Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 7

< 6 September	8 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. JForget 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warren LeBlanc[edit]

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

See WP:BLP1E; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This person has no lasting historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). His name was briefly in the news after he, as a minor, was mentioned by campaigners as an example of a murderer motivated by video games. But his biography is tangential to the controversy itself, and he has not received a substantial amount of media or academic coverage individually. Delete. Dominic·t 23:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while unpleasant, this individual is not notable enough for his own article per WP:NOT#NEWS. Delete or merge with Manhunt (video game).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - all citations are from a very limited time period; sadly, this murder has had no effect in English law. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the notability requirements laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators.Singingdaisies (talk) 16:36, 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 and move to Propachlor Cheers, I'^mperator 15:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramrod (herbicide)[edit]

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

This article is about an old product with little controversy or historical signifigance. Lifelonglego (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added several inline references. 2.1 million pounds were used in the US annually during the 1980s and early 1990s, but it's now on the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory and the European Commission de-authorized it in 2008 (see article for refs). It should maybe be moved to Propachlor, its active ingredient, with a redirect from Ramrod. A search on propachlor gets about 3,340 hits in Gscholar [1]. Propachlor in US government sites gets 320 unique Web hits. [2] Novickas (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Propachlor with redirect from original article name, as suggested. I think the refs provided show adequate notability. Plvekamp (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't realize it was a historically significant herbicide. --Lifelonglego (talk) 02:06, 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. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Website fingerprinting[edit]

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

Original research with spam link. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an OR essay. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, G11 blatantly promotes one companies product. WuhWuzDat 12:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR essay and spam: blatantly promoting their product. Tangurena (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - promotional for one company, rest reads like an essay or marketing promo piece. Canterbury Tail talk 13:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this seems to be a copyvio of this site. I've marked as so, but I'm not sure what license Blogger normally goes by. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I think articles about technology should be kept, this article is too poorly written and nothing better to revert to. Anything to merge this into? --Abc518 (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i have clarified that the blog belongs to me. we are the original inventors of the technology being described. So it may seem like the article is promoting one company's products. if you search the web, you are unlikely to find anything related to website fingerprinting. please guide me how i could make an entry so that it does not violate wiki's policy. --Gautamjayaraman (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible then. Wikipedia's notability rules require that there be coverage of the technology in secondary sources. If it's any consolation, you're in good company; there are many other otherwise okay articles which get deleted for the same reason. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's generally not advisable to start Wikipedia articles on companies/products/websites/etc. you're involved in due to the inherent conflict of interest. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of non-primary sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:12, 10 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 Hartlepool by-election, 2004. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Dunn[edit]

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

Non-notable unsuccessful British politician; fails WP:BIO. She has never held elected office, and is unlikely to in the near future. A search for sources fails to find significant coverage in reliable sources; the only sources I could find are either non-independent (from her own party website) or trivial. Robofish (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Her fifteen minutes have passed. Wereon (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. The presence of multiple, in-depth reliable sources have confirmed that she is notable. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the second sentence of the paragraph you linked to. Wereon (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence says, "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E)." This is not the case here. Jody Dunn received coverage in 2002, 2004, and 2005. This is not a sudden burst of coverage that WP:NOTNEWS would apply to. Cunard (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a thorough look at what you've just linked to. All the stories seem to relate solely to either the 2004 by-election, or the 2005 general election. The only story I can find about a Jody Dunn from 2002 is that she teaches French and Spanish to children. Sounds very much like a sudden burst of coverage to me. Wereon (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only two sources are needed to satisfy WP:BIO. The fact that she has had coverage in 2002, as well as some sources in 2004 and 2005, means that she is notable. There are more than five sources about her. Since the sources are spread out over three years, this is not a "burst of coverage". The burst of coverage that WP:NOTNEWS refers to is when a lurid news event happens, the media covers it for a day or two, and then the media gets bored and the event is no longer the subject of substantial coverage. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a direct link to the story from 2002. The stories from 2004 and 2005 effectively refer to the same story rehashed, viz. Dunn's standing in the election in Hartlepool. Your rewrite may be sourced, but it goes no way towards proving her notability. Wereon (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link from 2002 is under a pay wall. Cunard (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth do you know what it says then? It could just be of routine record, or the parsing software might have burped and assigned it to the wrong year (as seems to have happened with Google's "2008" and "2009" stories, linked to from above). There's no way you can quote that as evidence with a straight face. Wereon (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article may or may not qualify as in-depth coverage; however, I am certain that it was written in 2002. Instead of discussing the notability of Jody Dunn, could you comment on the merge I have just done? Cunard (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Arnold Berg? Wereon (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although Jody Dunn may fail WP:POLITICIAN, she passes WP:BIO. See this article, this article and this article from The Guardian. These articles provide significant biographical information about Dunn. I also found this article from The Independent which talked about her being 35-years-old (in 2004), half-Finnish, and a former disc jockey. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are all from perfectly reliable sources, but they're all tied to her being a candidate. This would seem to me to indicate that her notability is fairly clearly tied to the Hartlepool by-election, so perhaps she should be discussed in that article and this could be merged in there? We do generally take this approach for people whose public fame is limited to a single event. Shimgray | talk | 23:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jody Dunn is notable for one single event. She is notable for two. She ran in 2004 and 2005. Cunard (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage, though, is all from the by-election - that was a major news story, what with the Mandelson angle as well as the attention usually lavished on by-elections with a decent chance of an upset. There's little to no specific coverage of her as a candidate in the 2005 election, barring the routine directory-type entries, because that was substantially more prosaic and less significant. Shimgray | talk | 23:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, she has received some coverage about it. Which policy or guideline justifies the deletion of an article when it passes the notability guidelines? WP:BLP1E certainly does not apply. Cunard (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good example of a routine record; it's a passing reference that she contested the election - and, I note, it's a passing reference within the context of the Hartlepool constituency, rather than discussing her in her own right. I really do think merging to the by-election, where she became briefly nationally significant, is all that's needed, and it would be if anything more useful to our readers. Shimgray | talk | 23:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that a merge is the best option, then feel free to do one. I don't see how Jody Dunn and her biographical details can fit into another article. My only worry is that valuable content will be lost from Wikipedia for no valid reason. Cunard (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Precedent on unsuccessful by-election candidates is they don't meet the threshold for that even if they do get a few stories on them for the one event. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failing WP:POLITICIAN doesn't preclude a person from passing WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: WP:POLITICIAN states that

