we need a Bengali editor or someone from India to help (I apologize in advance if I did not word the nationality in question correctly). If I can be shown a source or two apart from blogs and poem reviews I will vote as I initially leaned to... Turqoise127 (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a high time to look at those newspapers given as a reference n even the TV interview too. Those newspapers r not published online but that doesn't mean that the news r simply made up.Deleting or destroying is an easy task but making up is a sensible journey.Hamprey (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove deletion tag n the issue is resolved The issue is already resolved , if anyone wishes to continue pulling down the article,then one is free to do with some logic n rationality.Hamprey (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The latest in a string a non-notable poet entries. No evidence of notability. No issues are going to be "resolved" by simply removing the AfD tag (so, ahem, please stop removing it). Hairhorn (talk)

Keep. I had a discussion with the user and I gave him advice on how to improve the article. He created a page in his userspace and, after my advice, added references, which could (I haven't investigated them) prove notability. I'm going to fix a few more things and then we can see if the userspace article is good enough to be reviewed as a replacement for the old, unreferenced article. --TheGrimReaper 17:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do the above facts suggest that keeping the article is consistent with guidelines? ^Bongo_matic 08:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Remove the delete tag and let the discussion be closed~~

Hodson, Thomas Callan.The Meitheis. Harvard University, 1908. (ch.4,to show the royal lineage of Ningombam family)

Don Bosco High School, Imphal (archived from the records,1990-1997)

Sainik School Imphal,Manipur (from official records,1997-2002)

Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1 Imphal,Lamphel (school's administrative record,2002-04)

North East Institute of Science and Technology,CSIR,Jorhat,Assam (attended in 9-12th Dec.,2002)

Poknapham daily newspaper (page - 6,14th December - 2001,page -10,15th December - 2002)

ISTV channel interview (20th Nov.,2001)

Lion's Club mazagine,Imphal ( front page and front cover with photo,published on 24th Oct,2001)

Well, the above records will show the proof of the existence of the article's reality .The records r officially kept in hard copy , I m sure they will be proved right if we hav wikepedia sub centres throughout the world ,not only in the national capital but also at the regional and state level. Its easy to criticize but difficult to digest the hard reality which doesn't neccessarily requires web links to prove every statement or sentence being written in wikepedia.

I m sure critics will hav to say simply "delete" and "remove it" n its not "notable" but irony is that, the contents r in the form of hard copy . I find only a few people in this world r optimistically less sceptical. I hope n wish the page is given a full fledged life in wikepedia by removing any non sensical n irrational tag which doesn't respect the references given in hard copy.Atom98 (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Comment removed per [[31]]—^Bongo_matic 23:19, 26 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. — Jake Wartenberg 23:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SliTaz GNU/Linux[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/SliTaz GNU/Linux

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article appears to fail the notability guidelines as it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Searching Google, I found three sources which were remotely reliable ([32], [33], and [34]). However, Linux.com's editorial policy seems to not edit for content and thus would not qualify as a WP:RS since it doesn't have a history of fact checking, and FSM appears to have no editorial policies nor even a list of editors and publishes user submitted content. Thus I was only able to find a single reliable source mentioning SliTaz, hardly qualifies as significant coverage. Books/Scholar/News return 0 hits. Odie5533 (talk) 08:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've added some references from Virtualbox http://virtualbox.wordpress.com/images/slitaz/, UNetbootin http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/, Linux Magazine http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2008/97/SLITAZ. Hopefully these will qualify as reliable sources. Note Distrowatch is also well respected also in the Linux community http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080331#feature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.110.189 (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2009

Reliable sources on Wikipedia generally have very stringent requirements. It almost seems harsh to apply them to free software, since there just plain isn't much info on them even if the application is pretty decent and appears to be widely used. But I do feel some standard for reliability is needed, as this is an encyclopedia. Please read through the reliable sources Wikipedia page, I think you'll find that:

http://virtualbox.wordpress.com/images/slitaz/ is not remotely reliable, and simply offering images of Slitaz is hardly considered coverage
http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/ again, is self published and not reliable, and again they aren't even covering Slitaz, just offering an option for it in their program
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2008/97/SLITAZ is probably reliable, even though I can't speak of their reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and I can't find their editorial policy anywhere
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080331#feature disputable, but I would not consider it reliable

Even if the 1-2 sources you've shown are reliable, it hardly constitutes "significant coverage". --Odie5533 (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Odie5533, I've just read that I can't submit an undelete request through an email, so I'll have to try and state my corner here: Looking at the Mini Linux page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Linux, I notice that the other distros i.e Puppy, Damn Small Linux, Feather Linux, etc. along with SliTaz, all use pretty much the same references. I can't understand what they are doing right and SliTaz is doing wrong? Can you please explain so that we can try and resolve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.111.177 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2009

The distros are all different. Mini linux isn't really related to SliTaz or Puppy or anything like that; they may share similar goals, but they are independent projects. Thus, we must look at each one individually. While you have suggested Puppy, DSL, and Feather, I shall focus on them (please note I am simply a member here at Wikipedia, so what I say must be taken as simple discussion and not some type of decree):

Puppy Linux - has appeared in LinuxJournal multiple times, Linux for Dummies book, Live Linux CDs: building and customizing bootables book, InfoWorld magazine, ASUS Eee PC For Dummies book, and about a dozen other books.
Damn Small Linux - Has a book on Amazon, was included on a custom CD with the Linux Toys II book, has appeared in Linux Journal multiple times, and has lots of other stuff on Google Scholar and Google Books.
Feather Linux - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

It's not so much what the article on SliTaz is doing wrong as it is that the distro itself is not notable by Wikipedia's guidelines (available here). --Odie5533 (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand now; though if you use 'SliTaz' in the [google] boxes, you'll probably get more hits. Thanks for explaining.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.98.85 (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2009

Delete Lacks significant coverage, thus fails notability, per the investigations above Chzz ► 08:17, 12 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) 00:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep: Per the Linux Magazine and DistroWatch article. Of course Linux Magazine and DistroWatch is reliable. Joe Chill (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the same as reliability. To exemplify this, there is an article Fox News Channel, but no one in their right mind would consider anything form Fox News Channel reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're going on about. These are reliable sources that are reviews which show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I understand that Wikipedia has its own guidelines, but it seems to me that a free online encyclopedia should have an article for at least every active Linux distro, if not for every distro including the discontinued ones -- i add that because Feather and Damn Small both have been dormant for some time, and both have articles in Wikipedia. I use SliTaz and can assure that it is a very active distro. The repositories are currently being frozen bit by bit so that bugs can be removed for the upcoming version 3.0, scheduled for release in March 2010.Monz (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe WP:N applies here, even to linux distros. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Linux Magazine qualifies as a reliable source. It's 3 page review[35] of Slitaz is significant coverage that exclusively addresses the subject. There are another two sources that address Slitaz in detail [36] [37] from the Los Angeles Daily News. As instructed (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's another source, "Jott outta beta, and SliTaz is the boss" [38] from Network World, which is published by IDG and meets the requirements for being a reliable source with what looks like a particularly large editorial staff in the last three pages here. [39]As instructed (talk) 21:43, 26 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 withdraw I'll clean the article myself, but this AFD is obviously already decided. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Kramarenko[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely biased, untrue biography. Article is written by a gentleman who holds the writings of 'Diego Zampini' in high regard, and may be Diego Zampini - an author who holds that Britain hit, or even lost (the claims differ in his articles) a carrier in the Falklands War, and that the loss was covered up. He also claims that over 600 US aircraft were lost in Korea, which is something like 90% of the inventory at the time. Source.

