Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 11 September 13 September >

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visionaire (software)[edit]

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

Article does not assess its notability. External links consist of games made with the software, none notable enough to have their own article either. Also written like an ad. NOTE: Article has been deleted before for G11 (Blatant advertising). Admrboltz (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can find no reliable sources writing about this software. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and above. ZooFari 01:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. google searches are an inadequate way of establishing notability. Specific references would be required to rebut the delete arguments successfully. Spartaz Humbug! 21:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TestLink[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for thsi software. Joe Chill (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I suspect that among the 538,000 hits on Google will be one or two of significance. I have used this software on real projects, and believe it to be one of the best of all the available "freebies" in this segment. Downsize43 (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google hits do not show notability. Saying that the software is useful does not show it's notability. Joe Chill (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Testlink is currently the most popular Open Source Test Case management product. As a QA member in the tech startup industry for the past 9 years I think it deserves an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jminne (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC) — Jminne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • TestLink Users: It is never easy to estimate the level of use and/or acceptance of a free software product. Here is a list of TestLink users that I found.
    http://www.teamst.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=7&topicdays=0&start=0 Downsize43 (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above states, google hits don't show notability. I thought I found good sources, but they are actually for TestLink Ltd., a completely different company involved ikn voting machines. Sources I did find were PR wire stuff, i.e.[1]. Martin Raybourne (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong: The above link is also for another company (that offers a "laptop rescue and repair service"). There are many sources for the software under discussion, whether or not they establish notability. Please take the time to examine some of them before summarily dismissing this product. Downsize43 (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then where are these sources? They aren't in the article, they aren't on the talk page, and none that meet the criteria have been presented here. My delete stands. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:N has very little to offer that might apply to any software product. However I did find the following under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):
    • "The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations", with the example:
      • "Microsoft Word satisfies this criterion because people who are wholly independent of Microsoft have written books about it."

It is uncommon for open source software to have books written about it, so some other measures are needed. Some suggestions (which might fit some but not all of the software articles currently in WP) are:

  • First of its type
  • One of the best of its type
  • Significant acceptance by the user community
  • Incorporated a significant improvement over its predecessors and/or competitors

Please feel free to add to this list.
To conclude, I believe TestLink meets at least 2 of the above criteria, placing it on a level footing with many products that have WP articles, such as Bugzilla. Downsize43 (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everything that the keep !voters are saying goes entirely against WP:N and have nothing that supports the belief. If this is closed as keep, it would be because of a head count. Joe Chill (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found 75 google news links Yes, google links alone don't alone make notability, but they are a good indicator. The users about wanting to keep, appear to be new users, who are not familiar with all of the myriad rules that we have. Industry publications: Data acquisition. Rubber World March 22, 2002 Testing Machines, Inc. Ink World July 1, 2001 Ikip (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you read deletion debates before you comment? In this case, have you read the comments by Martin Raybourne? Which of those 75 Google News hits are for this TestLink? The ones about hardware support, ATMs, or Motorsport are not for this tool but for unrelated companies. The article is also not for the data acquisition tool described in your two links: this software is developed by Testing Machines, Inc.. Google links are not a good indicator of notability if they are unrelated to the subject that is being discussed. Fram (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because none of the given links are for this tool. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is great open source software we use on real projects, it's comparable to Test Director, only it's free and the market share of the tool is growing very fast, in the future more and more companies will switch to TestLink. Does it deserve to be in Wikipedia? For sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaserm (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It is painfully obvious that some of those in favour of deleting this article have little understanding of the extent to which the better open source software tools have been embraced by mainstream organisations, not simply because they cost less but because they are more useful than some high priced competitors. I recommend a quick read of some of the following WP articles to get a feel for the topic: Open source (and its linked articles and lists), Bugzilla, Mantis, MySQL and Subversion. Downsize43 (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being used by many companies has no influence on the decision whether we should have an article on it or not. What we need are reliable sources discussing the subject, as explained in WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. Deletion of this article does not mean that we have any opinion on the subject, whether positive or negative. Fram (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found this survey which indicates it is teh most popular open source test management tool but there is no indication of how reliable this information is. I tried searching for articles about testlink in various magazines such as Linux Journal and Linux World and turned up nothing. I did find this mention in Dr. Dobb's Journal. But this isn't enough to establish ntoability. If somebody can dig up significant coverage in reliable sources about this software, then I'd have another look at my opinion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men: Evolution merchandise releases[edit]

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

Violates WP:SPAM; WP:NOT; article should redirect to X-Men: Evolution, but was denied by original poster. mhking (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of well written articles about Marvel toys. See Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games) for toyline notability.

"The toy or game represents a significant milestone in the development of toys or games, or has demonstrated some form of historical, cultural, or technical significance, or has had a major impact on culture or pop-culture, as referenced through a notable documentary or retrospective. [7] This criterion includes the first game to use a game mechanic which was later widely adopted; the first to be published in a certain way, for example online or print-on-demand; or which is otherwise described as a significant milestone by multiple reliable sources. " The Burger King line was the first to be published with the inclusion of a mini cd-rom. Which would make it notable via the "first to be published in a certain way" clause.


List of works doesn't have Toy or DVD information. If you have a link as to the style of writing for such a list feel free to link to it so the article can be updated to it. 74.47.108.87 (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's no point in this except for advertising promotion. The date of release of the latest DVD or action figure is not historical information unless it's a classic (such as the Barbie doll). Other than that, it's trivia to include on your eBay summary. I did enjoy the unintentional typo -- there's a big difference between Magento and Magneto -- it sometimes happens. Mandsford (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivia -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - List article with little value, unencyclopedic and promotional at best, advertising space at worst.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Snooker[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on a (quick-play) variation on the game of snooker that fails to demonstrate any notability. "How to Play" section removed, but what remains is still primarily about the actual game itself rather than its history, impact etc. Delete. I42 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"How to Play" section since replaced. I42 (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this deletion. I'm not sure why this isn't any more notable than other variants of other sports. It is an interesting variation of a popular sport which is clearly played in a number of regions. If I were a snooker player and not aware of this variation I would find the article very informative.

As a compromise perhaps the main snooker article should have a similar section to the darts article where some variants are described fairly briefly whilst others have a distinct page. glynandtess —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The main objection is that there is no indication of notability and no evidence anything is true in the article. Plus, WP criteria explicitly state game guides do not belong here. WP is not a repository for everything and anything, and being interesting is explicitly not, of itself, reason for inclusion. I42 (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an amateur snooker player from Staffordshire, and have played this variant of snooker, so it's certainly a widespread, if little known, game. I would be surprised if people who are not snooker players have heard of it. I certainly haven't heard of the variants of other sports and games, those which I don't play, and yet many appear on Wikipedia. There is very little information about it elsewhere on the web, and therefore it's inclusion on Wikipedia acts as a informant to people not in the know. Hopefully someone who knows something of it's history (sadly I don't) will come on here and add to the article - after all, that's what Wikipedia is all about. If the article is deleted, that can't happen... Keep. Chingwakabungya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

That is absolutely not what WP is all about - see WP:OR. All WP content must be backed up by published material in reliable sources; the snooker historians should not come here first. I42 (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal for deletion. It is a "variant" that someone has dreamt up and has no credibility. I've never heard of it in more than 25 years close involvement with snooker as player and administrator. bigpad (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a nonsense really, Mr Administrator; one or two people are supporting its retention when there is no justification for it, as I have explained above. It is *not widespread: I have never heard of it. What is to stop me creating a new "variant" of snooker, let's call it "Staffordshire snooker", with 14 reds instead of 15, and to claim that it's commonplace in Belfast? Let's get real here! Regards to all. bigpad (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC) DELETE NOW[reply]
  • Delete - this snooker variant is not covered by reliable sources. The only information I could find were some Yacht club announcement of a "Flying Snooker Tournament" and some forum discussions. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 14:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pancomputationalism[edit]

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

Article title seems to be a neologism(WP:NEO). Hardly any references support the assertion that this view is called "pancomputationalism". There's an impressive list of references and external links, almost none of which support the name "pancomputationalism". Google gives very few non-wikipedia hits for the term. Moreover, the entire article is written by User:Gordanadodig, who seems to be one of the authors of a reference listed in the article, thus this might fall under WP:COI (this being pretty much the only article the user has edited on WP). Almost all the google hits on page 1 for "paninformationalism" seem to be about a talk given by Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic, who is possibly User:Gordanadodig. Finally, it seems to be describing the same concept as described in Digital physics. I think redirection to Digital physics might also be a reasonable alternative to deletion. Robin (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a merge/redirect with digital physics. 1Z (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without redirect. It is not a standard term, it seems from the article is much less well defined than digital physics, and the people listed as supporting it mostly do not do so. A redirect, which would preserve the text would be misleading., DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, plus a lot of gratuitous science & philosophy mentions. A computational theory of mind has just about zero to do with "Pancomputationalism". And I'm particularly peeved by the gratuitous, irrelevant and inaccurate mention of Naturalized Epistemology. Hairhorn (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LogMX[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 14:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shai Bernstein[edit]

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

I contested speedy because I can't say that it's a blatant hoax. However, I was unable to find any sources regarding this person on Gnews, Gbooks, or Gscholar. Tim Song (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: and most related Ghits I found are WP mirrors. I say "most" because I didn't check all of the Ghits. Tim Song (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..Not too surprising, considering the fact that it is a complete hoax. Aviados (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The name is not a russian-jewish (or russian or ukrainian at all) name but more of a modern Israeli name (some people were called Shay - but not russians). He was supposedly killed in a terror attack while touring to the Golan Heights in 1949 - that is, when it was under Syria control, just 2 months after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Were there buses going from Israel to the Golan at that time? A reference is quoting Yedioth Ahronoth is dated to 1935 while the paper started out only in 1939. The reference about his death is quoting Jerusalem Post on September 5th, while the date of his death according to the article is November 20th, unless the Jerusalem Post started dating by OS in 1949. Also - conflicting messages about immigrating to Israel - was it an Aliyah or an exile? How did the NKVD operated in British Mandate era Palestine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.103.177 (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:SNOW. An apparent hoax. Aviados (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree it is a hoax, but it is not obviously enough so for speedy. If the evidence needs to be laid out here, it does not fit A3. Conflicting information in an article is not definitive indication of a hoax--there are often errors in bios from various sources. I would never say something is non-existent because of not being in the Googles. I added a search in WorldCat, and found nothing, but if the work was published in Ukrainian, that would not be definitive either. However, I did check the work in which he is reported to have an essay, [2], and he does not. . The speedy was contested, and therefore the speedy tag can not be reinserted--I removed the one Aviados just added. Snow is possible if others agree. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per opine of DGG. ArcAngel (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not only is there no info available about Shai Bernstein born 1895, the photo of him in this article appears badly photoshopped; the face is much paler than the neck and surrounding head. It really does look like a hoax article. When I looked at the original article it mentioned a Sarah Hartzell alleged to be Shai's wife. Googling Shai Bernstein + Sarah Hartzell led me to the Houston Chronicle School Zone Blog which lists these two names as receiving awards or accolades:

School Zone: Awards & Accolades Archives ... Keila E. Fong, Sarah C. Hartzell, Michael H. Miller, Blake A. Niccum, Donald W. Ross, .... Lindsey E. Smith, Shawn P. Reddy and Shai Bernstein. ... blogs.chron.com/schoolzone/awards_accolades/ - Cached - Similar

Looks like it was kids having fun who wrote this article. S. M. Sullivan (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shouldn't this go on the page listing the longest wikipedia hoaxes? It was up for several years. 209.184.165.20 (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A full two years, to be precise.
Indeed
I am sorry but I felt that Indeed was the only relevant thing in your paragraph. The rest was very personal information that should only be shared with people that person trusts. Information such as where he goes to school and a link to his Facebook page are not relevant to the deletion of this hoax.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. Cirt (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoids 2 - Prerelease[edit]

Zoids 2 - Prerelease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a trivial list of toys that does not assert notability. TTN (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Zoids. Should have been done originally. Ikip (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Zoids. Kendric_Apple (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 14:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fatjon Muhameti[edit]

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

Plays for a second division Albanian team and has apparently made one league appearance in his career. Spiderone 17:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Giantsnowman. Richard (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 14:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get Into The Market Oscillator (GITMO)[edit]

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

fails WP:N. A theory posted at the blog of the creator is not notable without reliable, third-party sources discussing the subject in detail. Since there are no such sources, it should be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This contribution cites the original publication of the GITMO oscillators at Seeking Alpha. The contribution is not about theory, but rather an applied real-world stock market ("equity market") technical indicator whose background is introduced, methods of calculation and parameter description are provided, along with observed computational results from applying the indicators to empirical data for the Standard & Poors price return index. Several citations are provided, with external links.

There really is no problem with the contribution in terms of the accuracy of the background information, soundness of mathematical approach, results provided (4 images), and accompanying interpretation. Significant effort was devoted to development of the empirical results provided in the contribution, which probably does not warrant deletion. If anything, wait a while to see what the growth in hits is.

You need to show how the subject matter passes WP:N, as my nomination makes clear. "how many hits the article gets" is not a claim to notability. Ironholds (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for guidance on notability. Regarding the original source, articles considered by Editors at Seeking Alpha are first submitted as an Instablog, hence the "blog" entry you referred to. Within several days, the original source will likely no longer be a blog, but rather an article focusing on economic issues.

Again, very interesting, but not something that passes our inclusion guidelines. If you want the article to be kept, you need to demonstrate that it passes. Ironholds (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has received no attention at all in reliable independent sources, and almost none in general. 12 Google hits[3] which turn out in many cases not to mention this at all. Fram (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no acceptable secondary sources. If it becomes notable, it will be time for an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 14:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxlab Entertainments[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. spam like article. hardly any third party coverage [4]. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Richard (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above and WP:CRYSTAL. The article itself notes this is a new company - "was founded in 2009 ...." and predicts things: "The company will make its presence felt ... aims at building ... [and] will strive ...." None of these facts are allegations about its current notability. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check[edit]

Now please check if there is any problems in the article. Saj2009 (talk) 19:24, 14 Sep 2009

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jetty Journals[edit]

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

This is a non-notable, self-published e-book with no assertion of notability. AniMatedraw 14:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Book has indeed so far received no attention at all from reliable sources. 23 Distinct Google hits[5], nothing in Google News and so on. Fram (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep sources seems to indicate some sort of notability. so to delete it is not an option for me atleast.--Judo112 (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources are a website of the same name, and an IMDB entry regarding a movie with similar themes, therefore the article has no reliable sources to back up it's notability. ArcAngel (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Like most e-books, non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't understand the weak keep. The references consist on a link to IMDB for 28 Days Later dues to a statement about zombification. It has nothing to do with this work and does not reference it. And even if it did, it wouldn't be a reliable source. The other reference is to its own website -- hardly independent. My own search finds no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per earlier statements plus more research from me personally. indicates notabilty.--Judo112 (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Can you please share this research with us please? -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. notability requires actual reliable sourcing and since these are evidently absent the delete arguments are the more policy based Spartaz Humbug! 21:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Jackie North[edit]