“

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

”

This proves that this article should be kept because Jody Dunn has received enough coverage to pass WP:N. Cunard (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A former unsuccessful candidate who appears to be no longer politically active. Any relevant material from the campaigns can be put in the articles on the election in that seat. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What policy or guideline dictates that an unsuccessful candidate's article should be deleted, even though she passes WP:BIO. WP:POLITICIAN allows this article to exist since there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."
If you believe that a merge is the best option, then feel free to do one. I don't see how Jody Dunn and her biographical details can fit into another article. My only worry is that valuable content will be lost from Wikipedia for no valid reason. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have rewritten and sourced this article. The WP:BLP violations that were in the article no longer exist. There is no reason for this article to be deleted because it is now sourced. WP:BIO is fully met by the coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – She's notable for one event only (the 2004 by-election); being one of thousands of unsuccessful candidates in the 2005 general election does not establish a second round of notability such that she could survive the WP:BLP1E test. — Lincolnite (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply because it applies to people who keep a low-profile. Politicians, who are running for office, automatically give up their anonymity when they run for office. Cunard (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since a merge was suggested by Shimgray and Timrollpickering, I have done one. Please take a look at Hartlepool by-election, 2004. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tad unsubtle. I suggest that you delete everything apart from the paragraph beginning "During every night of her campaign". Her biographical details etc. would only fit in if she warranted a page of her own. Wereon (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She does warrant page of her own because she has been covered by multiple reliable sources. However, the consensus here seems to deny her an article simply because she has lost the election. If you believe that I merged too much into the article, feel free to the remove the content. I won't because I can't bear deleting content that I spent precious time sourcing and expanding. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ONEEVENT. Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Merge and redirect Ironholds (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the content to Hartlepool by-election, 2004 per the suggestions of Shimgray and Timrollpickering. Are you against this merge? Cunard (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, sorry, didn't see it; !vote amended. Ironholds (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect relevent content to Hartlepool by-election, 2004.Singingdaisies (talk) 16:39, 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 Boldly redirected Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Postal Service discography[edit]

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

The band released one only studio album and seems to be in production hell as far as any others go. The majority of the discography is other appearances. I've already moved it all to the main article; was this offshoot really necessary in the first place? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Postal Service. Francium12 00:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and I see someone has already done that. Clubmarx (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already merged it, as I mentioned in the nom. I brought it to AfD to see what the thoughts were on it, and more specifically, if the discog is worth having around. Looking back, this might not have been the best place to do this, but oh well. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:46, 8 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) 11:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Summer Droit[edit]

This was deleted without just cause.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.70.204 (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reliable sources found to verify notability Tmike-tx (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)— Tmike-tx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note - nom by single-purpose account--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:10, 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, JForget 22:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only slightly notable link I could find claims he is working on his third album, yet it doesn't mention where any of his albums are (or ever have been) available for purchase. (BTW, Unionhawk, how is Tmike-tx an SPA?). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ray^Talk 14:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search finds nothing of note. That an SPA has nominated this is also not of note, SPAs are only worth noting when they try to astroturf a keep or delete. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:59, 8 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) 11:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ClearSilver[edit]

(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) 22:33, 1 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 22:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google News Archive search with the term, "ClearSilver" HTML, return results that are either passing mentions or unreliable sources. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 7 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) 11:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gyrlz Society[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I can't find any coverage either. According to the article, they only ever released one single and broke up before an album was ever produced.n -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 3 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, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and failure to satisfy WP:BAND. Edison (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ray^Talk 14:54, 8 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 20:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Ethos[edit]

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

Spam. Article consists of self-promotional language top to bottom. The entire contents consists of copies of press releases that the company has made over the years. Google news search shows no hits other than self-promotional press releases. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update The author of the page has removed most of the copies of press releases for individual events. However, the main tone of the article remains promotional, and no non-promotional sources can be found to provide reliable alternative copy. The group still doesn't meet notability guidelines as there is no significant independent coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the remaining content is still a modified copy of a release - see [3], and would need a complete rewrite. Note that the only coverage found was this article. There is not sufficient coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Ray^Talk 14:54, 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 21:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.Singingdaisies (talk) 16:40, 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 keep. JForget 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--> I've redirected the other article for AFD to the Business School, you can therefore merge any of the necessary content there as I'm not sure how exactly you wanted it organized so I will leave the merging for the debaters. --JForget 20:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goizueta Business School[edit]