Nearly all of the sources are either written by Sergey Kramarenko (the article subject), or Mr Zampini. The article is biased, completely untrue, and I think it should be 'expunged' completely from the history as a hoax, so that we can start afresh without any chance of the previous revisions getting mixed in with the new article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In that it was easily verified by a quick Google News search, as shown here[40] that he has been awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union, the highest distinction in the Soviet Union, is notable enough for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Regarding the POV allegations, all claims are referenced. Can we use additional verification yes. But feel that is better handled by an expert in that field. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are self-published, and the article is based almost 100% on them. I'm not debating notability, I'm debating the fact that the article is completely untrue. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I honestly hear what you are saying, but that is an issue addressed through editing, not deletion. Regarding the subject, they are notable. With regards to claims made in the piece, it is not a matter for Wikipedia that the statements are true, but a matter of is it true that the individual made the statements. In that the article references the individual’s Printed biography, that the statements were made by the individual is true and can be included, as long as the statements are credited to the individual. It is not our responsibility to verify the truth of the statements. That can be addressed in a “Controversy Section” within the piece. See the difference? ShoesssS ^Talk 17:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable per Shoessss' comment. Alleged bias is no justification to delete an article. LokiiT (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's way too detailed for an encyclopedia article, but it's verifiable, and generally good information Bachcell (talk) 20:04, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fulchester United FC[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally deleted via PROD in June 2008, reinstated in July 2008 after an IP went crying to the deleting admin. Anyways, this team is definitely non-notable - it is nothing more than a low-level, amateur local team formed by a group of mates - and as such is not worthy of a place on Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 13:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable local amateur/social team like thousands of others around the world -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if this was deemed notable, then as Chris points out, thousands of non- notable articles could be created. Eddie6705 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable amateur football club, nothing sets them apart from any other amateur club to be deemed noteworthy. --Jimbo^[online] 19:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above reasoning. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable club Spiderone 14:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Billy The Fish - the real-life team is not notable. Dancarney (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Govvy (talk) 14:26, 24 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) 00:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The United Liberation of Vegetarian Ethics[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability guidelines not met. No citations or references in the article. A Google search (excluding pages that include the phrase "helping to promote", in order to avoid repetitions of their own publicity statement) returns nothing beyond their own pages, letters posted by someone from that group, and inclusion in listings and directories. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; agree with this model nomination, no notability shown for this organization. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless creator or someone in the know can provide a reference immediately, that we could not find.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:30, 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 keep. The discussion seems to be pretty evenly-split between keeping and merging; however for the purposes of this AfD, both outcomes are essentially the same result. Therefore, closing as keep with a note that this does not in any way preclude merging. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Coffey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

American psychic written up by someone with a strong COI. Is he notable? (If this blog posting is anything to go by, I and the Wikimedia Foundation can expect a few legal threats shortly.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Thank you for your concern RHawthorn, I'm the author but this is my first ever article. I've been talking with Dan who noted the few points of the article that were to nice. I do not have a personal relationship at all with mr. Coffey but I also had never heard of anyone trying to discredit him. I've already removed the questionable material. it was really just a quote from coffey that was promotional. Should just be straight facts now. Check it over if you like Siinda (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Enough coverage both nationally and internationally, as shown here [41] to warrant both inclusion and expansion here at Wikipedia. I’ll add some references over the next few days. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per google news sources and mentiones provided by Shoessss. Turqoise127 (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete IMDB and Google hits are both not indicators of notability. Only non-primary ref is IMDB. So, yeah, non-notable as per WP:CREATIVE. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Listed AfD on Wikiprojects for Parapsychology, Paranormal and Rational Skepticism in order to attract attention to this AfD while retaining neutrality in notification. Not canvassing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While, I don't ascribe to his "beliefs" per se, he has had numerous appearances on national TV, published several books, and has his own show. Clearly meets WP:NOTE. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, as an aside to RHaworth, legal threats should never be considered by the community, as long as the article is in accordance with WP:BLP. The foundation's legal team will make those determinations. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't watch reality TV. Pursuantly I've never heard of this guy before. All I see is an un-referenced stub for some cold reader. I am willing to change to a keep-vote if the article is modified with WP:RS demonstrating notability. Generally an IMDB listing is insufficient.Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the shows he's on. He's not notable outside of the shows that I'm aware of. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge merge per Nealparr, doesn't pass WP:BIO but worth covering on a show article RadioFan (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge works for me. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 22 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) 00:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken finger sub[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a dish that does not assert notability or cite reliable sources. Prod was removed by author with no reason given. TheLetterM (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please support this article. There are plenty of links online that discuss the chicken finger sub and some that contain recipes.