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

fails WP:N. Radio stations with licenses are normally considered notable by default, but pirate stations are not. Ironholds (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a licensed broadcast station, and lacks independent and reliable sources to show notability. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Radio stations with licenses are normally considered notable by default, but pirate stations are not. "
There is no difference in notability between licensed and pirate radio stations. All there is is an assumption that licensed stations have at least one implied WP:RS to support their claim of notability. A pirate station that is otherwise notable (i.e. it is discussed in sources, according to the usual WP policies) is still notable, despite being unlicensed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. General consensus is that licensed radio stations should be considered notable by default, assuming they're not pokey local things. Note that my statement did not say that Pirate Radio stations are never notable, simply that they are not considered notable by default. Your edit summary, "Nom's assertion that pirate stations are not notable is not supported by policy" is correct, but then nothing notability-related is policy-based. Have a read of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, particularly "Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated." Ironholds (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you applying the US situation (where pirate radio wasn't the political issue it was in the UK) to a UK station? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rules apply worldwide - a US example is given because, realistically, the US is where the majority of notability problems will be based. Note that it's "common deletion outcomes" - most UK stations face a similar situation, or the rule would be different. Wikipedia does not work on "political issues", wikipedia works on notability. Both US and UK based items must be notable, and this station is not. Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "rules" are only that we cover notable content, don't cover non-notable content. There's no "rule" that a UK pirate station must meet US part #15 rules or must have an allocated Canadian callsign! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although there are any number of trivial non-notable pirate stations, both Radio Jackie North and Merseyland Alternative Radio were significant and highly notable long-term features of the UK pirate radio scene in the 1980s. Their notability is supported by numerous web coverage fan sites (WP doesn't like fansites, but there's a lot more WP content that relies on them for sourcing) and also by printed coverage through anything covering the UK pirates in that decade, "Soundwaves" being the general magazine of record for scene, but they're also mentioned through the general music press, such as NME.
Please also see the previous AfD 1, Radio Jackie North where this article was AfD'ed on the grounds of the station being, "from long ago"! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfDs have no impact on how we work. If something was deleted with a poor rationale previously, how does that undermine or impact on our rationale? We do not like fansites, no, but if they have been covered in significant detail by multiple, reliable, third-party sources then I welcome the inclusion of the article. So far, however, I've seen none of that coverage. Ironholds (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing previous AfDs saves a lot of re-typing.
It's also prejudicial of you to claim that the previous AfD was wrong (we work by consensus here, even if you don't like the outcome). For one editor to re-nominate an article does not invalidate a previous consensus AfD! If you really do claim that this past AfD was "poor", then you should take it to DRV, not just re-nominate until the fruit machine comes up with the jackpot.
As to the refs, then they've been added repeatedly and then removed as "unacceptable" (mostly hosting snobbery) at a rate that seems unusually high for WP when it involves US editors and UK pirate stations. A moment's web searching will show you plenty of coverage. Be snobbish about these nasty fan sites and their lurid colour schemes, but it's ridiculous to claim the station's non-existence on that alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I've never claimed previous consensus was wrong.
  2. Previous consensus was delete. My view is delete. I don't know why you think I'm questioning previous consensus. I'd throw your own comment back at you - we work by consensus here, even if you don't like the outcome.
  3. Previous consensus was for a different article. AfD results do not apply unless this article is substantially the same as the one they discussed deleting.
  4. The edit history shows no removal of refs.
  5. Where exactly are you getting your argument from? It seems to be illogical, founded on no actions and essentially bullshit. No refs have been removed, at no point have I claimed previous consensus is invalid and at no point have I been "prejudicial". Ironholds (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that you're not seeing the full edit history (maybe you're an admin, when I think you would then be able to). This article was speedy deleted a couple of days ago as a copyvio (which seems like an over-reaction, when the older article before any copyvio could have been reverted to) at which time it had been rather larger. It's also bizarre that we can seemingly claim the article is a copyvio of content from elsewhere, whilst at the same time denying that there is any content elsewhere as a source!
Just web search a bit for Radio Jackie North - it (and Eric Haydock) were significant players in the 1980s "second wave" UK pirate radio scene. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the history as it pertains to this creation; for obvious reasons, I can't see previous history as I'm not an admin. it seems reasonable to say that; unreliable sources can still be copyrighted. Can you explain, please, how I was prejudiced against the previous AfD, claimed it didn't apply, disagreed with the consensus formed there and attempted to invalidate it by nominating the (new) article for deletion? Ironholds (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now you're stalking my contributions today and undoing them, classy... Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no reliable sources covering this in any sort of detail. This book lists the station but does not appear to actual provide any detailed coverage about it. Web searchers turns up lots of forums but these aren't reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 22:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests (2005)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests (2005) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

More than 3 months after first prod and AfD there are still no reliable, published, third party sources. wp:v: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-06t14:06z 14:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources back up this article, which is a clear violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Abductive (reasoning) 15:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the information in this article is verifiable by listening to the programs. The program is obviously notable. Other programs have similar lists. The solution to verifiable, notable articles with no references is editing, not deleting. -Atmoz (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, you piped to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which says the opposite of what you meant, and you seem to misunderstand what reliable sources are. Reliable sources exist to say something is notable. The program is notable, but everything that happened on it is not. Given that we already have an article on the program, this debate centers on the list of all the guests. Abductive (reasoning) 04:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what I piped to, see the second bullet in the nutshell box. I also know that V is a policy and that RS and N are guidelines meant to clarify that policy. This list—as a sub-topic of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!— contains useful, encyclopedic content. It provides the user with a navigational tool that cannot be achieved in the main article or with categories. The fact that there are currently no sources does not mean it should be deleted. -Atmoz (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. notability is derived from demonstrating sources and this hasnt happened so the delete votes outweigh the keep arguments Spartaz Humbug! 21:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axis & Allies Miniatures (land version)[edit]

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

The only reference is a forum post, and all the links in the article are to sites that sell these things. Not notable enough for inclusion, and borderline advertising Pattont/c 13:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Concur with nom. My searching didn't bring up anything either. Quantpole (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been criticized for voting keep here. I didn't realize that the Wikipedia Deletionist pathology has extended to bullying people who vote to keep articles now. Regardless, the criticism misread my comment "comprehensive reference" to mean that I thought the article was well referenced (cited). This is not what I meant by "comprehensive reference." The article itself is a "comprehensive reference" for the topic at hand. It exists, it collates a great deal of disparate information, it is structured properly and it represents significant editing time. If I happened to be someone who was interested in "Axis and Allies Miniatures," surely I would be pleased that this article exists as a COMPREHENSIVE REFERENCE. These are all perfectly valid reasons in of themselves to keep an article. See Jimbo Wales: [6] --AStanhope (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm only a deletionist in that I'm not an inclusionist, and this isn't intended as bullying. 1) Jimbo is subordinate to policy and guideline, and 2) a throwaway comment by Jimbo is definitely subordinate. The base problem with this article is that it fails to pass WP:GNG, and your comments and actions do nothing to address this, instead just helpfully saying how useful the article is. Ironholds (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Astanhope--UltraMagnus (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of reliable sources for references, and is also essentially a gameguide in the manner it lists every possible unit. Seems like somerthing that should be on the official A&A website - and probably is. Skinny87 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per Astanhope - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009#Outburst by Joe Wilson. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Lie![edit]

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

fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Similar outbursts and stunts have become historically significant (see Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet) but it remains to be seen if this will. At this stage there's no way of telling if such historical notability will become present, and until it does the article should be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, several days after, there remains discussion of it making it more than news. Political repercussions have been discussed, such as fund raising, censure, etc. Wikipedia also has other articles on Series of Tubes and Let's Roll. These have been discussed on Wikipedia and have been kept. You Lie! is on the same level as those. There are also sections created in the article that need to be filled and, once done, will make it easier for others to see that it deserves an article. Ironholds cites "otherstuffexists" but that is an opinion piece and essay, not policy. The other articles, like series of tubes and let's roll give us an idea of what is acceptable. This article is intended not to be anti or pro Wilson or anti or pro Obama. Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Several whole days? Wow! that's certainly evidence of historical or significant notability, then. Sorry for wasting your time. Ironholds (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then, please withdraw the AFD since you agree that there is evidence of notability. thank you Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, counter-sarcasm. Touche. Ironholds (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ironholds, I am nice and won't fight with you any further or add any more comments. Please note that the article needs help but I have inserted some new sections and ideas that need to be developed further. By doing so, it can be a great article! Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, its an abortion. More or less against everything contained in BLP, a complete dishonor to an otherwise respectable congressman, a pinata for healthcare nuts of both sides, and of course all the other tenants cited above and below.Yeago (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not commit abortion on me. I am a human being, not a throwaway piece of trash. I am also not a spa or masseuse. Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Belongs in the Joe Wilson article and is not worthy of its own. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm the farthest thing from a deletionist you could find, and I still think this should be deleted. --kizzle (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for two weeks, then delete - Seems like a good pinata which could allieviate surrounding articles from politically giddy editors =)Yeago (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do that. If it's not notable in two weeks, it's not notable now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - this one seems to be sticking around. --Mr Beale (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually before this article was created it was a redirect to either liar or lie. Googlemeister (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 14:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Azar[edit]

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

New article by new user, but might not meet notability standards. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage of him from sources and thus no sign of notability. Richard (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Oaks[edit]

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

Notability not established. Little mention on google news apart from articles about "Mad Pride" event rather than the man himself. Being a director and available for public speaking bookings does not of itself establish notability. Any information on his role as director of real value can be merged into MindFreedom International which at the moment makes no mention of him. The page text duplicates http://www.mindfreedom.org/about-us/david-w-oaks/ which is CC2.5 but seems pointless to copy when a reference on MindFreedom International would supply the reader the same information. Ash (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note) Not actually a copyvio as mentioned in the nomination.—Ash (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not establish notability, it is up to article creator to proide reliable sources to establish notability. ArcAngel (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 14:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Toniq[edit]

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

Barely noticeable (let alone notable) "think drink." There are no real references here with in-depth discussion except for a review at highlighthealth.com. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Yeah, it's on Amazon, but it appears the only place you can buy this drink is from the company's own website. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 14:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Chinatown (compilation)[edit]

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

Mid-price compilation non notable. Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq2 (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only 6 matches in a Google search?!?!?! And how many of those give significant coverage of reliable sources? I think it is safe to say that it isn't really a notable album at all. Maybe, just maybe, briefly mention the compilation in the main article if you have to but it is certainly not looking worthy of its own Wikipedia article. The fact that it has never placed on a notable chart only adds weighting to its deletion. No doubts on this one.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the nom and Sky Attacker. No notable coverage of this release, the linked "review" doesn't even contain a review. Pales in comparison to her other releases. J04n(talk page) 23:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I moved this to Untitled My Chemical Romance album without leaving a redirect. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the Sins...[edit]

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

No indication that this future album even has a title yet. No confirmation of a release date or any other info. I was unable to find any reliable source info to back p any of the article's claims ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Stop— HAMMER TIME! [flaminglawyer] 16:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the Rolling Stone article already linked, there's This from Clash magazine and this from MTV. The no title/no release date rule has been shown several times to be inadequate. A much better criterion for future albums is whether or not they have been recorded. Unrecorded albums are never likely to be notable. Recorded albums by clearly notable artists with multiple significant coverage are generally going to be sufficiently notable even if they remain unreleased. Having said that, I don't know where the supposed title of the album has come from.--Michig (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If kept, the article should be renamed "Untitled My Chemical Romance" or something similar, as the current title is made up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:19, 6 September 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, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted for final time JForget 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no doubt that the album will be notable as it approaches release but there is not enough information about it yet for us to have a useful, verifiable article on it. Also, no idea what the article title is supposed to refer to. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Added reliable references and cleaned up the article. We know the producer and at least one track, has been discussed on MTV and in Rolling Stone. Agree with ThaddeusB that if kept will need to be renamed. J04n(talk page) 23:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Godspeed (Christian band)[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because these band members have done nothing worthy of note outside of this band:

Robert Brouhard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mahlon Tobias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable band with no significant third-party coverage. Band fails WP:GNG on its own. The assertion of notability is that the band contained one notable member, Michael Wittig, however, according to criterion #6 of WP:MUSIC, a band must have two independently notable members to be notable. Godspeed was formed before this guy was notable, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Conical Johnson (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  00:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrike Reinhard[edit]

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

Delete, Claims notability but google only finds blog records, no thirdy party sources. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok ... i will look for references to her work from 3rd parties! (is it correct to leave a message here ?) thanks Triadic2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triadic2000 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the forum for our community to discuss why the article should or should not be included.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
great... i will work on the quality of the article and hope it will be accepted :) thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triadic2000 (talk • cds, contribs) 10:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Could one fix the tag of hangon for an article which is nominated for deletion, through an AfD tag? If so, the author could place one, if he/she could find a third party reference / citation for the article meanwhile. Warm Regards LineofWisdom (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the only thing that tag will do is to place the article on the list for speedy deletion, which is the opposite of what you presumably want. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really understand the nomination. Google News offers sufficient sources (interviews and so on), not just blogs.[7]. Not all these sources are for here (there is also a scenographer with the same name), but it seems to be sufficient. Fram (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Relisted for final time for more discussion/better consensus. --JForget 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I'm with Fram; this is probably not the most notable person in the world, but those do look like adequate references for a short article. The first reference already cited in the article appears to be a somewhat reliable source.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - firstly, this article is not sufficiently sourced - most assertions have not been footnoted. See WP:BLP, all assertions about living persons must be sourced. Also, the 3 web sources used might not be reliable sources per WP:RS - it may be hard in this case, as most of the sources you'd want to use might be in the German language; but in any case, I'd prefer at least one dependable book or paper-of-record source, and not just a few internet articles. A bigger problem is it seems this article has no clear assertion of notability: she's done stuff, but has she done anything notable? WP:HOLE. I'd be interested in seeing if the de.wikipedia article on her is any better. It may be that we can source a good article on her, but at least one editor has been trying up to now, and if this is the best we can do, I'd suggest we delete, without any prejudice against re-creating the article in the future. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can an admin with decent German reading skills, please, do us all a favor and review the German sources, to determine if this woman is notable? This discussion has been around for two weeks, and is beginning to stink. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PDFFiller should be renominated separately if one wishes to delete it. NW (Talk) 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FillAnyPDF[edit]

FillAnyPDF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:56, 5 September 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, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted for final time, hopefully more discussion will bring a better consensus. JForget 22:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both Only sources in articles are blogs, unable to find any reliable source hits when googling. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  00:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wag's Revue[edit]

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

This doesn't see notable under Wikipedia:Notability (web) The only real third part source is a Brown U newspaper and it seems it only got that because of the fact it was made by 3 brown students. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to be a notable website. Fire 55 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two other articles at the bottom linked to show that it is a notable publication, especially Poets & Writers article, which appeared in print, and is the leading industry mag. I'd also point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Online_magazines to show that online magazines can be considered to be legitimate publications. Sandraeallen (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the link I gave. It clearly says that it NOTABLE has many THIRD party sources. and Yes they are going to be online mags on wikipedia, BUT NOT everyone single one. ONLY the ones that are popular and as a lot of third party sources. Can you find more third party sources beside the Brown U newspaper. I can't. Sorry blogs don't count. --Fire 55 (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am only seeing one thing that could save it, which is the Poets & Writers article. I don't think that is enough to show significant coverage on its own and the other sources are not really any help. If additional coverage can be demonstrated then I will reconsider but it is a delete for now. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fairly new ezine, doesn't seem notable enough yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, after looking for sources, I'm also going to have to say delete. Might be notable in the future, but not yet. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete If it's not notable, after being featured in a write-up of Poets & Writers, which is the industry standard, you should delete all of these as well, (many are much smaller, defunct and publishing writers of much less note): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Online_magazines

I find it troubling that there's not a hard-and-fast rule to determine 'notability'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandraeallen (talk • contribs)

  • What American Metrosexual has linked there is not the Poets and Writer's article, but the listing from their site where they endorse it as a literary magazine that writers should be aware of for submitting submissions. The ARTICLE that was done on Wag's Revue in Poets & Writers can be found here: http://www.pw.org/content/literary_magnet_40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandraeallen (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for my error, but even your link doesn't say much about the magazine; in fact, the second paragraph sounds like it's about a different topic. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • AMERICAN METROSEXUAL, to quote you from before: "I removed the speedy tag because after doing a Google search, I found that the magazine is notable." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wag%27s_Revue). So, according to you, before it was notable enough, but after reading further sources (when I provided them, as people demanded), it was not? I can't help but feel that you have some sort of vendetta or point you're trying to make. I could quote the first half of the Poets&Writers article in-full, if that will aid your ability to make an 'objective' judgment, but I assure you, half of that article is entirely about Wag's Revue, and says a great many things about it. Sandraeallen (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a vendetta because I changed my stance? That's not even what a vendetta is. And as far as half of the article being about your magazine, um, that was my point. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient sources to establish notability. As a newly launched quarterly online magazine, it may become notable in the future but the current coverage doesn't support notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Libyan Premier League 2009–10. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Premier League 2009-10 Fixtures & Results[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Libyan Premier League 2009-10 Fixtures & Results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed without explanation. Crystal balling, only source is a Web forum. Durova318 22:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. per A7 - No assertion of notability JForget 14:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truth baptist church[edit]