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

I also nominate this article's child article Goizueta Business School of Emory University Modular Executive MBA Program. Both pages, which have nearly the same content, come off as spammy, with many external links in the text, and an excessive 13 in the external links section. They also do little to establish their notability, which I suspect they lack outside of the parent university. There may be content worth saving, but I doubt the usefulness of those articles in and of themselves. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge Goizueta Business School of Emory University Modular Executive MBA Program into it. Generally business schools are notable and this one more so than most. It has been ranked 6th worldwide for its executive MBA program[4] and first for leadership nationally[5]. Plenty of other sources available. Sure it's a messy page but that is what editorial tools are for and, for example, if the nominator is concerned about 13 external links then he/she should just cull a bunch of them! TerriersFan (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge Goizueta Business School of Emory University Modular Executive MBA Program into it. It has lots of links from articles on graduates of the school. It seems that it could be saved. UncleDouggie (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge per above.Singingdaisies (talk) 16:41, 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 no consensus. JForget 20:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Kuvin[edit]

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

Non-notable biography. Admittedly, most GNews hits are behind paywalls, but judging by the snippets and the few that were freely viewable the articles are mostly on the legal cases themselves, not the lawyer himself, thus he lacks the significant coverage necessary to merit an article. Cybercobra (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Mr. Kuvin is mentioned is about 70 news stories. As noted by the nom, the stories are mostly about cases he was the lawyer for. However, it is my opinion that part of notable cases makes a lawyer notable. A possible alternative to deletion, would be to rework the article to be about the law firm he partners (Leopold~Kuvin) rather than Mr. Kuvin himself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:14, 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, JForget 21:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep notable per cases.--Judo112 (talk) 13:15, 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. JForget 20:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esteban Núñez Meléndez[edit]

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

I contested the PROD by Canterbury Tail. Reason given for the prod was: "Not entirely sure if the subject is notable. The article says they wrote many works, but doesn't say what they where or if they where notable. Also much of the article is currently in Spanish." My reasons for contesting the prod are in the comment below. CronopioFlotante (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that Esteban Núñez Meléndez may be notable per WP:PROF. The fact that the University of Puerto Rico named the The Garden of Medicinal Plants at the Medical Sciences Campus after him (source) could be interpreted as a variant of WP:PROF#5. So my question is the following: is this a valid interpretation of criterion #5? --CronopioFlotante (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —CronopioFlotante (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. —Qwfp (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's do the counting on our fingers GS h index come to 3 so fails WP:Prof #1 on this basis. Is the Garden of Medicinal plants sufficient? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:56, 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 21:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Google book search finds a brief bio in Puerto Rico, figuras, apuntes históricos, símbolos nacionales by Esther M. Melón de Díaz (1972, revised ed. 1975), and also earlier in Biografías puertorriqueñas: perfil histórico de un pueblo by Cesáreo Rosa-Nieves and Esther Melón de Díaz (1970). I don't consider these independent enough from each other to satisfy the requirement of multiple sourcing in WP:GNG and there's little evidence that he passes WP:PROF. (No, I don't consider naming a garden after him to be enough, though it is an honor.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as further evidence of notability has not emerged. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete since the consensus is that the naming of a garden is not an instance of WP:PROF#5. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 16:23, 11 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 per WP:OUTCOMES. Listed for 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunedin Academy[edit]

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

Page is nothing more than abridged prospectus, organization not notable. a_man_alone (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable since it contains a high school. The concerns over its prospectus-like nature can be fixed by editing which I am about to do ... TerriersFan (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:43, 1 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 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Subject is not notable, page contains minimal (and uncited) info. No changes made in over a week. Entry is still not much more than an advert for the school - granted no longer a prospectus. a_man_alone (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are notable. The articles on Google News Archive prove that Dunedin Academy and its students have had a significant impact on their community. Cunard (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has now been cleaned up, it is not brilliant but probably contains enough for a minimal pass WP:N. I would be surprised if more material was not available to further expand the article. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:27, 11 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. Since there's only two articles involved in the disambiguation, I have added dab hatnotes to the opposite lawmaking body on both pages as well as adding links in the "see also" sections. If a separate disambiguation page is needed, it can be created. Otherwise the current rough consensus seems to be for deletion. MuZemike 22:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania General Assembly elections, 2006[edit]

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

Article is redundant to Pennsylvania Senate elections, 2006 and Pennsylvania House of Representatives elections, 2006. Orphaned. - Blargh29 (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or dabify. Redundant and not needed, thanks to the more specific articles on the elections to the two houses, but there might be a use here as a dab. Either way, the article is not needed in its current form. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation page: there are tons of elections articles with this naming format, so one might expect to have one for PA in 2006. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 3 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 21:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per overall standard and notability of these elections.--Judo112 (talk) 16:43, 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) 21:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Ford (journalist)[edit]

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

Non-notable reporter. No awards, no scandals, and no references to prove any other kind of notability. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, he's been on television more often than I have, but no indication that he's notable among other TV reporters. Mandsford (talk) 13:29, 1 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 21:22, 7 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) 00:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quadruple Changer[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable, cannot find much on google that supports this article. magnius (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, toys aren't always notable, and no evidence to show that this one is. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there are a number of sources to validate this as a concept. However, it certainly doesn't merit its own page but it seems sensible to merge it somewhere so that readers who are interested can find what it is about. There are so many Transformers pages that I'll leave it to those more expert than I to determine the best target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:41, 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 21:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These toys are notable, as being a type of robot in the popular series, which can do what none others can, changing into four forms! And Scorponok is very notable, having been featured in many series over the years. While the number of robots they manage to make which could change into four forms is rare, that something difficult to accomplish, at least one they did manage to do this with, became insanely successful. Dream Focus 20:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. I also found no decent sources to prove otherwise. This Transformers fancruft is much better suited for a Transformers Wiki and not here. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unnotable toy. Appears to be more a fan-made term for a certain style of toy rather than any actual official term. No reliable sources even mention the term at all, only fansites. Fails WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:22, 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. NW (Talk) 02:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phonemic Distortion[edit]