http://jimssteakout.com/

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/juan-carlos-cruz/buffalo-chicken-and-blue-cheese-dipping-sauce-recipe/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dratel (talk • contribs) 13:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Taking chicken fingers and putting them into a sandwich would appear to me to be a trivial and obvious achievement in cuisine, nowhere near the deep fried Mars Bar in originality. None of the recipe and restaurant links provided would appear to indicate that this sandwich is culturally or historically significant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've had this kind of sandwich - it's excellent - but that doesn't make it notable. A thing can exist (which your links document) without meeting Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is simply TOO delicious for Wikipedia. Well, and not notable, but the deliciousness plays a part as well. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:46, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Kenniff[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested CSD, no assertion of notability\ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Keith Kenniff as Helios is one of the more popular ambient artists of today. Finding sources to establish his notability is rather tough, simply because ambient is often overlooked by music critics, but he is followed by over 100,000 users on last.fm (link). All of the album articles have reviews from notable critics to help establish notability.--Remurmur (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The {{Findsources}} template appears to be broken, as it seems to exclude the perfectly good sources found by this Google News archive search, which amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fixed the template so that these sources are now visible. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All, possibly move to Helios (musician) or something, since he releases most of his music under that moniker. See his Allmusic profile, Pitchfork review, Stylus Magazine, PopMatters, etc... Chubbles (talk) 20:40, 25 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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Hutchinson (footballer born 1972)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never played or managed at a fully professional level, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Couldn't find any significant coverage to get him through WP:GNG either. Note that there was an Ian Hutchinson born in 1972 who played in The Football League in the 1990s, but this is not him. Nor (fairly obviously) is he the same player as the far more famous Ian Hutchinson who played for Chelsea. Note also that although Weymouth have played in the Conference National, the highest level of semi-pro football in England, which some people contend is a notable enough league to allow articles on players even though it's not fully professional, Hutchinson was not with the club during the time they played at that level...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - new article has come to light which shows he is notable. Giant Snowman 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you sure this is not "Ian Hutchinson born in 1972 who played in The Football League in the 1990s"? This article seems to suggest it is the same person who played 8 games for Halifax Town from 1990 to 1992.[42] See also this article Cjc13 (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is the same guy then the dates of his Weymouth career in the article must be massively wrong, as he was playing for Gillingham in 1995. I will do some further research and, if it turns out it is the same guy I will of course withdraw this nom (and tidy up the article) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, you are right, it is the same guy, but lots of data in the article is wrong. I will ask GiantSnowman to strike his delete !vote, so I can withdraw. Sorry for wasting everyone's time....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 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. Since the issue is the notability of the impeachment center I checked the sources myself too. one source was dead and the other two were not specifically about the centre but about attempts to impeach george w. The procesmay be notable and worthy of a place in the GW bush article or not but the centre needs specific detailed articles about the centre to qualify. This is not my imposing my view on the discussion but trying to understand which argument has the best policy based position. My view is that the delete side does because the sourcing doesnt back notability Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles National Impeachment Center[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a local organization that obviously never achieved its sole stated goal, one which is now impossible to carry out. Inusfficient indication that the organization ever did anything other than exist, gather a relative modicum of signatures, and have nice things said about it by politicos. bd2412 T 15:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Per notability of organizations "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." as stated above, the organization appears to lack longevity and major achievements, indicating an insignificant subject. Bonewah (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly has national scope and reliable third party resources. This is not a tree house club, and has specific historical value in keeping the article. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not based on what an organization actually accomplished, otherwise we'd have to delete all sorts of organizations that "never achieved its sole stated goal" but only managed to "exist, gather a relative modicum of signatures, and have nice things said about it by politicos". The German American Bund and North American Man/Boy Love Association are two examples of a potentially endless list of organizations which failed to achieve any of their goals or otherwise do anything tangible, they just created controversy. But that's okay because notability isn't based on such a subjective thing, but on the existence of sources. They seem to exist and some are cited in this article. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you proposing as an alternative that this info, be merged with German American Bund or the other example given? --Firefly322 (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient independent and reliable evidence of notability to satisfy WP:N has been presented so far. The Bund and NAMBLA have been written about far more. Edison (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been the subject of full articles in major newspapers... WP:N just says "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This is more than a trivial mention. This actually meets WP:N rather clearly... you can argue we should delete anyway, but if your argument is based on WP:N, this organization meets WP:N's requirements. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and update. This nomination appears to be part of an effort to "establish an NPOV". Per Raul, it's from a different POV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean, but the only POV this nomination seeks to promote is that organizations meriting coverage in Wikipedia must be notable. Anyone can put together an organization with an asserted political goal, get a politician or two to laud it, collect a few signatures for that cause, and get coverage in a local paper. We need to have higher standards than that. bd2412 T 14:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Strong Merge to Movement to Impeach George W. Bush. The one LA Times source means the organization can be briefly mentioned on Movement to Impeach George W. Bush. Delete per comments. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure that will be feasible - per a longstanding discussion on the subject, that article is about to moved to Efforts to Impeach George W. Bush on the grounds that there never was an identifiable "movement" to that end. bd2412 T 14:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  - If successful, the newly titled article would have no use for the subject of this AfD, at least in my opinion, anyway. Bonewah (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:27, 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 redirect to Assassin's Creed (series). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin's Creed III[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable speculation; only ref from Softpedia. Nothing but speculation from Google search. Vio of WP:CRYSTAL. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure rumour, game is clearly in pre-alpha stage only, and article lacks citations. When ACIII is made official and information becomes available, then it can have its own article. VG Editor (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; there's no way to verify this. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Although it is just a rumor, you could just merge it into the Assassin's Creed series page. That would solve all of the problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.118.223 (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No point to merge rumors to other articles. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Though I thing merge would normally be okay, since there are WP:V and WP:RS concerns I have with the page it wouldn't qualify for inclusion. Verification is verification no matter what article it's resting in and would need to be dealt with regardless. Notability by legacy is questionable, but as it is this tidbit of information probably shouldn't be included anywhere quite yet per WP:CRYSTAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datheisen (talk • contribs) 08:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but perhaps the information could be transferred to the Assassin's Creed Series' talk page. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - the content is viable, and should be presented on the series page. The name is searchable and should be redirected to the series page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect - There is nothing official for this game and it has not been announced by anybody, so this is just heresay. Seeing how this is just a tiny stub of rumor, it is not even worth adding this pure speculation to any other Assassins creed page. The page Assassin's Creed III should be a redirect to the Assassin's Creed (series) page. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, the only thing that has been confirmed is the existence of the game itself, and anything else on the page violates WP:CRYSTAL. When there's something notable such as a release date and game content, it will be worth re-splitting. WFCforLife (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect, I agree with the above. Articles should NOT be based on little speculations based on small/trivial comments. Again, Wikipedia IS NOT A CRYSTAL BALL. Bahahs (talk) 17:14, 25 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. As obvious vandalism. It wasn't even a decent hoax to begin with. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Isidro Matthew Casilla[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed prod. Rationale was: "Unsourced BLP, likely hoax. Unable to locate reliable sources to substantiate the article's claims. Details appear to have been lifted (in some cases word-for-word) from Francesca Gagnon article." Muchness (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article's original author has removed the material copied and pasted from the Francesca Gagnon article (diff) but the sourcing problems remain. --Muchness (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An obvious hoax. No reliable sources connect the name Juan Isidro Matthew Casilla with Cirque du Soleil. They do, however, reveal "Juan Isidro Casilla" as the perpetrator of a $50,000 advertising hoax back in 2007. [43] The information in the article looks like a collage of content from articles about other people. Even the footnote numbers were left in place, though without the footnotes. The user who created the article, CirqueClub, has vandalized the Cirque du Soleil article, overwriting legitimate information with repeated, blatantly spurious mentions of the name Juan Isidro Matthew Casilla. I don't know what this guy's up to, but Wikipedia doesn't have time for it. AtticusX (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barring massive improvement and some sign of sources. Little in the current version of the article makes sense: the gender changes halfway through the lead, the second section begins with his name tacked on a sentence in a thoroughly ungrammatical fashion. No sources. Hairhorn (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – "toured twelve continents around the world" ?? Gimme a break! This is just pure weapons grade WP:VSCA that does not even come close to meeting WP:BIO or WP:BLP. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax form the known “prankster”. Apparently, he also spread the claim that he was Cirque du Soleil choreographer in 1994 – somehow I doubt that 12 y.o. kid could get this job… Skarebo (talk) 01:10, 22 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 by nominator. decltype (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Compare[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable program. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable not only within its genre of applications, but notable in terms of how it is defined by Wikipedia policy, too. I'm perplexed by the nomination in fact. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The version I nominated wasn't so clear as it is now. Therefore, I withdraw given the article's new state.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:09, 23 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ergosophy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn neologism coined once in 1920s and again recently, no real currency JQ (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand A 90 year old neologism, give me a break. "Ergosophy" certainly won't produce a lot of hits with the Google test, but it's not by any means a neologism. The article cites two books that define the term. Soddy defines "ergosophy" as a 'new word' in his 1934 book The Role of Money on page 8. In the 1994 book, Man in the Biosphere, Stokes refers to the origins of Ergosophy in Soddy's 1921 book Science and Life Wealth, Virtual Wealth, and Debt Money versus Man etc on page 90. Not brought up in this article is Soddy's 1925 book Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt that also deals with the concept of ergosophy. All of these books are read today and the books have been published several times since they have been written. The word ergosophy may not be in common use today, because not a lot of people discuss the philosophy of money. Additionally, Soddy is seen mostly as an economic heretic and therefore his ideas are not mainstream. But Wikipedia is not about presenting only the mainstream view, but it is about presenting all opposing views as well if they are well documented. As such, Soddy's minority view of "Ergosophy" has to be represented. On Wikipedia, neutrality trumps popularity. Do not delete this article, but rather expand it. kgrr ^talk 12:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not seeing a problem here. "Currency" is not required for articles about historical ideas, otherwise we'd have to get rid of phlogiston as well; nobody but me uses the concept anymore. The article seems to be reasonably focused on its history; a physicist apparently devoted some of his time to expounding a crank economic theory on the social credit model in the 1930s, when many minds were occupied by such things. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Soddy was at the forefront of the beginning of the concept of Ecological economics which uses some of his ideas as its basis, and his ideas of energy and economics are not really so heterdox any more but broadly thought of Soddy in NewYork Times article recently. All of his writing is under a lot of scrutiny currently in regard to his ideas. This very interesting article has been greatly expanded lately and is an excellent addition to the encyclopedia. Noted also, several editors are tagging or removing information from articles for weight that are not connected to that concept via policy or guidelines here also in the main Economics article. Not a good trend currently on Wikipedia as it seems like content control to a pov of mainstream which these days is pretty debatable as to what that even is. As editor kgrr points out also reliable sources and verifiable information is the core of Wikipedia. skip sievert (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 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 redirect to Moe anthropomorphism. MuZemike 19:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kemonomimi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The original one was snowball kept. Howver it was decided by post-deletion discussion, as well as mentions inside the original deletion discussion, that the term might be better in wikitionary. Before that happened, in an effort to save the article I scoured the internet for usage of the term by reliable sources to verify the use. The only source is a manga which uses it as part of the setting, ie a primary source. While the term is correct as the term literally means "Animal Ears", a reference to one of the most common aspects of the being it cannot be verified by a independent reliable source as such. This includes online and offline as far as I can tell. I don't have access to many offline Japanese texts so I cannot say for certain, but my exhaustive research has come up empty and thus why moving it to Wiktionary was done. 陣内 _Jinnai 05:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moe anthropomorphism This article already has a little section on it, and List of Kemonomimi can always be wikilinked there under Animals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my search for sources (Google Scholar, Google Books, my public library catalog, other Wikipedias), turned up no reliable sources for the terms "kemonomimi" and "獣耳". The two books in the Further Reading section bear investigation, though. I can acquire both of them from my library and report what I find if that would be helpful? -kotra (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead. I was unable to aquire them at my public library.陣内_Jinnai 18:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. I can get the Poulos book as soon as tonight or tomorrow night; I'll report what, if anything, it says about kemonomimi. I also placed a hold on the Hart book, but I may not receive it until early next week (26th or 27th). -kotra (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I got the Gerry Poulos book (Cosplay: Catgirls and Other Critters) and read/scanned the whole thing. It's about what you'd expect: a book on how to make and cosplay in catgirl costumes. It has a couple very brief background passages on catgirls, but no real background on "other critters". The words "kemonomimi" and "kemono" aren't mentioned once (nor any Japanese terms for "catgirl"). It is basically a (heavily illustrated) instruction manual on catgirl costumes. Unfortunately this means it is not useful for the topic of kemonomimi, except possibly to support the existence and popularity of catgirls (but not kemonomimi in general). As a side note, it does have a list of 25 "popular catgirls" in anime and video games, which could be of use in sourcing List of catgirls. In any case, I made some copies of relevant pages, which I can scan and email if anyone is interested (or requires proof); I'm not going to link to them on-wiki though for copyright reasons.