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

Non-notable org. WP:ORG. No independent sources and I could not find significant coverage. No notablity asserted in the article. Creator deleted Prod, notability, and primarysources tags without making any changes. There is an WP:COI issue as it looks like the pastor created this article. Clubmarx (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree, non notable fails WP:ORG unable to find anything of note. Paste Let’s have a chat. 21:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I could not find any reliable sources to indicate notability.  JUJUTACULAR  21:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7- no assertion of importance or significance. Quantpole (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is very unlikely that an organization less than two months old would have acquired enough comment from independent sources to be notable, and this one hasn't. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (not speedy though), and the only Ghits I found were telephone listings and the church's own website. I, too, suspect the pastor created the article. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability, plus the obvious COI. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pinellas County Schools#Elementary schools. JForget 22:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulfport Elementary[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, becoming a Montessori school is not a notable event, the best policy we have worked at creating regarding schools, WP:School implies that elementary schools are not inherently notable, and there is no evidence of significant secondary coverage as per WP:GNG. Recommend redirecting to Gulfport, Florida. Terrillja talk 21:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect At first I'm thinking "Why bring it to AfD?" - but I see that your first attempt to redirect was undone. An easier method may have been to simply make your case to the author himself. But anyway, yes I agree anything less than a high school is not inherently notable (see WP:OUTCOMES). The article would have to pass the general notability guidelines in order to be kept.  JUJUTACULAR  21:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would have gone to the author if I had a concrete policy to cite, however wp:schools never gained consensus unfortunately. This is also the first time I have ever had one of my school redirects undone, so I figured that I would bring it here where it would likely get snowballed rather than wasting my time on a PROD just to have it removed and have to bring it here anyways. Such is bureaucracy I suppose.--Terrillja talk 21:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Not really what AfD is for, but in default of an "Articles for Redirection" system, I agree it's the best thing to do. JohnCD (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Pinellas County Schools#Elementary schools. We merge public schools in the US to their district and I see no particular reason to target this one at the locality. I have an element of sympathy with the creator since the practice is to merge the schools rather than a straight redirect as attempted by the nominator. Be that as it may, I have carried out the merge so the redirect is all that remains to be done. TerriersFan (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article has already been renamed and refocused during the AfD.[8] The nomination is no longer really applicable for that reason, though it may be renominated on different grounds if anyone wishes to. NW (Talk) 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Catsouras[edit]

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

Requesting deletion per WP:ONEEVENT WP:BLPNAME and WP:BIO. The subject in herself fails notability, whatever about the incident and the aftermath. Though she is deceased, the criteria around BLP still largely apply here. Furthermore, the subsequent legal case surrounding this incident was dismissed. I see absolutely no reason why this biography should be kept. Alison ❤ 20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Article could avoid that if renamed "Nikki Catsouras fatal crash incident" or something, but would still fail WP:NOT#NEWS: an unfortunate accident, distasteful behaviour in the aftermath, a short-term sensation, but no legal liability, no changes in the law - it cannot be argued that there is any "historical notability" about this. JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the subject of the article is not subject to BLP policies, her family, who make up a large proportion of the article, are. I have no problem categorising this as a BLP1E, and should be deleted under the principle of 'do no harm' anyway. Quantpole (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One way or another, this deserves to be in Wikipedia. The controversy over the leakage of the photos satisfies WP:GNG, although the article is not strictly a biography of Nikki Catsouras. People regularly discuss these disturbing photos on the Internet message boards, and the article provides some detailed background material on what actually happened.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The previous AFD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Catsouras has a range of useful points. "Nikki Catsouras" is a popular but controversial search term on Google [9], and Wikipedia should have something to say. My votes goes to renaming or reshaping the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article was located for a period at Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy, I moved the article back(?) because it simply was not primarily about the controversy but the individual (For example it starts "Nicole "Nikki" Catsouras (March 4, 1988[1] – October 31, 2006) was an American woman" and has sections titled "Early life" and "Events leading up to her death".). Refocusing (and retitling) the article might alleviate some of the concerns. Guest9999 (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)

  • Keep but Rename back to Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy and revise accordingly. Note that the article was moved to Nikki Catsouras less than a month ago: [10]. The subject lacks notability for a biography; the controversy over the photographs however was notable, and people who come across the images may appreciate learning something about the story's background. I'm not sure how much historical notability the case has or will have; it still appears to be ongoing in the appellate court, if I read this article from June 2009 correctly: [11] and it may well end up influencing future legislation: [12]. --JN466 23:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can't speculate one way or the other. But reputable sources like Newsweek (note the presence of the Wikipedia article on the topic overview page) do, and it is not inappropriate to write about that. As the article makes clear, her family seek publicity, wanting something good to come out of the case eventually, which weakens the BLP argument, provided our coverage remains sensitive. --JN466 10:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that it was a mistake to rename the article to Nikki Catsouras in the first place. The focus of the article should be on the legal issues that the case raised.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Catsouras case, like the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs, leads to important issues of ethics on the Internet. Nikki's parents accepted long ago that they will never eradicate all of the photos, although they have had some limited success. When people do a Google search on "Nikki Catsouras", it is better for them to find something reliably sourced at Wikipedia than the article at Encyclopedia Dramatica, which is tasteless and contains the uncensored photos. Rather than arguing about issues like WP:ONEVENT, we should be looking at ways of covering the case that are within Wikipedia guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page moved and roughly refocused, don't know if it will stick. Guest9999 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, well done. --JN466 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me, too :) - Alison ❤ 19:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and refocus - per Guest9999. Good call - Alison ❤ 19:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - article is certainly vastly better, and I have thought hard about whether to change my "delete" !vote above; but I still feel this fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Sensational, disturbing, shows how badly people behave, yes; but historically notable? No. (And it's not our business to compensate for the excesses of Encyclopedia Dramatica). JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Subject is dead so BLP name doesn't strictly apply. Given the renaming to focus on the controversy there's really no issue. There's no NOTNEWS are similar problem since the issue of the photos has been discussed repeatedly by a variety of reliable sources over the course of a long timespan. Also agree strongly with Jayen that having a Wikipedia article on this subject if anything reduces harm emotional to the family. The point there is not that we should be compensating for bad behavior of others but that if we are going to seriously consider issues of emotional harm then we should take them in the full context. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. per author request (G7) JamieS93 20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heart's Home[edit]

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

No assertion that the company passes general notability guideline – most references are first-party, others are trivial coverage or with unclear reliability. Little verifiable information; Google search for "heart's home" -heartshome.org yields nothing relevant. Very little inline-sourcing provides difficult verification. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Coldplay.  Skomorokh  00:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ode to Deodorant"/"Brothers + Sisters"[edit]

AfDs for this article:
"Ode to Deodorant"/"Brothers + Sisters" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This release isn't notable enough for its own article. No reliable sources provided. Deserted Cities 19:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's a source-[http://www.bandsonly.com/coldplay/discography/singles/ode-to-deodorant--brothers--sisters/ ]

And another-[13]

And another-[14]

Is that enough along with the ones that are already on the article?--Coldplay Expert 19:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry but I forgot, Keep--Coldplay Expert 19:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first is just a link to download it. The second is an interview which barely touches on it. The third is a from a "Q and A" website. None of them qualify as reliable sources to prove notability. Deserted Cities 20:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And to quote WP:MUSIC, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". This article in question is a demo. Deserted Cities 20:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean the interview barely touches it? The entire section of the interview with will champion is about it.--Coldplay Expert 20:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics. It doesn't matter either way. Deserted Cities 21:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sighs) Ok Ill take the article back... :(--Coldplay Expert 21:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge relevent info to Coldplay. No, this isn't notable in its own right, but it's certainly interesting as part of the formation of the band. Quantpole (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge That seems like a good idea, I guess that it doesnt deserve it's own article but there is some interesting things on here. It was the first thing created by the band.--Coldplay Expert 21:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the "Formation and first years" section of the Coldplay article, or into "Brothers & Sisters" (song). It'll fit in nicely there. talkingbirds 16:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a quick question, why does Mince Spies have an article and this one will probably be deleted? (This is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument)--Coldplay Expert 19:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume because the article in question is a demo tape, and never released on a major label. But Mince Spices is released on Parlophone. Deserted Cities 01:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright well what can be salvaged out of my work? (Oh and before you delete this page please give me a head up so that way I can copy its contents into a sandbox article.)--Coldplay Expert 10:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I recommend that no additional Coldplay articles by Coldplay Expert and Guitarherochristopher be allowed to be created. None of these topics even remotely pass WP:NOTABLE. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WHAT....are you kidding me? I understand your position but Please!! reconsider you idea. I have realized that A lot of my article that I have created in the past have been....well not good but please assume good faith. I am sorry for my past edits and I will ask others if any article that is Coldplay related that I make in the future is a good idea. In fact I already have see my conversation with JD554 on my talk page. (And his) Oh and one more thing. There have been some good articles of mine in the past like Latin America Tour. I will even take everything off of this page and ask an admin to delete it.--Coldplay Expert 22:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hohler[edit]

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

Bio is of a blogger and lacks secondary sources independent of the subject; indeed, most of the article is drawn from self-published sources. I conclude it fails WP:BIO. Prod contested by sole author, who appears to be a SPA. RayTalk 19:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bio is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. The Subject is notable because he appears on many podcasts, is a writer, and is currently writing a book that will be due out for publication in 2011. Nitroxsurfer— Nitroxsurfer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep Keep! This guy is awesome. Hbkdinobot —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC). [reply]
    • Striking sockpuppet vote. NW (Talk) 00:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent, reliable sources in the article, and couldn't find any from searching myself. Quantpole (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting guy, who is probably really nice, but basicallyy blogs and self-published stuff. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: My Last Year[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Diary of a Wimpy Kid: My Last Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Diary of a Wimpy Kid: My New Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any RS sources to confirm that the following books exist or are planned to exist:

The articles are unreferenced and unverifiable. They may be hoaxes or based on rumours of future books. There is nothing in Google News announcing them. Amazon does not have them to pre-order. They are not mentioned on the author's blog[15] or the publisher's site[16]. All these sources agree that there are only 4 books in the Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series) (plus the DIY book). There will be a 5th book but its title is not revealed[17]. DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There do seem to be rumours that these will be the titles, but nothing verifiable. Besides, Wikipedia isn't a WP:CRYSTAL ball. Pburka (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a nasty feeling that at least some of these rumours may well trace back here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gun (band). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon McNeil[edit]

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

This article was mislisted on Redirects for discussion. The nominator -- User:G-macscot (talk) -- is citing reasons for speedy deletion but, since I wasn't sure exactly what they wanted since they seemed to be confused by the process, I've decided to list this in an RfD instead so others can talk about this first. The original nominator said:

Not notable article, no verifiable resources, possible bias/non-point of view, flagged for deletion for violation of policies A1 and A4. (links added).

The article was marked with just about every problem template including many related to NPOV which I couldn't understand and removed from that article. I've tried to clean things up as much as I could before reposting this here.

Finally, don't take my posting this here as an endorsement one way or another or an argument to delete. I know nothing about Gordon McNeil and am not arguing for its inclusion or deletion one way or another. I'm just trying to make sure this ends up getting discussed in the right place. —mako๛ 18:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Gun (band) - I don't see any notability apart from being in that notable band. JohnCD (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving this to the right place. I wasn't exactly sure of the correct procedures. I just found it very strange to have an entire article dedicated to a person with only 3 and a half lines of text on the page. Doesn't seem like an appropriate topic to have an entire page dedicated to the subject, and 4 links to social networking sites at the bottom. Seems to be more of a self-promo/PR page than anything else. Agree with JohnCD's suggestion above - move mention of the subject into the Gun (Band) article.

G-macscot (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Gun (band). Seems to be a band member with no notability in his own right. Robofish (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gun (band) - there doesn't appear to be notability outside of this -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound of Fishsteps[edit]

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

Unremarkable book that does not cite sources to attest notability UltraMagnus (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is a prize wining novel from one of Turkey's leading contemporary writers. Mutt (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems there are sources for the award and her book. I couldn't find any specific reviews or find where the Turkish bestsellers list is. 'Critical acclaim' and such wording need specific references. But there are multiple sources so this seems to be notable to me. Clubmarx (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corridor (band)[edit]

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

No sources. Artist released debut album this year and apparently has not charted. Durova318 18:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn . Non-admin closure.Note: this may be my last non-admin closure I'll make as a non-admin. MuZemike 13:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial sunlight[edit]

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

Although this article cites sources, it appears to be primarily WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The term 'artificial sunlight' is widely used, but there's no clear definition for the term, beyond the obvious one that it's an attempt to simulate natural sunlight. There's a lot of words in this article, but very little actual content. Also note that this article was the subject of an improvement drive in 2008. Even with that attention the article still has no clear subject or raison d'etre. Pburka (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*I don't know about a redirect because both articles seem to be about different (albeit similar) subjects. I'd say keep both. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Actually, after looking at the sources, the article is fine, but the title appears to be made up. Maybe it should be merged per above after all. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • What exactly is the subject of the Artificial sunlight article? It's not clear to me that it has one. Pburka (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources which establish notability. Ikip (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which sources are you referring to specifically? Pburka (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep probably the best term for this. As for sources, see the 2100 G scholar results listed as part of the nomination procedure, or the 843 listings in G Books [18] Not all are relevant, but at least half are. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doesn't seem to be anything particularly wrong with this. I would suggest using the talkpages to discuss a merge, as it's probably a bit beyond AfD. Quantpole (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback. I withdraw the deletion nomination. I've started editing the article to try to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. Pburka (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Republican Army[edit]

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

Joke / hoax organisation or simply one so small that no one has noticed it. E-mails and phone calls to one newspaper do not rhylly establish notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect (no merge) to Free Wales Army. There appear to be some references to the Welsh Republican Army in the 1960s as either an alternate name for, or a misunderstood name for, the Free Wales Army. e.g. [19]. Pburka (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no established link to Free Wales Army other than an unsupported claim. The 1960's references do not refer to the claims of this article. --Snowded TALK 18:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the grounds of lack of notability and unverifiability of the claims made on the rather bizarre and amateur web page. Although the Daily Post article says that 'The threats have been taken seriously and North and South Wales Police Special Branch officers are investigating', that's "their" sole claim to fame (I seem to recall a mention on Wales Today at the time as well) and since then (2007) there has not been anything about the supposed group in the media, as far as I know. The web page also claims responsibility for daubing a couple of signs in Cilmeri and nicking a couple of Union Jacks from Cardiff Castle four years ago, and that's it. Some "paramilitary group"! Though the 'group' itself could well be a hoax, to be fair to the contributor the article itself is not, let's assume it was created in good faith based on what he/she found on the web. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V for lack of independent reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Bang[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. No sources, text admits that releases were unsuccessful. Durova318 16:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All Ghits I found lead to YouTube and MySpace-like sites. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability at all, seems like self promotion.Gloern (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aalto Entrepreneurship Society[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not meet WP:ORG notability guideline. Aalto Entrepreneurship Society has not been a subject of significant media attention. According to its own web page, it has ca. 10 active members and has been active only since winter 2009. According to the club's web site, the club has been briefly mentioned in a national news broadcast (MTV3, 2009-08-04, 22:00 UTC +3). However, when one views the broadcast, there is no material about the organization in question. The real-world activities of the organization are minor and non-notable: about half a dozen social gatherings.