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

A Google search for this term excluding "Wikipedia" shows that it refers to a different concept altogether. Also, it is somewhat implausible that such an encoding can be used for English, where most phonemes are sensible to syllable boundaries (e.g. my tie is usually pronounced differently than might I, toast rack from toe strap, etc. ___A. di M. 16:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've seen things like this in books like Willard Espy's "Words At Play" (there was a story entitled "Literate Rotten Hut", or something like that, about Little Red Riding Hood), as well as the horse that was called "Hoof Hearted". It's possible that we have an article about this under another name, and if no sourcing ever becomes available, then throw this out-- but it is the basis for a type of word game. Mandsford (talk) 13:28, 1 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 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Relisted as very little discussion as being made here with no real consensus. JForget 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it seems this covers something legit, albeit something that's relatively unimportant. Would be quite a good stub with a reference or source. Stijndon (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the holorime lemma, I'd like to change my vote to a delete since holorime seems to've got it all. Stijndon (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provided it is a valid method of encryption, and I'm sure that it is, but my wife is the linguist, I'd say ~~keep~~, but add some references as noted in the talk page. SithToby (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The examples aren't even given in a phonemic transcription, which makes it look more like a children's game than some sort of linguistic process or encryption method. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my linguistic-major wife, who tells me that it's covered under holorime and is commonly used in Mad Gab. She also points out that, as a code, it's incredibly easy to break (even by accident!), which is probably why it's not mentioned under cryptology.SithToby (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comment-- the term exists, but it is completely totally NOT what the article claims it to be. Is that a good enough reason for deletion? Drmies (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO yes, as long as nobody has rewritten the article to be about the correct meaning of the term since it was nominated here. In this case, it hasn't been rewritten (as of this comment anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 11 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. 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) 23:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse (hip hop group)[edit]

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

This subject does not appear to meet the notability criteria for musicians. (Article was PRODDED: PROD was removed by editor who though it should be speedy; speedy was declined by admin who thought it was not speedy, but should probably not survive AfD.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These two from okayplayer and Vapors magazine look like significant coverage in reliable sources: [6], [7].--Michig (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are always different opinions about what constitutes significant coverage, and what is a reliable source. However, neither of these looks like very substantial coverage to me, and okayplayer ("an online hip-hop and alternative music website and community" according to its WP article) seems to be a very parochial web site, devoted to publicising everything and anything to do with hip-hop, so that mention there does not really indicate notability. Vaporsmagazine is better, but it is scarcely a major publication, and a single one-paragraph review there is only a very slight indication of notability: I cannot see it as substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 26 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, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 1 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 21:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Still no consensus, actually no options mentionned so it is relisted a second time. JForget 21:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage is just enough to constitute multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. Okayplayer is an accepted reliable source. The fact that it concentrates on hip hop doesn't make it less reliable than a site that concentrates on any other genre.--Michig (talk) 05:44, 8 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. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Araz Naxçivan[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable club, see WP:ORG. PROD removed by creator with no comment. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 25 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) 00:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. Maybe the fact that they have been national champions (and more than once) might be a claim for notability? Could someone assist by specifying which are the notability thresholds for futsal teams? McMarcoP (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article claims that the team has won the Azerbaijani top-futsal league 5 times, and the club is notable enough to get its own page on the UEFA website. Giant Snowman 12:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would this article pass WP:GNG? Spiderone 12:50, 1 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 20:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted as there isn't enough discussion yet, so it is relisted again. Last chance. --JForget 21:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added two references to show notability. Interestingly, one of them confirms that Araz Naxçivan began its life as an association football team. However, following non-payment of fees during the 2001-02 season, they were removed from the Azerbaijan Premier League. This would mean that the team passes WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fail to see how any sporting team playing in a continent-wide tournament could not be considered an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger and GiantSnowman's discovery. matt91486 (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Simply claiming to win a national title, one of GiantSnowman's arguments, is not enough imo. Anyone can claim anything, it has to be verifiable.~~ The UEFA website otoh verifies that the club has played in the UEFA Futsal Cup, which establishes notability. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 13:36, 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 merge to World of Warcraft. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Lore[edit]

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

Unencyclopedia non-notable website created by one of the website staff Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Google search reveals several articles from major technology sites/blogs on this topic. Joshdboz (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 1 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 20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: RElisted as there has being no discussion since the first relist. Last relist. --JForget 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete, the reliable sources I've found don't really seem to be in depth coverage, focusing mainly on the creator. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with World of Warcraft. While the CNN link is compelling as far as notability goes, and millions of users of WoW may find this site useful, this article starts off well for the first paragraph, then goes into self-promotional and otherwise why-do-I-care detail about its videos, rather than the site itself. Not a WoW player, but if I were, I'd want to know about this site--but I'd hardly look for it by name on Wikipedia. I think the first paragraph, with an external link, belongs under the Community tab in the WoW article. SithToby (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I have to agree with SithToby - one, and only one, item of coverage usually indicates the subject is more suitable for inclusion in a broader topic (Wikipedia:N#cite_note-3). Perhaps World of Warcraft#In other media; a short paragraph will suffice. Marasmusine (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Here's one from Massively.com (a "situational" source according to WP:VG/RS). There's also one from TechCrunch which was later picked up by The Washington Post. The rest are mostly press releases as far as I can tell. SharkD (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well found, but they both seem a bit press-releasey to me. Marasmusine (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is unlikely to be included in the article World of Warcraft due to notability, thus redirecting to it would not be beneficial. I say redirect, because there are already several fan projects which redirect to that article after having AfD's closed as merge with no mention of them in the target. --Taelus (talk) 16:03, 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 20:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force ROTC Detachment 550[edit]