      Concerning the Hart book, it may be a bit longer than I expected; I'm behind someone else in line for it. -kotra (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Acquired and read the Christopher Hart book, Manga Mania: Chibi and Furry Characters: How to Draw the Adorable Mini-characters and Cool Cat-girls of Japanese Comics. Unfortunately, it's even less helpful than the Poulos book. It calls these same part-animal, part-human characters "furry characters" and "anthros", with no mention of "kemonomimi" or "kemono", or even much background on cat-girls. This is really not too unexpected since the book is about how to draw them, not what they are or what they are called in Japanese. I will be holding onto this book for a few more days in case anyone wants me to scan pages, as I mentioned with the Poulos book. -kotra (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge with List of Kemonomimi, as suggested at that AfD. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This result though will all depend on if List of Kemonomimi is kept in AfD. If the term is widely used but can not be verified, a redirect might be best. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)
Keep We had this discussion already, the previously AFD ending in a snowball keep. There is no doubt that this is a real thing. There is even a Wikipedia category for it already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Kemonomimi Other pages are for something different, it not all the same. Dream Focus 23:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. The closure was based on the idea that there must be evidence out there because it is a commonly used term, but no RSes have come forth.陣内_Jinnai 23:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - 362,000 results when I Google it. You can verify it is a term commonly used by a lot of people for this sort of thing. I click Google Shopping and see toys called kemonomimi, with various animals mixed with people. There was no consensus to turn this into a Wikitionary entry, most saying keep in the last AFD. Dream Focus 23:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Google hits are specifically mentioned as a way you cannot confer notability and defiantly not verifiability. A shopping site can and often will market stuff as things they aren't. video games for a while were marketed as role-playing games when the only aspect of RPGs they had was you taking on the "role" of someone therefore how marketers list items cannot be a definition. Furthermore Wikipedia is about variability - from WP:V's first sentance "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth[...]". Unless you think someone Japanese terms should be exempt from this core policy. While there are people who use it, we don't list every term on wikipeida like weebu just because people use it. Finally that previous AfD was before exhaustive searches for sources were done. That has now been the case and evidence shows there are probablyy no RSes (barring those in the further reading) about the term.陣内_Jinnai 23:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Many people use the term. Check Google, Google books(there a manga that uses it in its title even), Google video, and Google shopping, to see examples of the term being used in all of those. Dream Focus 14:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, i can point to the RPG label for video games. It was fairly universal. How a product is marketed cannot be used as a RS as their goal is to sell a product and they will liberally place labels to attact attention.陣内 _Jinnai 22:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It also bears stressing that it doesn't matter how many people use the term, or if the term exists. It only matters if reliable sources use the term. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. -kotra (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Redirect to Moe anthropomorphism, little more than a dicdef. Merging to the list is out of the question, since we generally don't keep "list of x" if "x" doesn't have an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If merged then a lot of information would be lost, you not able to copy everything over there. It'd end up just being a redirect replacing the current article. Dream Focus 14:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The catgirl article says in Japan catgirls are called nekomimi, meaning cat ears. The word mimi meaning ears is added behind an animal name. Inumimi, kitsunemimi, usagimimi, etc. Kemonomimi means animal ears. Searching for any of these terms on Google, shows a rather large number of hits. This is how the community refers to them. Is that in doubt in anyone's mind? As a word well defined and often used by fans of these sorts of things, should it not get its own article? Dream Focus 08:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my previous nomination. The article is still entirely unverifiable against reliable sources and is based around original research and personal opinion. Even a basic WP:DICDEF has not been sourced. —Farix (t | c) 13:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moe anthropomorphism, as list of kemonomimi is nominated for delition. -- deerstop. 17:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moe anthropomorphism; this dictdef doesn't even have a properly sourced definition, and at least one attempt to find sources for its definition have failed. However, it seems to be a likely search term, enough to keep me from outright !voting for deletion. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - those suggesting reditect to Moe anthropomorphism do not seem to understand that Kemonomimi can, and often aren't, moe. Better to just merge some info with Anthropomorphism itself.陣内 _Jinnai 22:55, 23 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Marcotte[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This AfD is very similar to the Melissa McEwan, with minor differences. It's another stub article about a short-lived staffer/blogger hired by John Edwards. She was forced to resign and dropped from view. This article twice went through AfD at the time of the event but in the fullness of time, it's very clear that it's turned out to be another one-hit-wonder, with no sustained notability whatsoever. The article basically exists to detail her fall from grace and resignation and there's little else there apart from further sniping about her blog and later book (redacted from the article earlier today). The fact that she's been published confers a little more notability than her colleague, Ms. McEwan, but not enough to sustain notability per WP:BLP. To summarise; NN-BIO, BLP1E, WP:UNDUE, WP:COAT, semi-stub article, needs to be nuked from orbit (just to be sure) - Alison ^❤ 05:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Alison ^❤ 05:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom - Alison ^❤ 05:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Marcotte is one of the most important liberal feminist bloggers, and as such is notable enough to warrant an article. Krakatoa (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's a pity the article doesn't reflect that and instead, focuses almost entirely on her 'sins'. It's just a hatchet job as it is right now - Alison ^❤ 07:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
um yeah - not so great.... Delete - per nom Privatemusings (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the nominator indicates - in the fullness of time this article has risen no higher than to show is that the subject is only known in the context of one event; and throughout that time she has remained of very low profile. In such a case there is no alternative than to discard the article under our guidelines.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I've got my account back!): There is substantially more substance than in the Melissa McEwan case. If the bio has UNDUE troubles, this is the kind of cleanup that can be done without deleting -all in all I'd say that the image the article gives of her is positive. BLP1E here does not apply, since there is also the book stuff. Even if the book and the blogging controversy, taken in isolation, would be not enough, them being together make the case for notability and bio, IMHO. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Published author, notable blogger. Gamaliel (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Marcotte has also been published in The Guardian [44] and the Los Angeles Times [45] and also blogs at and does podcasts for RH [Reproductive Health] Reality Check. Krakatoa (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability seems only to have strengthened since the prior two AfDs which also were keeps.--Milowent (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article should be strengthened, but as Krakatoa points out, Marcotte's blogs, podcasts and other publications give her notability well beyond the incident in the Edwards campaign. More should be added to the article, but deletion is not called for here. Tvoz/talk 01:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article isn't ideal, but is definitely notable enough, given the above evidence. I think, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beyond the Edwards controversy and the [redacted] claims put forth by Marcotte during the the Duke Hoax, there is very little to connect Marcotte to notability. The well-known aspects of her are constantly removed and it makes more sense to be put in those appropriate articles, while the page without them seems to exist otherwise purley to cater to her angstrom-sized group of national followers. It is hardly worth it. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --John (talk) 06:24, 24 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. Seems like there's a general consensus to suggest that the topic is notable. Of course, any potential editorial decisions should be discussed at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leather Pride flag[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With all due respect to the community in question, this article as written fails verifiability: no reliable sources (one dead link and three self-referencing articles). Has it NEVER been written about in the mainstream press (and by mainstream I mean The Advocate, Washington Blade, Wisconsin Light and the like)? Orange Mike | Talk 04:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – However there is reference to it in Scholarly books as shown here [46]. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- the sources are not "self-referencing". They happen to come from the same source, but I'd consider them reliable, pending additional sources. Not a good reason deletion, IMO. HalJor (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable topic and plenty of google hits that can yield sources. Jonathunder (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect – To LGBT symbols. The LGBT symbols piece is a listing of symbols and symbolates for which the Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities have identified and by which they demonstrate unity, pride, shared values, and allegiance to one another. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After looking at books and news sources [47], I conclude that this has achieved notability as a symbol of a particular community, and that display of a symbolic banner in rallies and in merchandise is a way of expressing unity and showing instant identification, more so than one would find in a lot of groups. For example, one doesn't see an official Democratic Party flag. Wikipedia does have a log of vexilological articles about flags and coats of arms, and I see no reason to delete the article. Mandsford (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - then could somebody please put some of that into this article? Right now, the only sources are things like leatherarchive.com! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hey --Orange Mike | personally I would have Merged /Redirected this piece already, in that it has enough coverage to support its own article and be included here. However, it really can not be expanded upon, therefore for ever a stub. On the other hand, it is a great addition to LGBT symbols and if used as a search criteria (here on Wikipedia), would be easily found . Possibly, the best of both worlds. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even though the article is unlikely to be significantly expanded (aside from additional references), it seems too long to qualify as a stub. Also, I question that the flag truly qualifies as LGBT. One of the references on this article ([48]) states: "Although the flag is often common in the gay community, it is not a gay-only symbol." The reference *that* site gives no longer gives this quote, but I believe the statement to be accurate. I'd pursue additional references for that to be included here, and if it is not exclusively LGBT, it should not be merged into LGBT symbols. HalJor (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am more than happy to have it as a stand alone piece. But personally, I think that would be a disservice to the symbol. I search criteria, a common visitor here at Wikipedia, would have to apply the specific term “Leather Pride flag” before finding the appropriate article. However as you stated in your comments; “…it is often common in the gay community’ a merge/redirect would offer that same individual, searching for gay symbols a better chance at reading the history of the flag. Hope that helps were I am coming from. Thanks.ShoesssS ^Talk 01:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, once the image of a flag gets on Wikipedia, it ends up in nearly every relevant article. Despite having the word leather in it, the article isn't necessarily going to hide. As with the leather subculture article (I think that's what it's called), there's the picture and it links to this page. Mandsford (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Merge to LGBT symbols - As evidence that the flag is not-specifically gay, see the "About" page for the Society of Janus here: [49], which clearly shows the flag and states that "Janus is a pansexual organization; we are open to persons of all genders, sexual orientations (straight/gay/bisexual/etc.) and roles (top/dom/switch/bottom/slave/etc.)." The flag also appears on the pansexual article BDSM. I'll grant that if one is searching Wikipedia for "Leather Pride flag", they'd have to enter that term -- just as with virtually any other article. (Want to read about Michael Jackson? Search for Michael Jackson.) But the flag applies to people of all genders and orientations. It should not be merged into a gay-specific article (LGBT symbols).