As a student club, AES is among the newest and smallest in the (future) Aalto University. However, the club has been very active in all social medias, and a Wikipedia article seems to be a part of this project. Therefore, I think this article is an advertisement in violation of WP:SOAP. --MPorciusCato (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say AES is among the smallest. AES was also featured on Your Hidden Potential [20]. Why this article needs to be deleted? --Klgfuifufguigp (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AES has, as I noted, only ca. dozen members. You can't get a much smaller association than that. Aalto University has numerous larger student bodies. (There are about a hundred student associations, and several dozen have memberships over one hundred.) A single article on a hobby portal (Your Hidden Potential) is not "international main stream media attention".--MPorciusCato (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 15:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no reliable sources in Google, and GNews has zero hits which means this article fails WP:N - at least on the English wiki. ArcAngel (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete student clubs at individual universities are rarely notable, and there's nothing to suggest this one is at all special. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sourced content to merge, but feel free to request undeletion for that purpose.  Skomorokh  00:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cdpe[edit]

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

Contested prod. Title given by a private company to real estate professionals who graduate from its courses. The title is trademarked (big red flag), and there seems to be nothing on it on Google that would not qualify as a primary source. The original version of the article was actually spam for the course curriculum. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Real estate broker. 1) Apparently the CDPE certification is gaining some currency as shown by this Re/Max press release. 2) I am troubled by this article and the addition of www.cdpe.com as an external link on Short sale (real estate). 3) Article created by SPA. 4) I don't understand how one could set up a link to a disamb page that does not exist. Racepacket (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not clear this is notable enough to be merged or mentioned in Wikipedia at all. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus that the topic is not notable, i.e. deserving of a dedicated article, and no reasons offered not to merge. WP:PRESERVE.  Skomorokh  00:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forge (Pendragon)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable piece of fictional technology. Spiderone 15:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - convenient plot device, I don't see what makes this fictional item notable beyond the novel in which it appears. It is an orphaned article and, as far as I can see, is only mentioned briefly in The Quillan Games article. --maclean (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge seems to be a major plot device, so its worth a merge. Orphaned" is not a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage in secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - seems to be a major part of at least a couple books, but on its own it is not notable. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nominator agreed to userfy. Ikip (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temesgen[edit]

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

Declined speedy. However, it appears to me that this is a conflict of interest (created by a single-purpose account. The article is unsourced. Don't know about systematic bias, but spam is spam. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have been asked about a proposed userfication on my talk page. I let it be known that I have no objection to this course of action. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Redirect to CMDB. Joe Chill (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cmdbuild[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liseuse[edit]

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

Originally prodded. Term is a French synonym for E-book reader (See french e-book reader page). No evidence that this term has widespread usage in English. See this forum. Jujutaculartalkcontribs 15:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I was just about to update the page with some relevant refences and a rewrite, the text is now posted on the article's discussion page. --Xero (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only source I see that have you referenced is the mobileread forums (here) which I already mentioned in my nomination. A forum does not qualify as a reliable source. Take a look at the Wikipedia guidelines about reliable sources - WP:RS. If you can find multiple reliable sources that use the term, I would happily endorse a redirect/merge. Jujutaculartalkcontribs 17:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide evidence of that claim? Wikipedia requires reliable sources for verification. Like I said above, I would happily endorse a redirect if sources can be found. Forums are not reliable sources.  JUJUTACULAR  04:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like someone didn't read the "This is not an election" policy. The responses are pretty funny though.--RDBury (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't an election!... this is: http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56418 :D AprilHare (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a democracy. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#AfD Wikietiquette. Basically, this is supposed to be a forum for rational arguments either for or against keeping the article. You've stated your argument and you're welcome to comment on other people's arguments. Instead, you're trying recruit people who don't know anything about this process to come in and influence the "vote".--RDBury (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a misrepresentation. I am not recruiting anyone. And I think you are belittling Wikipedia users. I merely raised an issue, somewhere else. AprilHare (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm misrepresenting your actions then I apologize. People can follow the links above and judge for themselves. I was trying to point out that the discussion created on that external forum seems, at least to me, inappropriate and not particularly helpful to your case.--RDBury (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not sure what the content is supposed to be; it seems to be an article about a word in another language. We already have an article for e-books and it links to a French version if people want to learn the French terminology. If you put Liseuse in the the French WP you get a disambiguation page that doesn't list the e-book use, so apparently the meaning given in the article is not the primary one. Even if it were, should we have articles on every possible translation of English terms into another language? It's hard to see how this would pass WP:IINFO or WP:N.--RDBury (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would be best being deleted since it's all a bunch of nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.107.84 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with a nod to WP:BEFORE and WP:RUBBISH.  Skomorokh  00:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northgate Information Solutions[edit]

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

As it currently stands this article is very little more than a stub about a company that does little to claim notability and even less to demonstrate it. The talk page and page history show that this was formerly a much larger article concerned with the history of the company. This was removed by user:JamesBWatson on the 21st of July this year with the edit summary "Detailed account of every detail of the company's history is parochial and not notable". All this and previous minutiae removed from the article (detailed on the talk page) suggest to me that little or no encyclopaedic expansion is possible, and the few minutes I've spent on Google have backed up that impression.

The article implies there is detailed discussion of two of the companies products in the Microdata and Pick database articles, but in the first there are just a couple of passing mentions and in the second there is all that can be encyclopaedically said about the product (possibly more), and nothing of note about the company that could provide additional material for this article.

The fact that the company's Hemel Hempstead office was demolished following damage sustained in the 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire is not relevant to the company, and does not provide notability nor a reason for retaining the title as a redirect (either to that event or elsewhere) in my opinion.

I am also nominating:

Which are part of the same group apparently, and equally non-notable. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Did you do your own Google News search? As shown here,[21], company has in-depth coverage from all major financial reporting such as Forbes - Wall Street Journal - Information Today and Computer Weekly not counting local and international coverage from other news sources. In addition, the company is viewed as the leading expert in their area, as shown here [[22] by a quick Google Scholar Search. This article should be built back-up and sourced not deleted. My project for the weekend now. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 14:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore this version, then prune and merge the other two articles. The "reward" article also contains useful info on it. The comapny appears to be a stock exchange quoted company, which should be sufficient to make it notable. The problem arises from Watson's wholesale pruning of the content. However the problem was not that it should not be there, but that it had excessive detail and was strucured as a list of events, rather than as a narrative article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments If there was excessive detail, then which part of it should be kept? The version proposed to be restored consists almost entirely of an astonishingly detailed list of every minor incident in the company's history: I really do not see this as being of interest to anyone outside the company. The company may or may not be notable (I have not checked) but a list of trivia about its history is not.
    • I find the statement "The comapny appears to be a stock exchange quoted company, which should be sufficient to make it notable" distinctly surprising. I can see nothing in either the general notability guidelines or the specific notability guideline for companies which could possibly be interpreted this way; nor is this, as far as I know, a generally accepted criterion: in fact, on the contrary the company guideline explicitly says "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this case" (in the subsection Publicly traded corporations). Nor would it make sense to accept this as a criterion, as there are many thousands of small and insignificant companies quoted on stock exchanges round the world.
    • In my opinion the article in its present state is very poor, but if someone can improve it then that will be excellent. However, I do not see restoring any of the old material as a way to improve it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominating for AfD an article from which extensive earlier material was removed is not usually a proper way to go about things, unless the material was altogether irrelevant. I think its clear that between that material and what's in the refs mentioned above, there;s enough. The suggest merge seems like a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I did look at the information that was removed, and like the editor that removed it, I saw it as 99% trivia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Crnčič[edit]

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

No source he made his professional debut on 1.SNL and Serie A, fails WP:athlete. Matthew_hk tc 13:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bassette Diagram[edit]

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

Taking directly to AFD, looking at talk page no reason to Prod. Something created by an 8th grade teacher for her classroom is not notable. I could not find any reliable sources that discuss this diagram. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall consensus here seems to hold that this topic is sufficiently notable, though I'd emphasise that sources are required. Some support for a merge/redirect to NIMBY definitely exists, but there is no consensus to enforce such a merge at this discussion. ~ mazca talk 00:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YIMBY[edit]

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

Fails WP:VERIFY Nsaa (also nominated for deletion at no-wiki no:Wikipedia:Sletting/YIMBY) (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with NIMBY. There are a surprisingly high number of hits on google scholar and google news. Pburka (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NIMBY for the moment, since this is a plausible misspelling. None of the content should be merged because it is not sourced. However, if google searches can reveal sourced content, that should certainly be added to NIMBY.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is poor and needs improvements, but the subject is relevant. In Stockholm, Sweden, the Yimby network takes an active part in debate regarding city planning, and and is mentioned in several news articles (examples: [23] [24]). A quick search in English gives examples from other cities as well ([25] [26] [27]). It is certainly not a "misspelling". --Kildor (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NIMBY, and add a line or two there mentioning this term. It does seem to exist, but it doesn't need its own page. Robofish (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The YIMBY network has over 4000 members in Stockholm, Sweden and has been on television, newspapers and radio on a number occations ([28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]). In Gotheburg, Sweden it has almost 800 members (Media-mentioning: [41]). The YIMBY Network also exists in the Swedish city of Uppsala and has also started up in Norway recently. YIMBY is also an established acronym in the United States and other countries [42] [43]. It is probably not advisable to put YIMBY and NIMBY together in the same article since YIMBY is more than an anti-NIMBY movement. I should mention that I am partial in this discussion considering I am a member of the YIMBY Network in Stockholm. (I should also mention that I have not created this article). Gardebring (Gardebring) 14:32, 13 September 2009
  • Keep Please don't put things up for deletion just because you don't understand them. I have no idea why this was put up for deletion, I could stand moving it to Yes In My Backyard but even that would be strange Emj (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly meet criteria for WP:V. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 17:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (WP:V). I don't see it in the article ... Nsaa (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I could expand the article with more facts, especielly for the networks in Sweden and Norway. However I am unsure of whether this is something I should do considering I am an active member of YIMBY in Stockholm. Let me know what is advisable. As you can see from my earlier comment I have added a lot of media references to this discussion, feel free to add these to the article. Gardebring (Gardebring) 11:13, 15 September 2009
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le Maizeret[edit]

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

Non-notable cottage. No references to it provided, none found in searches. Bongomatic 17:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of notability. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried to find more information about this charming cottage; however, there was not much to be found aside from an online advertisement which alludes that the subject is a guesthouse of sorts. Unless someone can find some evidence of notability, I have to lean toward deletion. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. This debate was never transcluded. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think this is low-pressure spam - SPA author, and Google turns up www.lemaizeret.com: "Le Maizeret,3 bed cottage for rent in Calvados." In any case, no indication of notability. JohnCD (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jll (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeSIP Server[edit]

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

This article and related article OfficeSIP Messenger have been continuously added (without improvement) by users after being deleted as spam - new users appear after prior user had been warned and then blocked by admin User talk:Piseciffo for spamming activities. Calltech (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The current version doesn't read as spam, and no actual argument has been made any argument for deletion. If you want it deleted, I suggest you comment on its notability rather than the person/people who created it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments for deletion were already made during prior deletions. The fact that the article is simply recreated by a "new" user without improvement is argument alone for deletion. Calltech (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the article has never been up for AfD before and the 1 other deletion was a speedy of a completely different version of the article. I find the fact that you are attempting to justify your non-reason for deletion by saying it was created by a new user to be disgusting. FYI, most new articles and most other content contribution is done by new users and IPs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your disgust is misplaced and perhaps you need to chill out. The facts are that the article was removed several times and the user who was spamming was blocked - then a "new" user with a new ID just happens to pop up and immediately adds this very non-notable article again. This was not coincidental. Calltech (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your the one who chose to respond to a request for a valid reason with another non-reason. And both the deleted content & the public log disagrees with your assessment of the situation. Perhaps next time you could avoid this argument simply by supplying a real deletion reason, i.e. something like those that others have supplied below. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. This debate was never transcluded. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are hundreds of websites that provide free downloads but they all just reproduce the blurb from OfficeSIP Communications. I can't find any serious independent discussion of the product. Just chat. There is nothing on the product or company in News or Books. All I could find is that they are located in Taganrog, Russia. No clue about their business model. No independent sources to show notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to locate any reliable source coverage. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of WAMPs[edit]

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

This comparison is being maintained as a consumer guide rather than an encyclopedia article, and is not encyclopedic in nature. None of the references actually compare the products in question; indeed, many of them are not directly comparable as they do not include the same components, and many of the rest differ very little except for in the specific version numbers of the bundled components. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep well referenced article. I have used these articles repeatedly, I find them to be encyclopedic and very informative. In the alternative, redirect/merge to LAMP. Ikip (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included on the  and Talk:LAMP page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Keep but notice that it doesnt give context for what WAMP is, and WAMP links to a disambig page. LAMP is obviously related. i think this page should be renamed WAMP, and be the article for this subject, speaking as a slightly computer literate layperson (and remember, the articles need to be understandable by most WP readers, not just specialists). I dont see this as a consumer guide, which would be a problem. If the nominators other issues are correct, could it not be fixed and improved to overcome it? I would not be able to judge these issues from my background.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the redirect. Having done my best to improve LAMP over the years, I'm fairly sure that there's little to be said on the subject other than "WAMP is a term occasionally used for the same stack but on Windows instead". I'm reluctant to accept that this article would be any better were it just moved to WAMP because it's still full of original research on low-profile hobbyist software. At the very least, any "WAMP distributions" which don't have their own articles should be culled as per WP:SAL. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep good article, and I participed on this page and WAMP article is good too ! — Neustradamus (✉) 17:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be a good time to point out that one of the major problems with the article (which I only saw after AfDing it) is that the above user readded a whole load of unverifiable external material after other editors had cleaned it out. At the very least that should be undone, again per WP:SAL as above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
    This program are known, so we need inform people which exist it is a comparison page ! — Neustradamus (✉) 18:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have always thought that comparison articles shouldn't be deleted. These type of articles are encyclopedic. Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute Keep - Very useful article for the right visitor/researcher/reader. --AStanhope (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into WAMP article because if you were to add context to this comparison article, the comparison article would be longer and more complete than the main article. And really, the table isn't that large that being in the main article would hurt it. Admrboltz (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not for cleanup. One editorial change I would suggest is to move any external links into their own Website column per the norm for Comparison of ... articles as linking them in the leftmost column can confuse readers who expect the link to go to a related article. Leaving a red link in the leftmost column also allows for article creation or subtopic redirection to a larger article such as a possible Glossary of WAMPs. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bello Musa Kofarmata[edit]

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

Only assertion of notability is a friendly with LASK. Fails WP:ATHLETE and possibly fails WP:GNG Spiderone 12:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plays in a fully-pro league. 8lgm (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plays in a notable pro league Eldumpo (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dele Ajiboye[edit]

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

Youth caps aren't enough to pass WP:ATHLETE and not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Out of interest, which team does he play for Pontevedra or Wikki? Spiderone 12:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nominator agreed to redirect. Ikip (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Watkinson[edit]

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

It is not clear to me that this person meets the notability criteria. There are claims to notability, but I was not able to find independent coverage of these film awards in reliable sources.. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nominator agreed to userfy . Ikip (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna-Maria Galojan[edit]

:Anna-Maria Galojan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. (1) Unsuccessful candidate to the Riigikogu, (2) Not a local figure (3) what coverage she has received almost entirely WP:ONEEVENT for a list of attractive female politicians. Challenged prod. Saalstin (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, article userfied to User:Reeshelen/Anna-Maria Galojan creator's userspace --Saalstin (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makhdoom Mohammad Rafique[edit]

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

No indication of why he is notable, fails WP:BIO and was previously speedily deleted as M. R. Makhdoom. I prodded a couple of days ago and tag was removed by anonymous editor. Paste Let’s have a chat. 09:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unverifiable. There are no sources given, printed or online. There are online mentions of people named Makhdoom Rafique and Makhdoom Rafiq, but it's unclear whether any of them are the same person. They don't back up anything in the article. Presumably fails either WP:MADEUP or WP:BIO. • Anakin (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax. Per Anakin, I Googled this person myself in various forms and received the same results, so I'm concluding this person doesn't exist. The only hit that loosely sources this is a mirror of the deleted article on Answers.com. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Premises and Theories of Know Yourself Know Others (KYKO)[edit]

The Premises and Theories of Know Yourself Know Others (KYKO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research, probably made up one day Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragomir Demirov[edit]

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

According to the article he has only played at youth and university level. Spiderone 08:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nominator agreed to userfy the page. Ikip (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Kusterbeck[edit]

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

I can find no reliable sources for this bio. Gnews turns up two hits, and the Ghits seem to turn up fan sites, blogs, or other unreliable sources. The article isn't a speedy candidate, though. She may pass WP:BIO, but just barely - unless someone can find sources I am not seeing. ArcAngel (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel (nation)[edit]