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

Local-level organization (ROTC unit) with no coverage in independent sources presented in the article. Its major claim of significance, winning Right of Line in 2004, is not even backed up by the linked page of the RPI article. Fails general notability, and I don't see a claim about the organization that meets WP:ORG. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individual cadet units are not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence that this meets WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the detachment by itself is probably not wiki-notable, although it could probably receive mention in a wider article about Air Force ROTC (if it is not already mentioned there). As it stands, the detachment has (according to the article) about 60 cadets, which means it is roughly equivalent in size to two platoons (not even a company, or maybe at a stretch we could call it a company-minus). As we have rarely in the past held companies to be notable without special circumstances and as this article does not provide enough sources to demonstrate these circumstances, for consistency I feel I must vote delete. Happy to change my vote if significant sources can be found and added to the article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:03, 11 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) 11:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Bleeps and Bass[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this short-lived local musical movement. Joe Chill (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - and I looked around quite a bit; everything that I did found seems to come from WP. Hence, does not meet WP:GNG through lack of coverage Chzz ► 04:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No way does this article deserve deleting! The Yorkshire Bleep/Bass scene was a major factor in the development of UK dance music from 1989 - 91. You claim it should be deleted/merged into the IDM entry but that in my opinion is wrong as the two geners are very seperate bedfellows and in some ways have little in common with each other.

As you and others say this was a short lived scene but it is still held in high esteem by myself and others and if the lack of background information is your reason for deleting this entry then the following web pages suggest this entry should be developed/improved rather than deleted!

http://www.last.fm/group/Yorkshire+Bleeps+and+Bass

http://www.electronicmusicstyles.com/techno_yorkshire_bleeps-and_bass.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/content/articles/2006/06/30/electric_sheffield_feature.shtml

http://theacidhouse.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/bass-breaks-sheffield-bleeps/

http://forum.breakbeat.co.uk/tm.aspx?m=1971572121

30 August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.98.133 (talk) 07:33, 30 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) 00:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 1 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 20:55, 7 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) 00:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colayer[edit]

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

Dubious notability per WP:Corp. Most of the references are blog posts. JaGa^talk 21:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SparksBoy (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only coverage I was able to find is this. That's not enough to establish notability for the company. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one more. If that too is not enough I guess this article can then be classified as a Stub? Dhoom4 (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Two article sis better than one, but for a company, that's not very much coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - little published coverage, but it's also interesting to see how much this article has changed. It appears that the work of a IP user in 2008 reduced the article from 13 KB (when I last worked on it) down to just 3 KB. At the time had a bit more on their core product and decent references. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd say that the IP user edits arguably improved the article. But in any case, the references actually are not decent. Some are to colayer's qweb site so they aren't independent. Metalayer was an earlier company started by the founder of Colayer so again its not really independent. Others include a web forum, a copy of a press release, home page of a company using Colayer which simply says "powered by Colayer", and a list of bios from a conference. None of those sources would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Few more references - May be this explanation helps. This includes a ref. to a Swiss online newspaper and Russian press recently & a growing community on Facebook Dhoom4 (talk) 01:57, 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 20:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page is now online since more than 2 years on Wikipedia without media presence - for the first time, Colayer got media attention in the last 3 months due to its similarities to Google Wave. Once Wave will be released later this year, there may be more coverage. I also find the quality of this article good, neutral and informative enough. I suggest to keep it and review it in a few more months again.--Antigoned (talk) 07:55, 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 keep. JForget 20:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Windows games starting with A[edit]