Keep I'm sure there are sources to verify this entry. I've seen this flag around for years and years. 68.101.143.168 (talk) 04:44, 25 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 -- duplicate nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcuates. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arcuates[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band spam by a member of the band Orange Mike | Talk 04:19, 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 speedily deleted by Athaenara as advertising/promotion. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21 Magazine[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement for totally non-notable magazine with non-notable editor, non-notable publisher; if it were a website, it would have been speedied long ago. Orange Mike | Talk 04:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have speedied this had I though A7 stretched far enough. Kevin (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion due to its promotional lead section. Alexius08 (talk) 13:06, 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 keep as nomination withdrawn. TerriersFan (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roseland University Prep[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Abce2|This isnot a test 03:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - consensus is that high schools are notable. Enough sources can be mined from here to meet WP:GNG. No indication of WP:BEFORE work by the nominator. TerriersFan (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are notable. This article from The Press Democrat proves that this school passes WP:GNG. Cunard (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I better brush up on my consensus stuff. Any way I can call this off or something like that? Oh, and the link doesn't work (atleast for me) I apologize, Abce2|This isnot a test 21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OUTCOMES provides some guidance on consensus decisions. If you wish to close you need to say 'nomination withdrawn' or similar :-) I've amended the link to one that works more often.TerriersFan (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn.Abce2|This isnot a test 22:06, 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 speedily deleted as advertising/ non notable biography. TN X Man 01:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RJ. Davis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Non-notable, fails WP:BIO Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. article actually doesnt give an indication of notability, as the information given falls far short of notability as far as i can see. (aside: wow, they did startide rising as a movie? but low budget? impossible?)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:19, 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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett Jones[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uncited BLP; a search for references turns up nothing that meets WP:GNG NW (Talk) 02:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Kevin (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (people). Not globaly informative. Olivemountain (talk) 03:02, 23 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. However, there is a rough consensus to stubify, which I strongly recommend someone do ASAP. MuZemike 19:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change in New York[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant non-neutral POV. Many parts are very unencyclopedic in tone. Because of the divisive nature of the subject, it is highly likely that a neutral POV cannot be reached. Moreover, "climate change" regarding specific U.S. states would seem to be something that is a bit too specific in nature. (no pun intended). I wonder if this is a sort of coatrack for hanging these type of articles about every state in the Union. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I see there is also an article titled Climate change in Washington. That article, however, is exhaustively referenced and cited, especially compared to this article, which seems to interpolate national or global data to the state level. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Stubify: The article reads like a middle-school essay and while I applaud the willingness of someone to research a "science/society" related topic and write about it, I don't think that the tone is appropriate for Wikipedia. Awickert (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Blatantly POV, school-age essayish, bordering on propaganda based on that statement in the first paragraph that all this is "due to global warming." No, thanks. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify, Category:Climate change in the United States by state has a few states in it already, the problem with this article in relation to them is that it's badly written; the existing references would make a good starting point for a subsequent re-writing. Josh Parris 05:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify Certainly the effects of climate change in a particular region are a worthy topic, in principle, and the refs are decent. Also, in phrasing your comments, note that the article creator is extremely new. Gruntler (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify It's certainly notable enough... however the writing is quite childish. Needs a whole lot of work, but as stated above, the references are an okay start to an article that meets standards. Š¡nglî§h §Þëªk£r ♫ (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The language clearly needs some improvement, however there are legitimate sources cited here and it does seem to meet Wikipedia:notability--Fredwerner (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"MOre improvment is neccesary, but hopefully I helped, I tried to do as much as posslibe. Keep it up;-)"--Winston betts (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you sure did help. Changing vote to keep. I'm rather embarassed to admit that I didn't read far enough down the page in the first place to see the references the original author used. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Models are hot. Delete: global circulation models have much too coarse of resolution to resolve anything on a city level (the current article does not specify, but the content reads like the author meant NYC not NYS). Downscaling is an area of active research where the biases and errors are large. They do pretty bad at pretty much everything. Prognosing societal impacts from climate change at a city or US state resolution beyond "global temperature does this, therefore..." is downright dangerous unless specific sources can be found that deal with specific aspects of climate change for that region. It would be preferable if these were literature review type sources (secondary), but something written by an expert from primary sources would be okay (although probably not by WP standards). Glancing through the references of the aforementioned Climate change in Washington article, I see no references cited that deal specifically with climate change in WA. I do however see a very good synthesis of sources. The same goes for other articles similar to this one. The effects of global warming on New York will be the same as any other major coastal city. There is no need for a bazillion articles called "Climate change in {{city name}}". There are too many CC in ___ articles as it is now. Leaving aside the fact that they really should be GW in ___ as they only discuss present CC aka GW, there is simply no need for them. There will be regional variation in GW, but not defined by arbitrary political boundaries. All these articles need to be merged into a few well thought out articles. However, this article contains no information that is not already elsewhere, therefore it can safely be deleted. (Apply liberally to related articles.) -Atmoz (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reasons mentioned above are compelling, but it's simply too specific of a region to be covered by a sub-article. "Climate change in New York is accelerating due to New York's growing population" – what's significant about this? The fact that this likely only applies to the city and not the rest of the area aside, doesn't this apply to everywhere...? This is simply non-notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:50, 27 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) 06:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Music Festival[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The creator contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this music festival. Joe Chill (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable small event -Drdisque (talk) 19:55, 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) 01:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find anything beyond the most trivial of mentions on this. --Milowent (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only substantial sources are MySpace, Associated Content (websites allowing anyone to publish) and a local newspaper. We cannot cover every single local festival in the world. This has no place in a professional encyclopedia. --Vejvančický (talk) 06:25, 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 no consensus. Whilst a vote count might reveal a clear consensus to "keep", many of the arguments for retaining this page are weak and unsupported by relevant policies. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CMS Made Simple[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Framework is not notable as it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Article fails to the indicate the importance of the subject. Google search returns few or no reliable sources covering the subject. Books/News/Scholar returns one or no hits.