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

Unsourced POV fork from Israel. Also nominating Israeli (nation). Suggest merge of any useful content. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or redirect if any info cannot be salvaged. ArcAngel (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like religious teaching to me, not information relevant to an encyclopedia entry. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An essay with a WP:POV, does not belong on an encyclopedia. On the other hand articles about religious teachings do, if they are notable enough to attract secondary coverage by reliable sources. Borock (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Yuri Kozharov (author)"". This is not a religious teaching since Kabbalah is not religion, although usually classified under Jewish Mysticism. There is some connection to 'Jewish' but not much to mysticism however (will be revised to include information deemed relevant to encyclopaedia entry as suggested (sources, probably names of historical figures known well enough) which supposedly will satisfy both religious people and Kabbalists while mantaining purity of meaning. Also, there is no WP:POV in actuality as kabbalistic sources say the same thing, so at least from Kabbalah standpoint this is worth keeping (will be revised: sources added, attributions to Kabbalah placed where appropriate. Hopefully this will satisfy all). This is actually an article about the meaning of the word, it is in itself not a teaching. Merging with Israel won't help as article is about the State in the Mediterranean, while here it is about the nation, which is not the same as Jewish nation or Israeli the nationality. Any ideas welcome. This is actually important for millions of visitors. Also, I am not Israeli an never been there.
  • Delete. Dicdef plus rambling essay. Hairhorn (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a topic I'm familiar with, but it's obviously not a fork from Israel. The confusion here stems from the title. The author doesn't mean nation as in country, but nation as in culture. The topic should probably be covered (with sources, of course) as part of Kabbalah and the many related articles. Perhaps userfy the page to let the author work on it and find sources, and they can move the content to a better place later. • Anakin (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect this can easily be moved back into the main article. The creator has less than 20 edits, and probably didn't know any better. Lets merge so we can send a message to the creator that your contributions are valuable, they just are not currently being written correctly. Ikip (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC) (author: I only registered yesterday, but been Wikipedia editor since 2002, couple of articles I created from scratch and followed them up (these are my babies and I'm sorry for temporary separation from them. Couple of articles I edited, but never engaged in edit wars as they usually go. I prefer to go civilized).[reply]
  • Comment FWIW new author Yuri Kozharov has left this message on my talkpage requesting that it remain a stub until he has time to work on it. The duplicate article Israeli (nation) is up for CSD. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. creator needs to copy material back to their sandbox, find references, rewrite, and maybe ask for assistance before attempting to create this article. we cant merge unsourced content. I agree that there may well be a good article or section of an article here, but not until its sourced.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC) (Author: sure I will add sources, I merely want to do this as well as I could, it takes some time).[reply]
  • Delete An essay that suggests that the name of Israel was originally intended to refer to followers of the Kabbalist movement, or at least that's what I'm picking up from it. Unsourced, rambling, definitely POV. Although "nation" can mean more than a sovereign national unit, most people think of the nation of Israel as the one that became independent in 1948. Mandsford (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC) (Here I can only add that you could refer to Kabbalah Dictionary, which I will add as source. Of course I know that most people think. In many regards what most people think is far from truth while corroborated by credible sources. In many occasions credible sources are disregarded by most. Therefore I think we need to exercise caution, clearly state where this explanation come from - from Kabbalah. To publish a separate article with Kabbalistic context is no more POV than many examples that go below our radar. It could be fun to delete a respected article deemed to be in accordance with the policies, which could be done, but there is no sense in wasting time in such a manner, apart from other reasons.)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, POV, OR??, probable rhubarb. Peridon (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, rambling OR. If the name is important, it should be a brief paragraph in the main article. Yoninah (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Eccleston[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH Steve-Ho (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 12:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Recreate if & when he meets any of these concerns in future. GiantSnowman 13:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nearly said "speedy delete G4", but the last paragraph is new so that probably doesn't apply. Nonetheless, he fails both policies Snowman cites. Chances are he's only been added to the Champions League squad to satisfy the UEFA requirement for a minimum number of home-grown players or whatever it is, and has no chance of actually being selected to play. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to no significant third party coverage. Recreate if and when he makes his debut in a pro competition. --Jimbo[online] 19:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear fail, is this not a case for speedy delete as a recreation? Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 00:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a strong consensus here that sufficient coverage in reliable sources have demonstrated notability.
I would strongly counsel the nominator not to follow up on the stated intention to take this to deletion review. In order for this debate to be closed as delete, I would have to disregard the strong consensus here, the even stronger consensus in the previous AfD, and the letter of the notability policy. I see no evidence that the majority of participants here are "too close to the topic", or that our normal standards should be disregarded. ~ mazca talk 00:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too Beautiful to Live[edit]

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

This is a local, nighttime radio show that aired for 18 months and averaged 1400 listeners.[1] It has since been canceled. Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References
  1. ^ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2009844015_tbtl11m.html

-->UPDATE | Since this AfD discussion has descended into personal attacks and, since in review of the contents of the first AfD discussion it appears the same thing occurred, I'm going to nominate this for Deletion Review so a non-involved party can make the decision to purge this article as it appears everyone here is too close to the topic (and, since I've been the subject of three four attacks, I'll include myself in that, as well). I'll leave the AfD open for a day or two more first but, in the interest of mitigating the down-spiral of civility here, will not be participating in additional discussion. Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the personal attacks that I also have suffered, I agree with Bluecanary99's decision for Deletion Review. It is best to get a non-involved party before anyone else becomes the subject of a personal attack. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: remaining neutral on merits, but WP:DRV is not for thing of that sort. DRV is not AfD round two. The best you can get at DRV is probably a relist at AfD. Tim Song (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I don't intend to appeal to DRV until the AfD has run its course. Any no-delete decision that results from that will obviously have been colored by another users taunting attitude and veiled attacks so a DRV will be necessary for equanimity. Bluecanary99 (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reviewing the first deletion discussion it appears it devolved into a personality issue and didn't get fair treatment. Revisiting this in the "light of day" it seems very difficult to assert that a podcast is notable, unless some reference exists that establishes it as having something that makes it notable. A podcast - like a webpage (for instance - google.com has a wikipedia entry because there are other facts, aside from the fact it exists, that makes it notable; web-donkeys.com does not have a wikipedia entry, nor should it) - by the fact it exists and in absence of any reasonable mitigation, is not notable. Bluecanary99 (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This AfD nomination was malformed. It is fixed now. No opinion on merits. Tim Song (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not temporary, and was established by an overwhelming consensus in the first AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Arxiloxos. Jkiang (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems silly. I came across this acronym only today and found the (brief) Wikipedia entry very useful. Why delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.54.13.229 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The show doesn't lose notability with cancellation. It continues in podcast form and whatever the case, remains as a rare example of a major-market radio station programming something in the evening timeslot besides a syndicated yapper or music. It of course doesn't help that the 7pm slot is usually pre-empted often with sports and that played into the cancellation. Also, note that the article listed 1,400 listeners in the 25-54 demographic, not total (which judging from KIRO's market leading status, means there were more people listening under 25 and over 54); please don't mangle statistics to fit your POV. Nate • (chatter) 01:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) doesn't lose notability - we can't assume it ever had notability just because it passed AfD once (see my comment re: unfair treatment given to topic given obvious personal issues between participants), (2) it continues in podcast form - (a) a podcast is not notable absent additional qualifiers, (b) we don't know how long it will continue in podcast form; a day or a decade - it has no established history as a standalone podcast; according to the reference in the Seattle Times the host is only willing to commit for a few months, until January; the date at which his former radio station stops paying him, (3) a rare example of a major-market radio station programming something in the evening timeslot besides a syndicated yapper or music ... I've listened to KIRO-AM/FM with semi-occasional regularity and I can't recall when they've ever had music or syndicated talk at 7PM, or at least since the year 2000. Prior to this I lived in LA and - among non-music stations - there was a lot of local, non-music programming in the evening. Do you have a source or reference that this is "rare" as casual observation seems to suggest otherwise?
This time slot has been a revolving door at KIRO. The "TBTL" show sat there longer than soon, shorter than most. If the above criteria are enough to keep this article, for editorial balance, we should also need articles on Northwest Sports Night, the Frank Shiers Show and the dozen or other programs that preceded - and will likely follow - this program at 7:00 on KIRO. (note: I do not support that; a simple one-line reference or footnote in the KIRO-FM page is maybe okay)
not total (which judging from KIRO's market leading status, means there were more people listening under 25 and over 54) - A station ranked 19th does not have "market leading status."[1]
Also, please don't use phrases of confrontation like "don't mangle statistics to fit your POV" in a civil discussion. It's too early in the AfD thread to discard mature dialog and debate just yet. Perhaps in a few days, though. Thanks. Bluecanary99 (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Outside of major markets (and with many major broadcasters these days within major markets), most of the 7pm-midnight time slots have been turned over to either syndicated talkers, voicetracked hosts who have done their shows hours or days before, prime time sports talk, or the likes of John Tesh or Delilah. This is the conventional wisdom of radio today. I was saying in general radio has went in the direction of not doing local after 7pm these days.
The show was on for over a year. What preceded it really doesn't matter, and those shows didn't have the uniqueness this one did as they just either talked about the issues of the day or reviewed sports action, something that many other shows already do.
I was not attempting to attack you at all, just clarifying that the number you cited came with the condition that a certain age group was measured, not just the entire audience, and if you nominate an article you better make sure you're not misleading the discussion. Since they were targeting young people also, that takes out a chunk of 18-25 listeners not cited in the referenced article. Nate • (chatter) 03:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of major markets - Seattle is a major market so we can safely discount this argument.
I was saying in general radio has went in the direction of not doing local after 7pm these days. - I just, at random and as a random sample, selected the Denver market and checked all three talk stations there - KHOW, KOA and KFKA. Two of the three of them have local programming after 7PM. Once again, do you have a reference or source to back-up your claim that it's "common sense" radio stations don't have local programming after 7PM? Wikipedia is not a place for original research or "gut feeling" thesis'. Bluecanary99 (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
those shows didn't have the uniqueness this one did - Wikipedia is not a place for us to write articles based on our opinions on the relative merit of things. Please don't insert value judgments into a discussion on an encylopedia entry. WP:FANCRUFT. Bluecanary99 (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, from the show's formation to it's cancellation, as shown in the citation provided by Bluecanary99. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source I cited was 1, and the source - in turn - referenced one other (also, the source I referenced was reporting on the lack of success the show had). I don't know that 2 sources establish "significant coverage." Perhaps there are others but they are not ones I "provided." You should choose to make a solid argument about notability instead of a vague and inaccurate summation of what someone else didn't say.
In any case, media coverage needs to be tempered with reason in establishing notability. From the notability guidelines: "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. It's laughable and a weird massage of the guidelines to push POV to suggest that a verifiable source reporting on something's lack of success is a golden ticket to notability. Failure does not establish notability unless it's done in spectacular fashion. This topic didn't spectacularly fail; it appeared to just shrivel up and die like many local radio programs that held this revolving door time slot previously.
Further from the notability guidelines: Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network — either national or regional in scope — of radio or television stations, or on a single cable television network with a national or regional audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. --- note that this is not even a radio program so the above criteria must be even more rigidly enforced still; it is a basement podcast with an undetermined future that may be only until January - per the hosts quotes - and an undetermined audience Bluecanary99 (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has numerous sources, and I was making reference to them as well as the one you provided. I believe there are enough sources to guarantee notability. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N - substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion Article fails standards set in WP:BCAST / Delete - Most Congenially - Bluecanary99 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BCAST the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone I feel the article meets the standards set in WP:BCAST / Keep - Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because you selectively sited an extraction from a paragraph of WP:BCAST that - when taken out of context would lead the reader to infer an intent not expressed - it is reasonable to be concerned about the neutrality of your POV. I don't believe the community will be able to weigh heavily your assessment in evaluating the deletion decision at this time.
In any case, as there have been no substantive replies by Keepers to points raised in favor of deletion, the direction of consensus seems to be in favor of deletion. Since we're not in a hurry, though, I'll leave it open another week in case that changes. Most Congenially - Bluecanary99 (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated my reason for keeping the article quite clearly. I feel that notability has been established according to guidelines in both WP:N as well as WP:BCAST. There are numerous sources cited in the article, ranging from the show's creation to cancellation, a period of 21 months (Jan 2008-Sept 2009).
Once again, you did not make any attempt to respond to an actual citation of from WP:N that was holistic, as opposed to selective, and established this article as not notable. In the absence of your decision to address concerns raised by Deleters, it must be inferred you accepted those arguments as valid and are logically satisfied with the prospect of deletion. Once again, per WP:N, substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion; the facts as to why this presumption is invalid have been laid-out and remain unrefuted. The article will be deleted unless someone makes an attempt to address the actual concerns outlined. Bluecanary99 (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My previous post was asking you to clarify your reasons for your vote for deletion. In your initial post, you state that "it seems very difficult to assert that a podcast is notable, unless some reference exists that establishes it as having something that makes it notable". My post was arguing that as a radio show, TBTL has sufficient sources to establish notability, from creation to cancellation, and meets all the requirements of WP:N, as well at WP:BCAST. If TBTL were only a podcast, I may agree with your vote for delete, but TBTL has a well-documented and sourced history as a broadcast radio show, and that is what is included in this article. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, per WP:N, substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion; continuing to erroneously claim that WP:N says 'whomever has the most sources wins' is disingenuous and does not contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion. I hope you will choose to participate in a fuller, more honest and robust way. Until then, and in the interests of moving to a swift conclusion to this matter, I don't believe the community will be well-served considering your agenda in making the final decision for or against deletion, nor continuing a conversation with someone obviously intent on derailing the topic. Thank you for your participation. Most Cordially - Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from misquoting me. I have never claimed that 'whomever has the most sources wins' as you quoted, and am insulted that you would state that. To also exclude another editors opinion relating to the discussion at hand is also highly insulting to me. As you stated, "There is room for many different opinions here". To address the topic, constantly saying, "substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion" does not address my question. As you said, "substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption". So it is safe to presume that the article TBTL is fit for inclusion. I ask you, what specific reason is there to not include the article in Wikipedia, so that your caveat may apply? If you need help, the article WP:NOT can give you some ideas. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I did not misquote you. I used single quote marks, not double quotes, which are used to highlight phrases of special meaning rather than attribute a statement to someone. I will not be able to provide you additional counsel on English grammar in this forum. WP:AGF is a good resource if you are concerned or need clarification about personal attacks. Also, simple.wikipedia.org affords non-native English speakers an excellent opportunity to explore Wikipedia in a more accommodating environment.(2) Please see my note at the top of this discussion. Due to your decision to use personal attacks I am disengaging from this conversation and nominating the article for Deletion Review. Thanks. Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both single and double quote marks are used to attribute statements to someone. If you need help with quotation marks, there is this fine article. I am insulted that you would imply that I am a non-native English speaker and suggest that I leave the discussion, just because I use quotes correctly, although differently than you. I would remind you that "insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done", as stated in WP:NPA. I agree that disengaging the conversation would be best for all parties involved, before the personal attacks escalate. Regretfully, Nathalmad (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate you making the choice to end your extended spate of taunts, veiled threats and personal attacks. There is room for many diverse opinions on Wikipedia. It would behoove you to learn to tolerate views different from your own. Wikipedia is a hate-free zone. Thanks. Bluecanary99 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that you chose to continue your personal attacks against me. Wikipedia has a system is place for Dispute Resolution that I will be force to involve if your attacks continue. I encourage you to take part in this system, instead of continuing your personal attacks. Regretfully, Nathalmad (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to your insistence to continue your veiled taunts, I am in the process of filing a civility complaint against you. Please accept this message as the required notification.
This AfD discussion has, unfortunately, been derailed and sidelined due to your decision to resort "flood baiting" to push your POV instead of making a WP:N or WP:BCAST based argument. The AfD discussion is no longer valid or useful and the deletion decision will have to be transitioned elsewhere where this odd and rather off-kilter tactic of gangsterism can be weighed into the decision. Your anticipated reply to this is not welcome but I'm resigned to accept it. I would encourage you, however, to send it via personal message so other participants do not have to be subjected to this ill will. Most Congenially, Bluecanary99 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I can sum up your position for deletion for any newcomers, it appears to be this: TBTL is not notable because it is a canceled radio show, but the typical guidelines to establish notability for a radio show do not apply, because it is now a podcast. Is this correct? Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not correct. Please choose not to attribute arguments to me I have not made as a veiled attempt at personal attack. Please review WP:NPA. Thanks. Most Cordially, Bluecanary99 (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"it seems very difficult to assert that a podcast is notable" as well as "note that this is not even a radio program so the above criteria must be even more rigidly enforced still" are statements you made that TBTL is not a radio program, but a podcast. "Failure does not establish notability unless it's done in spectacular fashion. This topic didn't spectacularly fail; it appeared to just shrivel up and die like many local radio programs that held this revolving door time slot previously. " was part of a statement in your argument that TBTL's cancellation as a radio show makes it non-notable. My comment was only asking you to clarify your arguments for deletion for any newcomers to the discussion. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intentional de-contextualization of quotes with the intent to malign the quoted or nuance the discussion is a personal attack. I would kindly ask you to make the choice to stop personal attacks. There is room for many different opinions here. Thanks. Most Cordially - Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All quotes were evident in context, and clearly taken from the above discussion. I was asking for clarification on some of your conflicting statements. If you could please clarify exactly why the article TBTL is not suitable for inclusion into wikipedia, I would be grateful, and I'm sure any newcomers to the discussion would be as well. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my note at the top of this discussion. Due to your decision to use personal attacks I am disengaging from this conversation and nominating the article for Deletion Review. Thanks. Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to your personal attacks against be, I agree. Deletion Review is the best course of action. Regretfully, Nathalmad (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate you making the choice to end your extended spate of taunts, veiled threats and personal attacks. There is room for many diverse opinions on Wikipedia. It would behoove you to learn to tolerate views different from your own. Wikipedia is a hate-free zone. Thanks. Bluecanary99 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that you chose to continue your personal attacks against me. Wikipedia has a system is place for Dispute Resolution that I will be force to involve if your attacks continue. I encourage you to take part in this system, instead of continuing your personal attacks. Regretfully, Nathalmad (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sure, the show only drew 1,400 listeners on terrestrial radio, but it was averaging 200,000 downloads per month.[[44]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thadmoore (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      1. 1 - Do you have a source for that (i.e. reputable news outlet / not a blog or rumor site)? Wikipedia requires all substantive statements be sourced and verifiable. #2 - 200,000 downloads divided by 25 episodes = 8,000 additional unique listeners. Fairly inconsequential. Most Congenially, Bluecanary99 (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retraction: Retracting crossed out section per WP:NNC
Additions to Arguement: citing a source Notability is not temporary. The article seems to pass every condition of the General Notability Guidelines.
General Question/further arguement: It keeps being said that verifiable sources do not guarantee notability, but for the article to not be notable there must be a reason it is not notable though it fulfills the General Notability Guidelines, may I kindly ask what that reason is? Nowhere in Wikipedia:Notability does it say it has to be of national interest or of interest to anyone outside of a limited amount of people "It is important to note that a notability determination does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." (WP:N) --Gold Man60 Talk 07:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:BCAST: Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network — either national or regional in scope — of radio or television stations, or on a single cable television network with a national or regional audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program can be notable enough for inclusion if it played a role in exposing a political scandal that resulted in the impeachment of the city's mayor — and a national television program can be non-notable if it got cancelled too quickly to have garnered any real media coverage.
WP:BCAST establishes two conditionals: (1) show is national or regional in scope, or, (2) though not national or regional in scope had some significant contribution to society. That it was "a really cool show" and "I thought it was better than other shows that air then" does not constitute a significant contribution to society, no matter how well-sourced it is. See WP:FANCRUFT. The presumption of notability, therefore, remains only a presumption. Article requires deletion. Bluecanary99 (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BCAST totally throwing out the fact that it is not Wikipedia policy nor is it more than an essay right now. It states "It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market." it says "far less likely to be notable", not "it is not notable". plus KIRO-FM seems to serve a pretty large area with a good amount of people in it [45] and when it was running on AM even more [46], its not like this local show was only broadcasted in some tiny town, it was broadcasting throughout the Puget Sound region including the Seattle Metropolitan Area which is well populated, completely ignoring the fact it also came as a podcast, live Internet stream, and Comcast Digital Cable channel 900 something. I like to say local notability is still notability, there are plenty of articles involving tiny towns and schools that no one has ever heard of before that get there own articles, I believe since it is well sourced and of interest to a good amount of people it gets in because it satisfies all notability guidelines, does not violate any of the Wikipedia is nots, it has verifiability and because Wikipedia is not a Paper Encyclopedia. You do have a valid argument though as this is really a gray area it could go either way, calling in an expert or a few impartial experienced editors is a good idea. --Gold Man60 Talk 21:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't believe this ever passed muster the first time around. Deleting it now is a chance to correct past mistakes. Delete. Delete. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.8.17 (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to have been covered in multiple reliable sources, thus passing WP:N. Cancellation of the show does not change that. Rlendog (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:N, substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion Bluecanary99 (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Miller (business and social entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Article about likely non-notable individual. Article: 1) is an orphan, 2) is written like an ad, 3) lacks citations, and 4) lacks valid assertion of notability. Article creator's two edits include this article and IBF, to which (s)he added "Intranet Benchmarking Forum".