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

Unmaintainable list, duplicates Category:Windows games RadioFan (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following similar articles as well:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or reorganize It seems unfair that we can have complete game lists for every platform other than Windows (or PC in general). Apparently just because the PC is unregulated, and therefore has the potential to have far more games, it's considered to be unmaintainable. In principle, however, these lists are no different than the ones for the consoles, which also duplicate their respective categories. Is there a better way to approach the construction and maintenance of these lists? For example, would it be more useful to organize these lists by year, which would also place a more effective limit on the size of each list? Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment its not a question about fairness, its about maintainability. There must be tens of thousands of PC games and as Mercurywoodrose notes there are a number of issues with the existing lists. I just dont see how these articles can add much value.--RadioFan (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not strictly about fairness (though I do argue for some consistency here), but the point was that size is the only difference in rationale between these lists and the console lists. But you also seem to object to (or are ignoring) the proposal to reduce the size of the lists (which Mercury also came up with a suggestion for) to make them more maintainable. "Unmaintainable" lists are those that have no well-defined boundary or scope, and no means by which to subdivide the list into narrower segments that do. A Windows game list has a very well-defined boundary and scope, which merely happens to include a lot of items -- "big" is not the same as "unmaintainable". It can also be subdivided with an additional criteria, and by reapportioning the list content appropriately, you can get each list to a size and state where there should be few or no changes. On an annual basis (2009 in video games), notable Windows games are not much more numerous than games on any other platform. It is only the decades-long backlog (thanks to almost complete backwards compatibility) which makes it so. That's why I proposed subdividing the lists into years. Some consoles also subdivide their game lists: the PS2 has almost complete backcompat with the PS1, but the game lists are separated (rightfully so). Windows can be split up by iteration too (95, 98, XP, etc.) which will limit each list to about the same size as a console list, if that is preferable. By assuming that there is only way to list these games (lumping them all into one list), based on the faulty idea that Windows is a singular ageless platform, we will come to a situation where we have a list of Linux games, or OS/2 games, but not Windows, the most significant PC game platform. Not seeing the value in a list for this, and only this platform seems like we're trying to avoid the elephant in the room. It will take some work to begin with, for sure, but the lists would be far from unmaintainable. Once a sublist is done, it's done for good, as far as any list can be. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. additionally, having a game in the Category, as opposed to this list, doesnt mean its not also a linux, mac, etc game. some of these are online games, multiplatform. this list, by duplicating the category, lists all multiplatform games, which is somewhat misleading, given the article name. hmm. maybe if the list was games exclusively for the pc, it would be more useful. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with nom's rationale, this is again equally applicable to the console game lists as well. Just because a game is on the list of Xbox games doesn't mean it's not also on the PlayStation or Wii (or Windows). For that argument to hold, the lists in this AfD would have to be titled "Windows-exclusive" games, which they currently are not, but that is one possibility for reducing the size of the lists. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:CLN; thought it probably needs some cleanup & TLC. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's me that started this project. Some points:

This list should exist for completeness and conformity with the other platform-specific lists, such as List of MS-DOS games; if you look at Lists of video games you'll find that Windows is the only platform not covered
Browsing the Category page is slow, awkward and annoying, though that is where I took the data
The articles are still only rough drafts which no doubt contain errors - I intend to clean them up once they have all been posted
Someone is moving the pages from List of Windows games starting with A to Index of Windows games (A). Is there a policy reason for this? If so, it should apply to List of MS-DOS games starting with A as well.

2fort5r (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the moves: "Index" is more specific and there's a wikiproject for them; and other such lists use the parentheses convention, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of mathematics articles (A) --Cybercobra (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the lists provide more information and have the potential to be more useful than categories; furthermore, they are new and the creator is still working on them. It's a bit unfair to say they will be unmaintainable right now. RichsLaw (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – looks like a bunch of valid lists. I don't know about merging, as we do have a couple of video game lists that are over 100KB long. MuZemike 20:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but suggest making it more specific, such as "List of Windows XP games" etc. Or even, for the sake of manageability, a list with only those games that have existing Wikipedia articles. Other than the valid issue of unmaintainability that was raised above I believe this list should be kept simply because it's missing.. the topic sorely needs coverage, as 2fort5r noted above, Windows is the only platform not covered. See discussion here for context on the creation of these lists. Also, a list duplicating a category is not a valid reason to delete. -- œ ^™ 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few futher points:

I would expect the issue of maintainability to be more of a problem for old/unpopular gaming platforms that few people play nowadays. Everybody plays windows games and I'm sure there will be no shortage of people willing to keep these pages clean and current.
Ordering by date and ordering by Windows version are largely equivalent, since all games released before 1995 would be for Windows 3.1, games released before 2000 would be for Windows 95, and games released since then would be for XP. The borderline cases are not numerous.
The total size of the data I'm working with is about 400Kb. Ideally there would be just one big list, but that would cause problems for slower computers and connections.
All of the games here have WP articles, since I generated the data based on already-existing articles. There are a few red links but that's due to inefficiencies in the routine used to extract the data.

2fort5r (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create some date-sorted lists in my namespace so that we can compare the two arrangements. Instead of CompactTOC8, which table should I use in order to get a list of years instead of letters? 2fort5r (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could inquire at WikiProject Templates. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional statistics:

Games released 1995 or earlier = 252
Games released 1995 to 2001 inclusive = 1206
Games released 2001 or later = 2333

These categories overlap:

Total number of games = 3478
Total number of games counted = 3791
Borderline cases = 313

If the list is cut into three parts, broadly corresponding to O.S. type, the largest file will be about 250 Kb. 2fort5r (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A chronological list might be more informative. SharkD (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example list sorted by date: User:2fort5r/Index of Windows games. 2fort5r (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^^ however, that simply duplicates the information in the XXXX in video gaming articles. 2fort5r (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the raw data in CSV format in case anyone else wants to experiment with it. 2fort5r (talk) 15:19, 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 List of characters from The Venture Bros.#Archvillains and henchmen. NW (Talk) 02:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Werner Ünderbheit[edit]

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

Non-notable bit character in The Venture Bros. who's article consists of unsourced original research and unsubstantiated claims. Basically a fanpage. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better, very well written fictional biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice article, and a memorable reoccurring character from a notable series. Dream Focus 18:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You know better than that Dream: notability isn't inherited nor based off a character's series weight.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the character list, unless someone can substantially prove the character has stand-alone reception and development information. Given this is a lesser recurring villain in the show compared to several other characters, that may be quite difficult. "It's a pretty article" isn't going to cut it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above. NN character with no real world significance or demonstrable impact to justify standalone encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. I love the venture bros, but there just isn't enough sourcing relating to this character to support a standalone article. Protonk (talk) 09:00, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of characters from The Venture Bros.#Archvillains and henchmen as the best alternative to deletion. This is a valid search term, and information about Baron Werner Ünderbheit is already present in the article/section I linked to above. Cunard (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters from The Venture Bros.#Archvillains and henchmen Please. Abductive (reasoning) 00:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, character is non-notable and even if it were, should be included in primary article. No valid reasons given to keep. Drawn Some (talk) 18:06, 11 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 20:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel abdel nour[edit]