The article was prod deleted, then restored at DRV, then prodded again, contested, AfD with consensus delete, then recreated by a possible COI user:CMS Made Simple. Let's see if we can really delete it this time. Odie5533 (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:32, 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) 00:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another "content management system" software with no showing of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems to be some coverage including winning an award [50] SunCreator (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep: Per SunCreator. Joe Chill (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are hundreds of packages like this on the market, without significant mindshare. The article is clearly there to try and raise the profile of the software, that is, it's advertising.Mhkay (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are a lot see:List_of_content_management_systems, almost everyone has an wikipedia article. The article is not an advert - and bear in mind this is FREE software - and even if it was 'advertising' that is no criteria for deletion. SunCreator (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We have lots of articles delete. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A CMS that has won awards ^[1], has over 3/4 million downloads ^[2], was named one of the top 20 CMS's by a popular CMS resource for two years in a row ^[3] does have significant "mindshare". Just because it isn't one of the "Big 3" doesn't mean it can and should be discounted. It is a disservice to visitors to limit them to a select few packages instead of providing them with viable options.

If we worked on publishing a more objective and informative (less like advertising) with more resources discussing CMS Made Simple will that work better? We are willing to work with you to provide the community with what you are looking for. Simply discounting and deleting the article is not showing any objectivity and fairness. We are willing to work with you, but you need to work with us. We sincerely want to work this out.--Tyjobo (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC) — Tyjobo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This discussion is not about the content or quality of the article, it is about whether or not the subject of the article is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Thus far, I do not believe the sources shown demonstrate sufficient notability as described in the guideline WP:NOTABILITY. If you are able to show more wp:reliable sources which cover the framework, that would be helpful; though be sure they are reliable. Also, please do not take this discussion, nor the deletion of the article as an attack on the framework. Wikipedia has guidelines for notability, and not meeting those guidelines does mean the framework is bad, or non-notable in a general sense. Wikipedia attempts to create a generally useful encyclopedia, which means that things which are incredibly important and useful within small communities are not always generally notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. From what I have seen, CMS Made Simple seems to be a very useful framework, and Packt has recognized this and awarded the framework. But I think the framework has to receive more recognition before it is included in Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. With past discussions and even some comments here, it was hard to understand what the real issue was. We have gathered quite a few articles, reviews, references about the framework and have a draft of a different article. Sure hope it will work out this time around, especially with all of the effort we are trying to put forth to make it more acceptable. Please expect the change soon. --Tyjobo (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would always encourage people to expand and better the articles being considered for deletion, this is not the real issue here. Simply listing the sources you have found here will be enough to sway the debate one way or another. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, the article really lacked detailed information any way. Are the articles listed in the new revision sufficient enough? Tyjobo (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reliable sources I see are the Packt awards, the brief mentioning in the Adobe Edge newsletter. In my opinion this does not constitute significant coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is about deleting info about framework, which represents paradigm "divide and conquer"(logic and data, arrangement and style). This is the only CMS that can take advantages of "smarty"(templates), "php", "java script"(jQuery), "html and CSS" almost instantly. With CMSMS even average web developer can fulfil very specific needs. Actually it depends on how many different sources have to aprove the same. Peciura (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC) — Peciura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All of the articles are being objective. I didn't hold anything back. As you will notice I left other articles and reviews in there that weren't sugar coating the system. Some of them were critical of the system. I left them in there to allow the public to get a full view of the system. I just looked at the wiki article for Joomla (which hasn't had discussion for deletion in quite some time)and the only notable resources are books. The majority of which are Packt books. As you likely know it is difficult to get news organizations (print, video, audio) to cover anything technology related unless it is a blunder or a major security breach. The very high majority of all schooling are unfortunately (for all Open Source projects) focusing on commercial big name products. We didn't go with self-published articles because with the nature of the product it seemed people wouldn't think us to be objective. Tyjobo (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of book publishers and reliable news organizations that cover technology: Friends of Ed/Apress, O'Reilly, McGraw-Hill, Packt, Pearson/Prentice Hall, Peachpit Press, John Wiley & Sons. News organizations: CNET, PCWorld, Network World, Computerworld, Linux Journal, Linux Magazine, PC Magazine, PC Format, etc. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, People I'm really failing to see the issue here. The article maybe does some self promotion (though not directly it seems to mention its key points and links to articles of interest / promotion of it .. its hardly going to mention negative articles but I've yet to come across one) but its a good system that I've been using on customer sites. I recommend the system constantly on a weekly if not daily basis in the Irish webdev community on the Irish Web Master Forum as well as Boards.ie (Irelands biggest social network). I've also used a lot of the other systems mentioned that have their own pages and find them to be awful. Yet they have their own pages. Key features of this system seem to be for me Ease of use of templating / choosing templates / the hierarchy system of pages (which I've not come across with the likes of joomla / wordpress ), User Defined Tags ... and the ACLs. Before you ask I'm not associated with the project apart from being a major fan of it. I've worked on sites for government run groups / multilingual groups using the MLE fork of CMSMS and personal sites. I think the only factor keeping CMSMS down is their lack of investment in promotion of it as its a CMS that blows me away out of the box hence you may not have heard more about it. If you look at the general user response on http://php.opensourcecms.com/scripts/show.php?catid=1&cat=CMS%20/%20Portals its quite high at 4.1/5. I'm also planning on showcasing the system at an upcoming Open Source Bar Camp in Ireland having done a mini presentation to people at a previous OSSBarCamp which went down very well. I'm using wikipedia a large amount (like half the world) but don't contribute that much I'm afraid to say so hopefully that doesn't weaken my argument. --Forbairt — Forbairt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please review the relevant guidelines (WP:N and WP:RS) and Wikipedia's deletion policy. We aren't here to determine the worth of the framework. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Judging by the references which have been posted, I'd say that it's only slightly notable enough to justify keeping the article; but if kept, it would seriously need some work adding reliably sourced information on it's features and usage, rather than the way the page is laid out now, which does make it look more like an advert than anything... TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 17:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable enough. Jeez there are FAs with less notability. 122.107.102.40 (talk) 06:29, 27 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. MuZemike 19:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of science and engineering in the Islamic world[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think this can be saved by editing. Please see the discussion here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_modern_Muslim_scientists_and_engineers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inventions_in_the_modern_Islamic_world