The companies that he is involved with apparently do not have Wikipedia articles. (Intranet Benchmarking Forum did have an article but it was deleted by the author admitting to it being an ad; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intranet Benchmarking Forum)

Likely self-promotion. scooteytalk 05:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because I have not been able to locate reliable sources, because this would not be a useful redirect and there is no obvious merge target.

    However, the following facts from the nomination are not reasons for deletion: 1) (if it's an orphan, de-orphan it); 2) (if it's written like an ad, re-write it); 3) (if it's uncited, cite it); and 4) ("assertion of notability" is a CSD criterion and has nothing to do with AfD—at AfD all that matters is whether the subject is demonstrably notable. Doesn't make a blind bit of difference whether the subject says it's notable.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This stub is going to be next to impossible to verify, as this name is extremely common in the United States. One of the authors is going to have to take on the burden of proving notability and fixing this stub to WP:BLP standards. Currently, this is a mess. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq[edit]

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

We have separate articles for the Australian involvement in Afghanistan (Operation Slipper) and Iraq (Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq) as well as the campaign medals awarded for these two separate wars (Afghanistan Medal (Australia) and Iraq Medal (Australia)), so an article which combines veterans of both wars and the different campaign medals they're entitled to seems unnecessary and awkward. Nick-D (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a title can be redirected to two places. Mandsford (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merging material at other articles noted. Buckshot06(prof) 21:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All information in this article is covered, in more detail I might add, in other articles. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anotherclown (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per non. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Play The Industry[edit]

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

This game never actually went into development, they were just in the "pitching" stage. Theres been no news on it since September 2007.[47] Coasttocoast (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not expire. You provide a link which can be added to the article. Ikip (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay.com[edit]

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

The band may be notable, but the website itself isn't. Deserted Cities 04:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB. Location (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there does not appear to be significant coverage of this website; WP:WEB policy suggests that it is not yet sufficiently notable even though the band itself clearly is. Shanata (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The band is notable, but their website isn't. Joe Chill (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The Entire Article To Coldplay. iGUI7ARH3R0KHRIZT0PH3R! + TalkklaT = I Will Be Your Car 15:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say to go ahead and add any relevant stuff to the article. But you should discuss this on Talk:Coldplay before. Deserted Cities 16:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Coldplay but not the entire article. Just some parts that are usefull like the history of the website.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect article to Coldplay, keeping the original history intact. Ikip (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merge to Coldplay but not the entire article. Just some parts that are usefull like the history of the website." Coldplay Expert Said. While Merge-ing The Article, It's Enitire History Must Be Included. iGUI7ARH3R0KHRIZT0PH3R! + TalkklaT = I Will Be Your Car 01:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking out !vote as already given above. --JD554 (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Perhaps the only thing worth merging is the fact they gave away a free download, which is already mentioned in the band's article. --JD554 (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. The notable information, which as far as I can see includes the free download and the fact that 2000 Miles was the top download in 2003, is already available in the Coldplay article. --bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails WP:WEB. No coverage of specifically the website. Clearly the band is notable--but notability is not inherited. talkingbirds 16:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once Again, "Merge" to Coldplay but not the entire article. Just some parts that are usefull like the history of the website." Coldplay Expert Said. While Merge-ing The Article, (All Of) It's Enitire History Must Be Included. iGUI7ARH3R0KHRIZT0PH3R! + TalkklaT = I'll Be Your Car 19:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please only !vote once in an Articles for Deletion discussion. Use Comment for any other things that you want to add to the discussion. Thank you. talkingbirds 19:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI honestly belive that almost everyone here that voted "Delete" is a Deletionist. Why not actually include some of this info on Wikipedia? At least one fact on this page is worth noteing.--Coldplay Expert 19:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a matter of fact, I think there are two notable facts on the page. As those are present in the article Coldplay, a merger seems to be superfluous. Please try to avoid speculating on other editors' motivations, instead focus on the facts and Wikipedia policies involved. In this case, the relevant policy concerns whether the website is sufficiently notable for its own article. If you think that it is notable, based on that policy, please show why and provide sources - and nobody will be sorry to see the article stay. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 20:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im not speculating Im saying that it is my opinion that almost everyone here that voted "Delete" is a Deletionist. How is that A bad thing?--Coldplay Expert 21:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article you linked to, referring to people as deletionists (or inclusionists) can sidetrack debate. Deserted Cities 01:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look in not trying to sidetrack a debate, I too no not belive that this deserves an article but I do belive that something cam be taken out of this work.--Coldplay Expert 10:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then by all means, put it in the Coldplay article. Not every new topic needs a new article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that your right, there isnt really anything worth noteing on any other coldplay article. (Well maybe you can add something about Roadie #42 on the Viva la Vida era.)--Coldplay Expert 22:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per ThinkBlue. Clearly fails WP:WEB, nothing noteworthy about this band site. As far as I know, band/musician websites have basically never been notable enough for their own articles, and this one is no different. I also object to the merge option. I can't see much valuable or relevant content that could be merged into Coldplay; it's mostly cited to SPSs or wiki.coldplaying.com, and likely would cause the history section to become cluttered. Redirecting is possible, although deletion would be preferable unless easy recreation of the page can be prevented via protection. JamieS93 19:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete such poor sourcing, from a wiki or the actual site, and it clearly fails the guidelines. A brief mention about it on the band page makes sense. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alexf(talk) 12:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftor[edit]

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

The moniker of a community manager for a social gaming site. Apparently counts receiving a takedown notice from the GTA4 team as one of his criticisms. A google search failed to turn up any reliable sources (although did show plenty of forum and twitter posts). In general, fails WP:BIO: founding a gaming community and raising a few grant for charity doesn't necessarily confer notability. Bfigura (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remain as is I don't think this article should be deleted, first of all Swiftor (aka Swift aka Joseph Alminawi) is an idol for a lot of people, around 5000. Of course, if you compare this amount of people to everyone on the world, it is small, but what does 1 more article bother you? This article should stay, in my opinion. -Trickboss — Trickboss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete as nominator, for the reasons above. Bfigura (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remain as is Although he is not the most popular person, I believe the article should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.161.109 (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC) — 72.93.161.109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete If at all, this should be at Joseph Alminawi, but then again as pointed out above, the guy seems pretty unknown. Moreover, I can't see any sources or ref's on the page. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Squadcone Hi I'm the author of this article and am pretty new to editing wiki stuff in general. I've only done a bit for our internal wiki at work. I apologize for not adding references up front, but I'll add them now to the best of my ability. I'm sorry that he does not seem to be well known to you guys, but his channel and community are quite notable in several large communities. As for the criticism, I thought that was important for folks to know, if not, I don't see a problem with that being taken down. There's no official notice to my knowledge on that, I just know he admitted it verbally last year. As for notability, a quick look at his channel shows almost 4 million views and over 12000 fans. He also reliably gets between 600 and 800 live viewers when he broadcasts, which makes him one of the top broadcasters on Justin.tv The respective Facebook page has about 1500 fans and is only 2 or 3 months old. Their forums have about 4000 users and a respectively active community (which I am admittedly a part of). Perhaps I should be adding these to the page as well along with the reference links, sorry for the trouble, working on it! If this still does not meet the guidelines, I understand, but I believe him being documented is note worthy. I was very careful not to make it seem promotional. Should it just be listed at Joseph Alminawi? I tried to find someone else listed by their nick name but could not find any immediately. Any help would of course be great. Update: I added the references, and some external links... perhaps some should not be there. Again thank you for the patience and help!
  • Delete. No clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remain as is He is a great person and is a role model for people (around 500-1000 that watch him regularly on his stream on justing tv). He ha about 5000 people on his forums.Thats may not seem like alot but Its not bothering anyone. So there is no use for its deletion.-premani95 — 68.209.198.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. That he's a great person is all well and good, but that doesn't mean he deserves a Wikipedia page, nor does the fact that the article isn't bothering anyone. I read the article and did a Google search, and although the article is pretty well-written, he doesn't appear to have any independent coverage outside of the YouTube world. Sites like that and Facebook are not reliable sources. (By the way, are all the users voting "remain as is" the same person?) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No Google news hits, no Google scholar hits, no Google book hits. In fact, I can't even tell what notability guideline this article claims to fall under. I am also confused as to why the editor who added the {{rescue}} tag also !voted here to delete it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ok, after reading the comments I can understand the sentiment, how would we go about removing the post cleanly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squadcone (talk • contribs) 04:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panayiotis Peter Levis[edit]

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

Was close to tagging it for speedy/notability, but need opinions on this one since it's not really my area... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notability asserted and doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Clubmarx (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. WWGB (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search of google news, The New York Times archives, and The New Yorker archives yielded nothing. Doesn't appear to have gotten attention from media in his home city. Doesn't look there is going to any reliable independent coverage found on this guy.Singingdaisies (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Lutheran Diocese[edit]

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

PROD removed by another editor, so AFD'ing. Article has no third party sources or verification of notability. Mostly copy/pasted from public domain internal doctrine documents. Durova318 03:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No reliable sources mention this organisation. There's barely any Google hits, even. Fences&Windows 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 rename to Saxon River (no redirect) — this was the name the article would have been at if not for some undetected old vandalism to a redlink. Grutness...wha? 06:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah River[edit]

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

Created by bot from list at List of rivers of New Zealand, but it seems to be a spurious entry to the list. the reference given doesn't list a Sarah River, and a google search for "Sarah+River" + Zealand - Wikipedia" turns up nothing other than mirrors of us and a woman called Sarah River. Grutness...wha? 03:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Grutness...wha? 06:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Can not find any river of that name in geographical sources. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does seem rather obscure, though Sarah does exist among New Zealand place-names. Namely Lake Sarah, Sarah Cove and Sarah Gully. The last is a gorge. It may be that a stream flows in it. (See New Zealand Geographic Placenames Database. Enter Sarah in the box.) Failing better information, it may be better to delete it. RJPe (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sarah Gully, according to the coordinates on that site (which is the same one I used to confirm that there was no Sarah River, BTW), is in the Waitakere Ranges to the west of central Auckland. No Sarah River is marked on that location's page in the AA Greater Auckland directory, which lists the names of almost all the creeks and streams it shows. Unless someone can come up with a highly detailed map of the Auckland Centennial Park/Waitakere Ranges area which shows the Sarah River, I'd be prepared to say it likely doesn't exist (if it does it should be on the NZGP Database) Grutness...wha? 09:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, to Saxon River per this edit. LINZ has Saxon but doesn't have Sarah either in the archived database or current spreadsheet of placenames. Paperspast had one mention of a Sarah's River. XLerate (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • More than faintly suspicious. Renaming seems appropriate. May I close this and do that, or should we wait for an uninvolved admin? Grutness...wha? 01:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's fine to wrap it up / non-controversial speedy rename. XLerate (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Grutness...wha? 06:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nominator agreed to userfy the article. Ikip (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

422nd Military Police Company[edit]

422nd Military Police Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. A google search, google books and google scholar search show no results for this topic. warrior4321 02:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