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

Third-party contested speedy. Tenor with no real assertion of notability. Only references are Youtube and Blogspot. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is a well-known lebanese Tenor, preparing a new coming album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selena2008 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands now the article has failed to establish this artist's notability per the guidelines at WP:Music. The sources provided do not meet the standards for reliable sources given at WP:Sources. An internet search has failed to yield anything promising (although there may be some reliable Lebanese sources which are difficult for an English speaker like myself to access). The albums that the artist has released are certainly on a very minor label (I can't even find them for purchase on-line anywhere). The artist has also not won or been nominated for any notable awards or contests. In summation, unless multiple non-trivial published works surface there is certainly nothing indicating any notably here. Further, the article is so poorly written (much of it is identical to a google software translation of the artist's official website) that it would need to be entirely re-written if kept.Singingdaisies (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourcing can be improved and notability established. Hairhorn (talk) 14:19, 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 12:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven's Prison[edit]

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

This manga series fails WP:BK and WP:N. An attempt by several editors to find reviews has came up with no results. (talkpage | wikiproject) Article was previously prodded, but the prod was disputed by the article's creator. —Farix (t | c) 19:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went through google and google.jp with no sources to be found other than release info. There is a wikipedia Japan article about the series but as was pointed out to me is all plot and character info. As far as I can see no reliable third party sources exist as well, and there is one "official" site that looks more like an ad than an info page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2009 (AT)

Delete No evidence of notability at all. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. As noted, several editors have done searches in multiple languages for possible RS, including where it is licensed, but none have been found. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found some notice of this in Spanish, which is some evidence of notability, but no reviews from sources that seem to be reliable. If anyone can identify some, in that or any other language, I'll change to keep, but until and unless, it's delete as failing WP:BK. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one who did a part of the evidences of notability search, i'm inclined to delete because even if it's licensed in Spain there is nothing reliable to chew to write an article with a perspective outside of the work. A work that just talk about itself is no good in the long run. I will change my vote if there are enough evidences found. --KrebMarkt 20:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You don't get published for five years in a major manga magazine without being notable. No sense having the same old common sense versus wikilawyering arguments again though. Some believe you shouldn't think for yourself, that something isn't notable unless a magazine or newspaper says it is, and even go so far as to try to delete bestselling novels. Everyone please state your honest opinions, and don't be discouraged from speaking your mind by others. Dream Focus 03:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Honest opinion, we can not write something accurate, neutral & balanced out of it. With just the work "talking" about itself in full navel gazing mode, something from and for fans. Can you say the otherwise with the old common sense?
  I don't care to be called evil as i did really spend more than 10 minutes looking for evidences of notability, doubtful that anyone did or will do as much for this article --KrebMarkt 06:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where did anyone call you evil? And AFD is not cleanup. Does the subject deserve its own article? Anything that needs to be improved in it, can be. And you can find information about the long running series easily, and write an accurate article. Dream Focus 13:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked for references as well and could find no reliable references other than book release information (This includes sites in Japanese). If you can find reliable references then I will have a change in opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2009 (AT)
If all that can be written about a manga is a plot summary with no sourced information about the manga's development, reception, or influence, then common sense will tell you that we can't write an encyclopedic article about. Redirect to the author, Hiroyuki Utatane. —Farix (t | c) 11:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can verify it by checking the official website of the magazine it is published in. And you don't have to list its development process, or how it influenced things. Many articles of things don't have that. Dream Focus 13:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has to have one of those three things, or show the potential that one of these three things can be written from reliable third-party sources. Simply existing is not a legitimate reason to have an article. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to catalog everything that exists. —Farix (t | c) 20:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It does NOT Have to have those things. Many articles do not, nor do they need them to be in an encyclopedia. And the Wikipedia does catalog everything that exists which is deemed notable by consensus of whoever is around at the time to comment in the AFD. Dream Focus 21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually it does require one of those, as stated by WP:NOTPLOT, which is part of the WP:NOT policy. —Farix (t | c) 21:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, that just says it should be more than just a plot, it doesn't mention anything else that should be there. A brief summary about what the series is, is all I see in the article. It isn't a long page with nothing but a detail plot and nothing more. Every single book and manga/comic article has at least a paragraph describing what it is. Dream Focus 08:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        From WP:NOTPLOT: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works." WP:NOT clearly states some of the things an article on fictional needs. Since we can't write anything more than a plot summary for this work and some basic publishing information, then we aren't able to treat the subject in the encyclopedic manner required by WP:NOT. —Farix (t | c) 10:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did anybody search by "天獄"? Abductive (reasoning) 01:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No good findings within the first 10 googles search pages (100 results checked). You can take over me from here. --KrebMarkt 06:56, 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. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Touched by an angel episode guide[edit]