There are a great many problems with this article. The main reason to delete is that it does not present a "timeline" of related events. J8079s (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two-hundred and sixty-five citations, and that is the objection? Who said that all the events in a timeline have to be related? In a timeline of the 1960s, would we insist on some common thread between John Glenn, the JFK assassination, Vietnam and Woodstock? Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is a fascinating article with hundreds of correct references. What is there not to like? Warrah (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments from the other deleted articles don't apply here, and the history of scientific advances from the Islamic world is definitely a noteworthy topic. --JaGa^talk 23:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice article. Argument for deletion fails because the events in the timeline clearly are related. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia pseudo-history at its best. Tons of references cited which actually do not support the contention, evidence and scholarly opinions to the contrary are systematically (?) omitted. All looks nice and well on the surface, but a bit scratching immediately exposes dozens of false and exaggerated claims. Globes were already invented by the Greeks (small surprise, since they were the first to discover the spherical shape of the earth); so were public libraries, as the cartographic grid was already known by the time of Ptolemy, the earliest bridge dam in Shustar was actually built by Roman prisoners of war around 260/270 AD, using Roman hydraulic engineering. The water turbine is already in evidence for 4th c. AD Roman Africa, etc. etc. The list is endless. Keep the article, because the army of footnotes look so nice, but don't wonder at more and more readers leaving Wikipedia for Google Books instead of putting up with the ethnocentric/ religio-centric bullshit piling up high here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, an offer: How many footnotes in the article need to be proven wrong, one-sided, misinterpreted, taken out of context, exaggerated, outdated and outright wrong to have the whole article deleted? In percentage: 10%, 20%, 30%, more? Put your money where your mouth is and give a benchmark and some editors one to two weeks time. Then you'll see how hollow much of its contents actually are. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:30, 23 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. While technically a lack of consensus, the arguments for retention and improvements to the article push it toward a more solid "keep" result. MuZemike 19:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Rubarth[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable per WP:MUSICBIO: unsigned artist, no releases (other than self-releases), no national or international tours, no evidence of radio play, etc. etc. Hux (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just added some more information to her page. She is now in an additional project (The Paper Raincoat) which recently was selected as an iTunes Indie spotlight artist in the iTunes store. This band is also touring in support of a high-profile artist Vienna Teng. I'm not sure if this adds to her credentials as an up-and-coming artist. I should say that I was responsible for creating her page and adding most of the content.

I believe that she has toured extensively in North America and also in support of other artists on European tours. Also, a song that she co-wrote won a prize in a respected song-writing competition. Finally, I'd just add that whilst I don't know how widely she has been played on radio, I think it is more prominent that she was featured on NPR's 'All Songs Considered' podcast. This show has a huge following both nationally, and internationally. The WP:MUSICBIO criteria don't seem to cover broadcasts via podcasts or new media. Nod (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NEW COMMENT:

I'm working to gather this information & rewrite/add to the article. She has toured both internationally and is currently on tour with major artists throughout the US from Sept-Dec '09. Amber Rubarth's latest record, Good Mystery, was #1 on the Amie Street (leading indie music download site) charts for several weeks, and has currently reentered the charts at number 15. She also sings in a duo called The Paper Raincoat. Their self-titled record which was released Tuesday 10/6/09 is currently the #1 record on Amie Street. She has received very positive reviews from The Boston Globe, The Huntington Post and many other media outlets.

10/11/09 by Scott Lackey, to reach me email [email protected] . this is the e-mail address for my Twitter pg nycsongs that specializes in nyc musicans, songs and legendary concerts.

This article will be revised to include these factual, sourced details, and many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.220.129 (talk) 23:04, 11 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) 00:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/suggestion to the above editors: You might take a look at the criteria of WP:BAND, and augment the article to demonstrate that she meets one or more of the criteria. A start towards showing multiple reliable sources mention would be by weaving in the Boston Globe article.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards keep now, given the articles--though I'm still not clear whether they militate more for an article on the band (or both on the band and on her). It would be helpful to see others' thoughts as to: a) which two (or more) sources they believe satisfy category 1 of WP:BAND; and b) whether the sources militate more in favor of notability for the band (which doesn't yet have a Wiki page) or for her (this article) or both.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I confess I'm not familiar with this singer/songwriter, but she looks notable enough to me. Unsigned status is not in itself an indication of deficient notability: nowadays many musicians choose to release their work independently rather than seek a contract with an established label, in order to retain creative control. Tours with major artists, mainstream media coverage, a prize in a notable competition - that's more than a lot of artists signed to major labels achieve. I'm impressed with the improvements recently made to this article, and commend the editors involved. I've added a mention of the Paper Raincoat interview for The Boston Globe, with footnote reference. From a purely aesthetic perspective, I think a photo or two would improve the article if anyone has suitable free pictures to add. I'd like to see one of Amber Rubarth herself and possibly of the wooden-boxed collectors' edition of the Good Mystery album. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a picture of the collectors edition of 'Good Mystery' as requested. I think I can get Amber to send me a picture of her, or alternatively I will be seeing her play in a few weeks time, so if there is no picture up by then I will take one of her at the gig. Nod (talk) 17:54, 14 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, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt pass WP:MUSICBIO. There are a lot of references but too many of them are to blogs, primary sources, or those that mention her only in passing. RadioFan (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply WP:MUSICBIO imposes no restrictions on references to non-qualifying coverage: criterion 1 is about media coverage which does establish notability, and those which do not are irrelevant to the criterion and do not count against notability. There is more than enough non-trivial coverage (as defined in WP:MUSICBIO) in reliable sources to meet this criterion, including the following:

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2009/07/25/good_fit_for_paper_raincoat/ The Paper Raincoat (Amber Rubarth and Alex Wong) interview feature in The Boston Globe
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20050616/NEWS/106160065&SearchID=73215652858185 article about Amber Rubarth in local newspaper the Nevada Appeal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-ramone-and-danielle-evin/dog-ears-music-volume-eig_b_244435.html Amber Rubarth featured in The Huffington Post
http://www.venuszine.com/articles/music/features/2128/Scene__Unheard Amber Rubarth profile in Venus Zine
http://www.theowlmag.com/features.asp?id=46 Review of Amber Rubarth's Something New album in The Owl's Best Of 2005 feature

Notability is demonstrated if the subject meets at east one of the twelve WP:MUSICBIO criteria, and Amber Rubarth meets at least 2: #1 as above, and #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." The International Songwriting Competition clearly qualifies as major, with over 15,000 entries, $150,000 worth of prizes and judges such as Tom Waits, Brian Wilson and Jerry Lee Lewis. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had to wait until now to be convinced by the newly added footnotes, but even ignoring possibly non-RS sources the artist now meets Cat 1 of WP:BAND in that she "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." (excluding "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").--Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 24 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) 06:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship in post-communist Poland[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SOAPBOX, WP:SYNTHESIS. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There may be a case for including some of this content in Tomasz Kamusella, but the title "Censorship in post-communist Poland" certainly shouldn't be made into a redirect to an article on one alleged victim of such censorship. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. As I suggested on talk, some content can be merged. The article is somewhat notable but the content is promotional; written by the same person who wrote article on TKamusella (who appears to be notable but somebody should double check that article too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:58, 17 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) 00:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to re-creation. An article on censorship in contemporary Poland is certainly plausible, but this would appear to be pure coatracking, and is entirely about a single incident. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:57, 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 Superior Defender Gundam Force. MuZemike 19:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Citizen (SD Gundam)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced original research. Contents is unverifiable against reliable sources, especially third-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 12:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my own PROD.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per as proposed at the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:24, 17 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) 00:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Superior Defender Gundam Force as proposed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 22 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 (NAC) RMHED 20:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran: A People Interrupted[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book with no reliable 3rd party non-commercial sources that talk about it. Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:49, 10 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]