23 Enigma[edit]

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

References are dead links, links to fiction and primary sources. Article is largely in-universe. Article is also a strong example of WP:NONSENSE and WP:CB. Justification for removing prod "it's old" invalid. Simonm223 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I don't disagree with much of what Simonm223 says, but anyone who's read the Illuminatus! Trilogy has encountered this "phenomenon", and it features in some works of William S. Burroughs. From these sources it's spread into a number of TV shows, movies, musical works, etc., so I'd argue it's widespread enough to merit an article. The lack of secondary sourcing is a problem, of course. This article in the Fortean Times discusses the concept, but it's by Robert Anton Wilson, one of its originators, so I don't know if that's a primary or a secondary source. This CNN review of the Jim Carrey movie The Number 23 mentions the "so-called 23 enigma" in passing. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may be an idea used in a notable fiction book but that does not in and of itself constitute notability for the concept that there is something unnatural about the number 23. I would be satisfied by the proposal to redirect to William S. Burroughs or alternately to redirect to the Illuminatus! Trilogy as this would resolve the WP:CB and in-universe concerns I have with this current article.Simonm223 (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there is no singular source in Illuminatus, numerologists have documented fascinations with the number 23 for centuries. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Strong keep for the reasons above. The findsources template at the top of the AfD shows hundreds of potential sources beyond what exists now, some on works that are 400 years old. It is a recurring theme in both fiction, numerology, and modern mysticism (and if you believe the numerologists, mystics, and conspiracy nuts, the fascination with the number 23 goes back centuries, even millenia). It is an obvious thing to anyone around discordian/subgenius/RAW/WSB, even Leary and McKenna played 23 up a few times. It was even the basis for a movie, The Number 23, a few years back, but of course it got Hollywoodized to the point it had no resemblance to subculture meme 23 represents, and therefore lacked its own purpose to exist. And, the basis for a German movie as well, 23 (film). It certainly is no merge candidate, because it appears independently from multiple disconnected sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Merge to 23 (number) or keep (a distant second choice). The thing did penetrate mass culture although not as deep as other crackpot stuff. NVO (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to 23 (number). Notability is established to justify its own article. Merging to the main article on 23 and giving it a prominent place there might be even better. That the topic itself is "nonsense" and "crackpot" is not a reason to delete the article. (Ironic that the nominator is named Simonm 223.) Borock (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And there is nothing unnatural about the number. 23 is no more special than 22 or 24. It just happens to be my birthday.Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Garbage idea with highly unimpressive and/or missing sources. But the busy edit history suggests that the topic is worth having an article about. I think the title is very loaded though. The old title 23 (numerology) seems more appropriate. • Anakin (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keepthis is an underground idea of some notability. article needs improvement of course. I would prefer that data on numerals not related to their mathematical properties not be included in number articles, as i think is policy. obviously a hatlink or see also is fine.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep or redirect to idea's founder. Well referenced article. Ikip (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup. There's a movie based around it and references in major books. We need to make sure that it isn't used to promote the belief, but an article on it is reasonable. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 01:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong fnord. Notable and referenced, if a bit silly. Fnord. Skinwalker (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems notable and well enough sourced to me. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to 23 (number). Or Keep is fine too. It's notable enough to be commemorated in (and inspire) multiple books and films, and it's something I would have expected to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fractile Games[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this video game company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One book source.[48] Ikip (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The [WP] in this entry indicates attribution to Wikipedia, and is therefore unusable. If there are no other sources, then I endorse a delete. Marasmusine (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in no way endorsing anything, delete or keep, just mentioning the sole google hit. Ikip (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – can't even get anything on a regular search in which to reliably-build an article. MuZemike 16:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biker Dogs Motorcycle Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. The most significant coverage of the Big Dogs MC is one story in the regional newspaper the Oakland Tribune from 2003 [49] or [50]. In the same year there was one story in Thunder Press [51] and one in Pinnacle News [52], which are small local newspapers or web sites only. These three articles, plus self-published material from http://www.bikerdogsmc.org, are all there is. Dbratland (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per dbratland's research. tedder (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Chasse[edit]

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

Article fails notability. It might belong as a subtopic of Jesus bloodline. Google doesn't show anything related to this topic, unless you like seafood. Original article was about a possible Jesus bloodline. but that article doesn't mention anything either. Seems more original research than anything else. TParis00ap (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Current contents are a copyvio from [53], original content is pseudoscientific "research" without any shred of notability or verifiablility. Fram (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Tutor[edit]

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

Non-notable company with few relevant Google hits. Article's purpose appears to be promotional. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: I removed a lot of the promotional material. I couldnt find much on google, but if World Tour Exchange is the same thing as this article subject, the site's homepage does turn up high on search results. Nothing on Google scholar or news. I dont see any awards claimed or anything else claiming notability. The article may meet WP:School but only because it educates grades 9+. Although I would still say it doesnt meet WP:GNG or even make an attempt. I dont think internet schools really count under WP:School because anyone can pay for a website and call it a school. Maybe if it was an accredited school?--TParis00ap (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoids 2[edit]

Zoids 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This toy line does not assert any sort of notability and it simply contains trivial details, such as a list of the toys. TTN (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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" by Judo112 was given significantly less weight per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSNOTABLE NW (Talk) 19:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Zoids[edit]

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

This toy line does not assert any sort of notability and it simply contains trivial details, such as a list of the toys. TTN (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Trivial listcruft. Notable content (if there is any) should be merged into an existing notable Zoids article. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per well written article. Established notability of Ghost zoids. etc etc..--Judo112 (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable line. Content is just speculation and a product listing. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of products who has wikipedia article about them. why should this be any different. the delete sayers seems to be stuck to some paragraph in soem lawbook somewhere:)--Judo112 (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nominator agreed to redirect to Crips. Ikip (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P Jay Crips[edit]

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

Non-notable gang. A localized set that fails WP:ORG. The larger gang passes notability, but this set does not. Article uses one reliable source that was less about why that set is notable than about just using a former member as an example. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus that all mentions are of the trivial or unreliable sort. NW (Talk) 19:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Park Compton Crips[edit]

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

Non-notable set of a gang. Attempts to establish notability by mentioning notable rappers who are allegedly members (might be a BLP issue there), but doesn't assert notability for the set itself. Passing mentions and trivial coverage, but lack of significant coverage in reliable sources lead to failing WP:ORG. Was AfD's in 2008 and was withdrawn when someone found a minor mention on Google Scholar and trivial mentions in gnews. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per overall notability.--Judo112 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "overall notability"? The single TV report about what some of their members planned to do? Or the trivial mention from the GREAT website that doesn't even use the full name of the set? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have said it many times and i say it again. what my opinion is is MY opinion.. and for a nominator trying to convince another perosn to change hes/hers opinion is a very long shot that often fails.--Judo112 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it is rather pointless to provide your opinion without any explanation as to why you feel this way. Most closing admins will simply disregard your opinion and not take it into account in their closure. This is not a vote, opinions without arguments (preferably policy- and guideline based arguments) have no impact. Fram (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ASKED what you found to be "overall notability". I didn't try to convince you of anything.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The singel source provides notability to its minimum. which is enough to provide notabiltiy.atleast in my book.--Judo112 (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Burdon of prof is upon the editor(s)/creater of this article to establish notability. As of 18SEP09, notability has not been shown. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GCC4TI[edit]

GCC4TI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable; creator was unable to provide sources after request by RadioFan Gammablock (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources to establish notability Bfigura (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One single reference that doesn't establish notability Rirunmot (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo zampolli[edit]

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

High number of GHits, but mostly associated with Page Six type short blurbs. Probably best know for using high-end fashion models to sell exclusive properties in Manhattan and return of a lost expensive Rolex. No GNEWS of substance. CSD removed by SPA. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This summary is full of baseless accusations. First of all, Paolo Zampolli is a legitamate businessman who was a pioneer in the fashion modeling business. The comments above related to "using high-end models to sell exclusive properties" was about 0.0001% of Zampolli's business in the fashion industry. The accusation of "CSD removed by SPA" is also baseless as I (Notorious_guy) am not a SPA. I am an Wikipedia user doing as Wikipedia instructs users to do when they see a baseless claim for deletion. Wikipedia ASKS USERS TO DELETE THE TAG!!!! Sometimes the system of tag deletion works and the system of editors policing does not. This is one of those cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notorious guy (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The difficulty of creating an article that is violates WP:COI is it sometimes clouds one's view of the facts. Nothing in the summary is incorrect nor is anything there an accusation. That said, I would focus on showing how this article meets the criteria in WP:BIO, WP:REF, and WP:VERIFY. Without this the article may fail the AfD. My best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 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) 00:35, 5 September 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 01:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CareerBall[edit]

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

Article has exactly 23 google hits - 2 of those from Wikipedia. Other links refer to a book published on scribd and a website with the same name. The book author appears to be the creator of the article. noq (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Questionable notability, has an odor of original research. Crockspot (talk) 20:09, 29 August 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) 00:33, 5 September 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 01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title "CareerBall" was apparently coined by the article author for his book, which falls under the category of articles wrongly titled as neologisms. But even the article itself smacks of original research, and doesn't feel rightly encyclopedic. It wouldn't surprise me if it was copied directly from his book, and I don't think it's salvageable. • Anakin (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boomtown Theatre[edit]

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

No reliable sources establishing notability, and it is highly unlikely that any will be found for this short-lived local venue. There is (was) no particularly significant coverage in even the local media. The article appears to have been created by the owner, several years ago. Cúchullain t/c 15:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion was not added to a log page but I've listed it now. (see discussion here). ascidian | talk-to-me 00:25, 5 September 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 01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All New Electronics Self Teaching Guide[edit]

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

Article subject is a book for which no reliable sources are provided and no assertion of notability is made in the article which meets the criteria of WP:NB. The title gets a large number of ghits but all the ones I looked at were either bookseller's advertising or were blogs and forums that had been spammed. After the first three or four pages of results I am now bored with trawling through them. It seems to me that this article is just one more item in an internet wide spamming fest for this book. Possibly there is an article in there, but the authors are going to need to identify the reliable sources first. SpinningSpark 15:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and Notability (books). The book might be notable, but the article certainly doesn't show or claim it. Seems like WP:PROMOTION. • Anakin (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Notability (books). While its hard to get info to show notability for some books which probably deserve articles, i suspect most textbooks and how to books dont cut it, unless they were the first in their genre or have some unusual quality which helps them stand out. Its up to author of this article to show special reasons for this books notability, which they have not.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Meiswinkle[edit]

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject, one of ten minor candidates in the 2009 gubernatorial election in New Jersey, does not seem to have any special notability indicated in the article. Several articles are linked to on the page, but only a couple of those seem relevant to the establishment of the subject's notability. The rest (Flickr photos of newspaper articles from the 1990s) seem only to go toward supporting the statement in the article that "his experiences fighting corruption lead [sic] to his political aspirations." Ultimately, this article fails WP:NN and WP:POLITICIAN. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 13:55, 29 August 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) 00:25, 5 September 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 01:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Weapon (Guitar FX)[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Has only been used by one band, Disturbed (band), for and with whose guitarist the pedal was designed. No non-commercial third-party coverage has been made of this. It is a product which has no significance to music history, and as an effect there's nothing special about it. Conical Johnson (talk) 08:19, 29 August 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, 5 September 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 01:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A product that has only been used by one band so it's not independently notable. This is an unlikely redirect. Joe Chill (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mekehout[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played in a professional league. Spiderone 12:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. If notable, find sources. GauchoDude (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAB effects[edit]

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

Non-notable product line from a large manufacturer with its own page. All the important content from this article is already in the Danelectro article. Conical Johnson (talk) 08:12, 29 August 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, 5 September 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 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Bentayeb[edit]

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

No assertion of notability made in the article as the league isn't professional. Spiderone 12:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelkrim Mammeri[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. This link [54] implies that he hasn't made an appearance in a league that isn't even professional. Spiderone 12:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - captaining his side to a national cup victory is enough for me. GiantSnowman 11:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14 days with no "clear" arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Maine Edge[edit]

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

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. Neutral. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't favor it. I think it outlines a growing trend, and just posted an article that contrasts the free vs. paid debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglesfan215 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep RSes, notable content, keep it.Simonm223 (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Unforgettable (Selena). — Jake Wartenberg 15:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Series, Vol. 1 (Selena)[edit]

Classic Series, Vol. 1 (Selena) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These albums are simply remastered releases of early Selena albums. I have attempted to merge and redirect the articles to the original album only to be reverted on more than one occasion. I still support a redirect of each. There are five volumes in all. Wolfer68 (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Series, Vol. 1 (Selena) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) → Alpha (Selena album)
Classic Series, Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) → Muñequito de Trapo
Classic Series, Vol. 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) → And the Winner Is...
Classic Series, Vol. 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) → Preciosa (album)
Classic Series, Vol. 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) → Dulce Amor

Agreed.The same has been done regarding Unforgettable: Limited Edition in redirecting to Unforgettable (Selena). MaJic (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirect. I was unable to find much in the way of sources, but I think that the albums are still notable however it seems unlikely they can be full content. It's more an editorial issue thatn anything else.Martin Raybourne (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether this content should be included in standalone articles or merged is not a deletion issue, and should be handled on the relevant talk pages. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirect. Although I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that this may be handled better on the talk pages, in this case where there have been multiple reversions, deletion is at least a viable possibility, and so I don't have a problem with dealing with this at AfD. Rlendog (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ankan Deka[edit]

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

(talk) 01:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing at all in RS to show notability. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 10:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nominator agreed to userfy page.. Ikip (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Ellefson[edit]

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

Article subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on WIkipedia. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Gravity (song)[edit]

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

This song was not released as a single, did not chart on any national or significant music charts, has not won significant awards or honors, has not been performed independently by several notable artists, has no reliable sources, does not have enough material to warrant an article and is unlikely to grow beyond a stub article. Aspects (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The scope of Archuleta's career is not holistic enough at this point that this level of minutia has significance or relevance to any but a tiny fraction of his fans. Bluecanary99 (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion was listed for 16 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Though an AFD tag for some reason was not placed on the article, the debate was sorted and was listed on the log for 13 days. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ixquick[edit]

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

Not notable and written like an ad. 120 million searches in five years, which amounts to less than 100,000 per day. Only other indication of notability is a "EuroPriSe" award, which doesn't seem to itself be notable (supranational government projects aren't automatically notable). May be salvageable if merged e.g. into an article about search privacy. NeonMerlin 15:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 00:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion was not added to a log page but I've listed it now. (see discussion here). ascidian | talk-to-me 00:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep A Forbes article devotes a few paragraphs to the site. The site is also discussed in a number of books ([55], [56], [57], etc). There's not really a huge amount to say about it, but I think it's barely notable enough. The current article doesn't seem too bad to me, at least in terms of tone. It would be nice to replace some of the refs from Ixquick itself. Zagalejo^^^ 05:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. The first relist was 3 days after filing due to the AFD not being transcluded so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The article doesn't have an AFD banner. Pburka (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like above, I found [58] and [59]. I believe google scholar yields a few results too. ceranthor 23:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen Is Amanda - Platinum Edition[edit]

The Queen Is Amanda - Platinum Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mid-price compilation released by non notable european label (NAR/Edel Music Italy). Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq2 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Jim Pouillon[edit]

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

sad, but a failure of WP:NOT#NEWS and a potential BLP nightmare. Ironholds (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with nom. Event just happened. Too early to determine notability. Location (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOT#NEWS mostly concerns articles about people, not events. The relevant two sentences for events read "News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article". This is clearly none of those things, this is a non-routine event being covered by the mainstream press: [60]. Compare to Assassination of George Tiller, which is incredibly similar, just on the opposite side of the political coin. I don't see how we can have one article and not the other. Indeed, there are sources comparing the two. There's plenty of notability here... just because an event recently occurred doesn't mean we delete the article, there should be zillions of examples of that. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tiller has 61 references over a wide date range with a HBO documentary. I don't give a fig about "political coins", so if you were implying any kind of bias it wasn't welcome. If I was to bring my political bias into this the article would have GOOD RIDDANCE in type 36 font. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just created this article 15 minutes ago... and the event happened today, so I don't think asking for 61 references and an HBO documentary is an even vaguely realistic request. I pointed to evidence of dozens of news stories... if I stayed up all night making inline 61 references, which I'm sure I could do, should the article be kept? --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See "over a wide date range". We have no way of knowing if this will be notable at this point, and we don't keep things around simply because they might in the future. In WP:NOT#NEWS, see "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events" and "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". I find Wikipedia:News articles a particularly good standard to set, i.e. has it been covered by secondary sources such as academia, documentaries, et al? Ironholds (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that a full 24 hours after it was created, the George Tiller article lacked any inline citations. If you claim you treat both the same regardless of politics... shouldn't people wait at least 24 hours before voting to delete this one? This article was nominated for deletion 6 minutes after I created it... no one waited for sources "over a wide date range" with the Tiller article. I agree that "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" and it's not being treated any differently here... I have shown several sources have provided non-trivial coverage of this event, and that's what WP:N and WP:V demand, breaking news or otherwise. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't around six minutes after the Tiller article was created. The article can be recreated at a later date when some long-lasting notability is evident, but we shouldn't keep an article until then because it might, in future, fulfil requirements. WP:GNG sets a base standard, yes, but WP:NOT#NEWS takes precedence, otherwise we'd effectively be a news outlet. We have M:Wikinews for that sort of thing. Ironholds (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And like I said, WP:NOT#NEWS only mentions articles based on routinely covered events like sports games. This shooting is not a routine, scheduled event that gets token coverage every day. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: The George Tiller article was started three years before he died. The Jim Pouillon article was created less than 0:30 minutes ago simply to redirect here. This will likely be a notable event, but that's my WP:CRYSTALBALL. Location (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, the Tiller assassination article has never been challenged at AFD, regardless of creation timelines. Both are articles on the assassination of people involved in abortion/anti-abortion advocacy, both can be supported by numerous non-tabloid sources... the only real difference is the side of the political coin. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the only real difference is the lack of proven lasting notability and focus from outside of the newspapers and tabloids. Second warning, don't accuse me of political bias. Ironholds (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second warning? I didn't accuse you of anything... and I'm not even sure what you're threatening me with with these warnings. At any rate, it's utterly impossible for any event to have " proven lasting notability and focus from outside of the newspapers and tabloids" on the day it happened. There's no policy requiring us wait a day or a week or a year... Wikipedia has a long tradition of creating articles about events on the day they happened, or very soon after, when such sources cannot possibly exist. I think your claim runs contrary to practice as well as policy. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the real difference is that Tiller was notable within Wikipedia prior to his assassination. You are acting in WP:BADFAITH if you think political agendas are involved in the nom's or my recommendations.Location (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know either of you and I don't know your motivations at all, so I wouldn't presume to say you're politically motivated, I have no idea, and I simply haven't made any such accusations, you appear to be trying to read between the lines of what I'm saying. But still, nominating within 6 minutes of page creation... how good could the page possibly have been? And now I can't work on it because I have to defend the page here. Hopefully someone can realize the problem here... --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've repeatedly made comments along the lines of "you didn't nominate the other article for deletion, and the only difference is political" - what exactly am I meant to think? Ironholds (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm asking you to explain a non-political difference between the two. And I'm saying that no one challenged the Tiller articles the way this article is being challenged, not that you specifically didn't. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, so you're making a comment about WP generally being biased, that's nicer :P. I've already explained a difference; Tiller demonstrates longer-lasting notability, with a documentary and coverage over a wide range of dates. Pouillon doesn't yet. The fact that he might in six months is by the by - we don't keep articles around because they might be important in the future. Ironholds (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But like I said, the sources, from many different non-tabloids, are here now. I think it's trying to predict the future to say "Well, even though there are 500 news stories today, no one will care in 6 months". If that's the case in 6 months, then deletion is called for, I agree. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, because WP:NOT#NEWS sets the base standard that "news" stories are not automatically notable, and the onus is on the creator to highlight (as I say once a year, or close enough) why this story is different from all other stories. Ironholds (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an impossible to define standard, and presumably that's why WP:NOT#NEWS says nothing of the sort... I could say it's "different from all other stories" because there are few to no other stories about anti-abortion activists being murdered for their beliefs/activism. I could say it's "different from all other stories" just because it's about the murder of a guy named Jim Pouillon, whereas no other story is about that. It's a completely subjective standard, so it's not a part of policy. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was "evidence that this news story is not the same as the story about a kitten rescued from a tree, which was also covered by four channels".Ironholds (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well uh, this is not the same as a story about a kitten being rescued from a tree, because it involves a double-murder, not firefighters and an oak tree. I'm not trying to be trite, it's just that the whole idea of what is similar and what is different is a hopelessly subjective standard to try to debate over. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, so all double murders are now worth an article? No. It isn't a subjective standard at all, what I'm saying is that what makes things like this "different" from other crimes is the long-term coverage. Pouillon has exhibited none of this, and we shouldn't keep him around because he might be covered in six months. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there are endless articles we've kept around without waiting 6 months to see how much overall coverage there ends up being. I just don't see people applying this supposed standard very evenly... we keep articles on breaking news all the time without trying to delete them because there might not be coverage in 6 months. If there really isn't coverage of a major news story 6 months later, then it's time to consider deletion. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments posited by the nom and myself have been non-political. On the other hand, you have introduced a need for both sides of the "political coin" to be represented from your first post. If we are in agreement that politics do not dictate whether the article is kept or not, then we should be looking at relevant policies and guidelines (i.e. WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:CRYSTALBALL, etc.) instead of trying to ascertain where an hours old murder "fits in". Location (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC) [edited 02:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. This is not a notable event. Even if this article is kept, the title would be wrong considering the shooter also killed another man the same day, a fact not even mentioned in the article. Also comparing it to the George Tiller article does not work, George Tiller was created in June 2006 and by the time Assassination of George Tiller was created as an extension of the article it already had 29 inline citations, [61]. George Tiller had notability way before he was murdered. Aspects (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is all true, but the article about his assassination is what I based this on, not the article on Tiller. Is there any place for mentioning this event in Wikipedia? I just can't understand how mentioning Tiller's murder is fine, but mentioning this murder isn't. Both seem like pretty big events in violence related to the abortion issue. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately, let me put it like this. There is a section called Anti-abortion_violence#Murders for all instances of Anti-Abortion murders. If there are truly no politics involved, it seems like there should be a place in Wikipedia for Anti-Anti-Abortion murders (I'm sure there's a less convoluted term). So, where is that place? If the standalone article is no good, fine, just point me to the place where this actually can be mentioned on Wikipedia. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteFails WP:NOT#NEWSSimonm223 (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. By the time this AfD ends, they're will be too large media frenzy for NOTNEWS. He killed two people, so another name is needed, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "I think it'll be notable in a week" is not a valid keep vote. We look at things as they are now in relation to their historical importance, not as they might be in the future. Ironholds (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the killing of someone by non-state actors for their political belief (at least in a western democracy) is notable. With regards to the nomination text, if the nominator doesn't think the event is sad, can the nominator remove the "sad, but" bit, leaving just "a failure of WP:NOT#NEWS and a potential BLP nightmare"? Andjam (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? I do think it's sad, as murders always are. I accept, however, that there are a lot of murders, and sad doesn't equal important. Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I was under the impression your personal reaction to the killing was "good riddance", but that your commitment to NPOV meant that you wouldn't type that in the article's page. Andjam (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a joke based on my political leanings - my sense of humour is rather dark and wry, so I appreciate it doesn't always count across. Regardless of political or personal belief or affiliation, deaths which deprive children of fathers, fathers of sons and wifes of husbands are always sad. Ironholds (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's been widely discussed. (CNNThe New York Times Slate Mother Jones The Guardian (UK paper) Daily Mail) However it should probably be renamed to something like Owosso, Michigan shootings or Owosso, Michigan killings as there was more than one victim and this would make it like others in Category:Spree shootings in the United States. (Also might reduce some of the political concerns/sniping. I also grant the "death toll" might be too low, but the Ohio highway sniper attacks apparently caused only one death)--T. Anthony (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources as you've currently given fall foul of WP:NOT#NEWS. The fact that there are only immediate media reports to go on means we can't say that there will be long-term coverage or anything else to override "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Ironholds (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also feel that a multiple shooting in the town this size, with a political aspect possible, is notable. If this was simply a temporary local story it would not have garnered interest to so many political magazines or made it to British news sites. At the very least the shooting should be mentioned in the Owosso, Michigan article rather than deleted.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you haven't explained how this passes the gauntlet of WP:NOT#NEWS; your entire argument for inclusion is "it must be important, it's been covered in the British news as well". Speaking as a Brit: 1), we always cover your news and 2) those British sources are trash tabloids like the Daily Mail and the Sun. Ironholds (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My idea was making it on the shooting entire. Once you do the explanations seems obvious. This is not a routine event and its coverage is in many sources. (Now including Malaysia) The political significance is also obvious as it's in many to most political magazines. Further developments have been noticed.[62] I respect a stricter standard is wanted than in times past and maybe I've been here too long. From my memory this is clearly notable by all standards we've used since I've been here.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the statement made by Andjam. OckRaz (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As of now just a news story. There are murders every day. If it develops into a larger controversy, as it seems so, then an article could be justified. BTW the word "assassination" is way overused in our (USA) culture. Borock (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "assassination" is inappropriate (regardless of whether others are killed or not) unless and until evidence emerges that Pouillon was specifically, individually, targeted, beyond his membership in a group of protestors. Not every political murder is an assassination. Spark240 (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What term would you use? I haven't heard of the term "political murder". Andjam (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's pretty easy to understand what I mean, isn't it? Whereas "assassination" is inaccurate and misleading. Another demonstrator at the same time and place would have been shot equally dead, I expect. I don't think this event warrants its own article--see paragraph at Wikipedia:Pro-life_movement#Violence_against_pro-lifers--but simple, accurate terms would include "killing" and "murder." Spark240 (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These murders are obviously going to have repercussions outside of the Owosso community. Ottre 12:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    All murders have repercussions, and we as wikipedians are not in the position to decide what these are. Please give a keep reason that explains why this article passes the gauntlet of WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it is now, this fails NOTNEWS. If this becomes historically significant, then we have a story. It's not reached that point yet. Lara 12:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not have an obligation to be current with the news. It seems that those who wish to make the abortion issue popular are trying to push their agenda into every media possible. Which is completely understandable and Wikipedia does not need to comply if we dont think this is part of our mission. I fear sock puppets on this one. Paxuscalta (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that sock puppets have been !voting on this, or that they may !vote on this before it's over. Andjam (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not news, and the entry itself seems to claim that the killing isn't notable. Hairhorn (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pouillon didnt have an article on him before the shooting, and is apparently only known locally. being shot and killed doesnt make you notable. its an interesting, almost "dog bites man" kind of news story, (not to trivialize the incident for people close to the events, to whom my heart goes out) but since the killing appears to not be politically motivated, its really just a murder. If Pouillon gains some notability after death, an article on him may be appropriate, but we cant predict this. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't even have an article on Jim Pouillon himself, so why do we need a separate one on his death? Why, in the U.S. alone, 18,000 people are murdered per year. Meaning no disrespect to those murdered and their families, this particular incident seems encyclopedically unremarkable. • Anakin (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I lean more toward the article being on the killings. A multiple murder in a town this size, particularly when their might be a political aspect to one killing, is of wider interest. Granted we're not consistent on that. We don't have articles on some notable shootings that size, but do have things like the Richland High School shooting--T. Anthony (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now the US President has responded--T. Anthony (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I totally agree with Anakin. Is it an "assassination" if the victim wasn't notable in the first place? Besides the adage that Wikipedia is not the news, the early reports indicate that the killer was a guy who had a grudge against his victims, and thought that the protester was irritating. I'm imagining that WP:NOTNEWS was probably ignored when it came to that abortion doctor who was shot in the church, whose name I have forgotten if I ever knew it, but I wouldn't have voted to keep that one either. Mandsford (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, assumes far too much about the crime, and treats the other murder victim as a cipher. Disturbed man kills two people, stopped before reaching third target (a realtor with no apparent political activity). Al Lowenstein wasn't "assassinated," but murdered, and in the absence of further information that's what happened in this case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but probably rename after (many) more facts are in, in a week or so. A politically motivated murder of a person actively engaged in an act of peaceful street 'protest' (as that term is generally understood in US society), and murdered because of the specific nature of their protest, is notable and Wikipedia-worthy. I leave for later whether assassination, or murder, or whatever is the correct term for the act, and what the article on the event should (in the end) be named. N2e (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT#NEWS. Too many unknowns. We don't know if it was an assassination or just a normal act of murder, we don't know if it will have any enduring historical significance, etc, etc. Wait til the media frenzy passes, and then we can take stock on whether it has any lasting notability. RayTalk 21:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The likelihood of this being of lasting notability is quite high Not News does not mean that if if is in the news it is intrinsically not notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I sympathize with the content but the title alone shows that this is inappropriate. If the trial gets a lot of publicity and some other aspects, then sure - but I would expect the name to be under the trial. So far, this is hovering between a biography and a page on a trial. It is a page that doesn't even know its own identity, and this individual is definitely not notable enough to deserve a BLP, so, it would have to be a page on the trial. Wait until it happens and then a page came come up. Otherwise, Crystal would apply in addition to above arguments. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wikipedia has an article about the abortionist in Kansas RIP getting shot I see no reason why this should not stay as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okmur (talk • contribs) 05:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with N2e. A politically motivated murder like this one is notable. Mkaksone (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Spree killing are usually sufficiently notable for their own articles. The fact that one victim was an anti-abortion campaigner and that the story has received wide coverage make it notable. The title should be changed though. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's start with the point made by the last commenting editor: the title is wrong. Jim Pouillon wasn't "assassinated", he was "killed" (his death was random; that's not an assassination). So the article arguably should be called Killing of Jim Pouillin. Or simply Jim Pouillin (to give it the maximum chance of finding any evidence of notability). And at that point, it becomes a lot clearer that this article is non-notable, in the same way that the death in Iraq of a particular, local soldier might be covered by (say) the Washington Post, the Washington Times, Alexandria Times, the Alexandria Packet-Gazette: someone died, we make a record of that, and we move on. If Jim Pouillon had been killed in a car accident, and several commentators noted that, would anyone feel he merited an article? In short: this is a classic "known for a single event" case (WP:1E), and he's not notable otherwise. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of falling foul of WP:OTHERSTUFF, do you think Wikipedia should have the articles Murder of James Byrd, Jr. and Matthew Shepard? Andjam (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Regarding the first, here's what I see as the critical text from the article:

Some advocacy groups, such as the NAACP National Voter Fund, made an issue of this case during George W. Bush's presidential campaign in 2000. They accused Bush of implicit racism since, as governor of Texas, he opposed special hate crime legislation. Also, citing a prior commitment, Bush declined to appear at Byrd's funeral. Because two of the three murderers were sentenced to death and the third to life in prison (all charged with and convicted of capital murder, the highest felony level in Texas), Governor Bush maintained that "we don't need tougher laws". However, after Governor Rick Perry inherited the balance of Bush's unexpired term, the 77th Texas Legislature passed the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act on May 11, 2001.

Regarding the second, from that article: In late 2004, ABC's Elizabeth Vargas reported on an investigation into the murder for the television program 20/20. And there is a proposed federal law, the Matthew Shepard Act, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008, and which (the article about the bill says) President Obama supports.
I hope you can see the differences here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus seems to be that there is nothing that suggests that it might be notable. If reliable sources appear, please contact me, and I will be happy to undelete or userfy the article. NW (Talk) 19:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Studio (IDE)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG; no coverage in multiple reliable, third-party sources. Considering it's run by "people ages 12 to 18" I can't see that happening soon, no offence. Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good software can in fact be developed by young people. You should not underestimate them. --Programble (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying it can't, I'm just saying that the chances of people like big newspapers, professional websites and academic journals taking notice is slim. Ironholds (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But, adding it to wikipedia wouldn't be a good start for it....? This isn't fake....:( Moonwolf14 (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it works the other way around. We require significant coverage before we have an article on Wikipedia, not an article to generate coverage elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good software can infact come from young people, but this just seems like an advertisement. Dom96 (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The advertising tone was copy-edited away (I hope) --Mokhov (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of coverage by verifiable, reliable sources Bfigura (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the same reasons as above <User :Bfigura > Rirunmot (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a very nice IDE, but seems like a case of WP:SCRABBLE. If notable, needs sources; if not, needs deleting. • Anakin (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy: WP:N does indeed seem to be a problem. I tried improving the article a bit, but I think WP:USERFY is more appropriate here for now until the IDE and the article mature. --Mokhov (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Userfication is for articles that could be good with tweaking, not for articles that might be notable in a several years thanks to your gazing into the depths of your crystal ball. Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere WP:USERFY supports your statement, Ironholds. WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable in the user space (e.g. if I say in my user space about my PhD degree that I am still working towards to, but don't hold yet, won't classify my that user page for deletion based on WP:CRYSTAL alone). --Mokhov (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's common sense - we userfy articles primarily so that they can be worked on. However much you work on this, it isn't going to be notable. General rule of thumb I use is that if you know you could kill it with an MfD, it isn't appropriate in the userspace. If you say you're doing a PhD, that isn't WP:CRYSTAL. On the other hand, if you justify keeping a full biography of you in your userspace with "I'm working on a PhD and some interesting research, so I will eventually be notable", that is. Ironholds (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The youth angle makes this article more interesting than it would be otherwise. --AStanhope (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please make an argument that cites some form of policy or guideline and actually explains how the article passes WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nominator agreed to userfy the page. Ikip (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chasys Draw IES[edit]

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

Per general notability guideline, this lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the source. I cannot find such sources. Also, reads like an advert/brochure. Non-notable software. Contested PROD.  Chzz  ►  00:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.radio-info.com/site/markets/grid/seattle-tacoma
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_12&oldid=1142643082"