Keep Multiple independent reviews published in academic journals. [51][52][53] easily located in the very first page of the GScholar search. cab (talk) 03:44, 14 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) 00:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per CaliforniaAliBaba's sources. I also found a (very negative) review at Asia Times [54] JohnWBarber (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 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. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oshikuru demon samurai[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article is a non-notable fictional character, for which the article fails to assert notability. "Oshikuru demon samurai" was a minor thread in a single 2004 episode of Two and a Half Men (produced by Chuck Lorre) titled "The Salmon Under My Sweater". During a recent episode of The Big Bang Theory, another Chuck Lorre production, titled "The Gothowitz Deviation", ~~the theme song of~~dialogue from "Oshikuru demon samurai" was heard on a television during one scene and the name was mentioned. These are the only references of "Oshikuru demon samurai" to date. AussieLegend (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted because it talks about a rarely known crossover between Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory, both by Chuck Lorre, practically as much as the subject allows to.--.he. (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a crossover. It was a single mention of the name during the episode. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:38, 15 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) 00:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's about a fictional anime within a TV series... Not notable, never will be. BlazerKnight (talk) 04:15, 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. Kevin (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Childs Hall[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another article on a non-notable university hall of residence. Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wessex_Hall and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St._Patrick's_Hall. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note I now see that the article was previously deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bridges_Hall and might be a candidate for a speedy G4. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:08, 13 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) 00:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing distinctive at all, and no likelihood of sources to show anything notable. It should not have been remade. Delete and salt. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. Either add it to the University of Reading's article, or, considering the page itself notes that this hall is going to be closed in the near future, delete. Non-notable on its own. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:09, 22 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 If this musician meets the notability guidelines at all, it is only very very barely according to consensus. Therefore, I am closing this debate as having a result of somewhere in between no consensus and delete, and defaulting to delete. NW (Talk) 02:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Anderson (musician)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cant find suggnifigant coverage, which leads me to believe that the subject is not notable Tim1357 (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick search reveals coverage of Anderson's Crayola Lectern project in two articles in Village Voice associated blog, written by noted British music journalist Everett True (previously with Melody Maker and Plan B magazine. There are other Anderson-related reviews from other established publications such as Organ (24-year fixture on underground music scene) noted elsewhere in the article (although some citations could be improved). Subject is a noted musician on the Brighton, UK music scene, a sideman for former Can singer Damo Suzuki and a former/current member of several bands including one (Departure Lounge) with its own Wikipedia article and one (Supermodel) whose former singer also has his own Wikipedia article. This article also combines most of the subject's diverse work and projects into one location, removing any need for smaller articles for said projects. Am currently pursuing archived articles on subject's original band Supermodel. Chris Anderson may not be one of the most famous British musicians featured in Wikipedia, but I would dispute the assertion that he is not notable. - Dann Chinn (talk) 07:41, 13 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) 00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources to establish notability. Lara 17:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial secondary source coverage shows he is not notable. Kevin (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep seems to have some coverage, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - poorly sourced indeed. Seems largely NN here (per WP:MUSIC) - Alison ^❤ 07:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There's some coverage, but not quite enough to establish notability IMO. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:49, 27 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 (copyvio). Alexf^(talk) 10:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Zeitlin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well written article (authored by a relative of the subject?) about an individual who has worked in a variety of places and been part of a number of groups and organizations. Unfortunately, there's nothing actually notable about any of it. Google search for the subect doesn't reveal any secondary source coverage about an engineer with this name (other than mirrors of Wikipedia). Singularity42 (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sourcing provided and none found in searching. There are articles mentioning "Alexander Zeitlin" but the material don't correspond to the information in this article in any away and are not the same person. for example, he isn't a sculpto/artist. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are many tech related GBook hits for "Alexander Zeitlin", however, I am not certain if they support a claim to notability. Location (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Indeed there are. But as I mentioned, the material does not match up with the biography we have here. According to the wikiedpia article our Alexander Zeitlin was born in 1946 and graduated from college in 1966. The google book search results for Alexander Zeitlin show material from 1964, 1962, 1965, 1951... So unless what we have here is a Russion boy-genius, I doubt these are the same person. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good catch! Location (talk) 20:31, 19 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) 00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be sufficient information; needs rewriting with proper sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is a copy of an obituary posted at a memorial website: http://www.alexzeitlin.com/Alexs_Obituary.html . As Whpq has pointed out, the sources in GBooks do not refer to this subject. Location (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the article for Speedy Delete as a copyright violation. Singularity42 (talk) 03:34, 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 delete. Wizardman 16:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle City (online game)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find a single reliable source covering the subject, and thus fails notability guidelines. Odie5533 (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC) edit The article was previously deleted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlecity[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, no reliable sources that I can find, and even it's forums are dead or dying. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:05, 14 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) 00:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added many new sources to the article. This is an open source project, all the code is available on GitHub and there is even an active server allowing players and potential developers to try the game 24/7. --Weebo 14:58, 20 October 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.17.130 (talk) — Weebo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Battle City Page up!! -Jar-Head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.208.180 (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep the page up. -IGGY- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airesucs (talk • contribs) 19:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC) — Airesucs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep this up. The game is up and running and in continous development —Preceding unsigned comment added by Str4yDog (talk • contribs) 21:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC) — Str4yDog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete ...and? Shii (tock) 06:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources found, nor did the author add any sources that are reliable, let alone many that are third-party. Additionally most Keep votes are from users who have made few edits at Wikipedia. Additionally, article has been created/deleted before --Teancum (talk) 12:20, 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 no consensus. Given the comments below (including those that don't necessarily declare a 'vote'), I can't find a solid consensus either way. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orcs: First Blood[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be very notable. Tim1357 (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nominated for British Fantasy Award this books are notable. Published in Germany, France and Holland [55] BTW 140 000 ghits. Article needs some work, of course.--Yopie (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In fact, there are ghits. --GreyCat (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's too specific a search. Searching the author's name in conjunction with the titles of individual books in the series gets ~125,000 [56]. Gruntler (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure taht the nom is enough as far as that goes. Still doesn't otherwise demonstrate notability. Maybe if it wins?... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There doesn't seem to be much out there, at least on Google: [57] [58] [59]. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 14 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) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment might be worth at least upmerging it to the author. Declan Clam (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The source linked by Yopie says that the series "started something like a craze in Germany, with books published about all kinds of fantastic creatures in reaction to it, such as Die Trolle by Christoph Hardebusch and Die Elfen by Bernhard Hennen." I have a hard time evaluating that claim (and it's not exactly up to RS standards) but I don't know German. I'd certainly prefer to err on the side of keeping something potentially nonnotable as opposed to deleting something potentially notable, especially in the pop-culture sections of Wikipedia. Gruntler (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominated for British Fantasy Award - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:24, 24 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. Wizardman 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Det norske Cannabispartiet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm unsure if this political party should be covered. For me it looks like it meets the WP:CLUB criteria. Nsaa (talk) 14:55, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 19 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) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some news coverage, but the party is still very new, and there is not yet any evidence that the party will be capable of running in any election. The corresponding article at the Norwegian Wikipedia was deleted for this reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Besides the Norwegian Wikipedia keeps almost anything, so if it was deleted there, it's a considerable signal. Geschichte (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sjakkalle and Geschichte. A party of this type is not notable until it has run for election at a national level, or won a seat in a local or regional level. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:13, 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.

^ http://www.packtpub.com/open-source-cms-award-previous-winners
^ http://blog.cmsmadesimple.org/2009/10/22/750-000-downloads/
^ http://www.cmswire.com/cms/web-cms/report-the-most-popular-open-source-cms-and-then-some-005789.php

[1] ttp://www.packtpub.com/open-source-cms-award-previous-winners

[2] ttp://blog.cmsmadesimple.org/2009/10/22/750-000-downloads/

[3] ttp://www.cmswire.com/cms/web-cms/report-the-most-popular-open-source-cms-and-then-some-005789.php

[1]

[2]

[3]