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

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a directory, a soapbox, an indiscriminate collection of plot summaries, or a place for original research. Tim Song (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 19:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The author is invited to contribute to List of Touched by an Angel episodes. After a reasonable time to add anything new from her/his work to the existing article, then delete since it's not a good redirect. Mandsford (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to List of Touched by an Angel episodes. Edison (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if possible - this prod should never have been removed as it is completely redundant with the LOE. Eusebeus (talk) 17:30, 10 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 close How hard was it to add the sources anyway if they existed? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mem Shannon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently survive past AFD. No reliable secondary sources, only vaguest notability claims. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News shows he's been written up in various reliable sources for quite a number of years. Joshdboz (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, Speedy Close. Clearly notable, won/nominated for notable awards, easy to verify, as Joshdboz notes, lots of reliable sources. The prior AFD was unanimous keep, aside from the nominator, and identified coverage in the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and St. Louis Post-Despatch. Nominator's claims are WP:POINTY at best and deceptive at worst. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:44, 7 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 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Owings[edit]

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

No refs given and I can find no indication on Google that this person exists save a Facebook page. (Correction: There appear to be a few mentions in local newspapers, still hardly notable) Joshdboz (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unreferenced biography. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL: Can you get a source for the "Adult Life" comments? I thought atheletes who compete in national events or somehting like that were inherently notable? It sounds like she won an award of some national organization, there are probably obscure olympic events that get similar coverage and only inherit notability. If you can at least document she won what is claimed, I'd consider merge with an article on the sport, organization or related topic with clear notability. Not sure about all the personal details being encyclopedic however. 67.166.244.55 (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention that section, perhaps transwiki to Wikibooks: "She often settled for jerks, poor people, drug addicted losers, and the hideously ugly, but never gave up her longing for her soul-mate. It wasn't until the Winter of 2007 that she met her true love, Matthew Barvo, on the snow covered Boise State University campus. She and Matt felt a chemistry like no other" Joshdboz (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently non-notable. The one claim that could make her notable (the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame induction) is apparently false. See this link, down at the bottom there is a pull down box with the names of all inductees. She's not on it. Dana boomer (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic. If it turns out she is in a HoF, her name could be included in that article. Clubmarx (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. I doubt very much the Hall of Fame claim. She was born in 1986 according the article. This puts her age at 23. That would need to be one spectacular career for her to be inducted into a hall of fame at such an age. There is no eveidence for such a spectacular career. This copy of a 2007 AQHA magazine indicates that she won some regional competitions. That's it for sourcing about her. The article itself actually provides no details about her show riding which is astonishing given that is her claim to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 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 20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honey cookies[edit]

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

Recipe for a treat served, according to the article, in only one restaurant. No assertion that the treat has any notability independent of the restaurant's. Delete or redirect. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent notability; a thinly-disguised advert Chzz ► 19:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Clearly no independent notability. Jminthorne (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable cookies. Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google search comes up with a large number of recipies, though this is probably a case of WP:NOT. However, article as currently written is nothing but an advert. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL (or, if all else fails, merge to Nut Tree). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here but Transwiki the recipe in the history to Wikibooks:Cookbook --Killing Vector (talk) 07:43, 8 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) 16:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandrian Gnostic Church[edit]

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

10-member church, no notable publications, no notable coverage Killing Vector (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A congregation or even a small denomination is not inherently notable, and should satisfy the Wikipedia notability guideline via multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. The ancient Alexandrine gnostics have coverage in Google books, but this modern group does not appear to have such coverage. Taking a name which smacks of the early church does not prove continuity of the notability that early church movement enjoys. Edison (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources appear to be blogs and Youtube, failing WP:RS. Nerfari (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. youngamerican (wtf?) 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no objective sources. Everything appears to be fictional. A one-man-church is not notable! Nidrosia (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The fact there are few current members does not imply it's not notable, e.g. see Shakers. But the Shakers have a history going back 250 years and have had a significant cultural impact, can you say that about this church?--RDBury (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I read in the above comments are arguments for deletion based on a lack of reliable sources and no current or historical cultural importance for this religious group. I doubt that anyone here (or anywhere) would say the same for the Shakers. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:34, 10 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. Hoax. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shalimbo[edit]

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

This is a term for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed. kilbad (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax --Killing Vector (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Edison (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Google has a result...this article. Delete, no refs found or given. Joshdboz (talk) 19:25, 7 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) 12:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ederson Alves Ribeiro Silva[edit]

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

Although Ceará is at Brazilian second level, no source he played for Matthew_hk t c 16:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 16:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't look to have played in a fully-pro league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 15:01, 8 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) 12:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edimar Martins Gall[edit]

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

No source he played for Brazil at Serie A and Serie B level. Matthew_hk t c 16:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a source can be found Spiderone 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't look to have played in a fully-pro league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 15:01, 8 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) 12:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Kwok[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax. No GHits or GNEWS to support claims. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search comes up primarily with social networking sites only. No reliable third party sources found to assert claims. Possible vanity article. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity page, not notable, no evidence of notability.RichardLowther (talk) 11:05, 8 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) 12:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Fleming[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this actress and she only has one role. Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a source can be found. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her single role is for a character that is evidently not even a regular on the show. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Well... being in 23 episodes is enough to show her as a regular... even if only a one-season regular... but I found exactly one in-depth article about her: New York Daily News (09/26/03): Only 13, she's well on her way to stardom. "On her way" or not, she seems to have disappeared after 2004. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:31, 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 redirect to WWE Armageddon. Tone 12:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWE TLC: Tables, Ladders and Chairs[edit]

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

No such event has been announced by the company. The only "source" is based off of a Tickemater entry (which doesn't even have this listed. They have an unknown event called "WWE TLC: Tables, Latters and Chairs" and they don't say it's a PPV). Right now it's all speculation. TJ Spyke 16:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —TJ Spyke 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete for now as speculation with no prejudice to recreation (likely under a better name) if/when something more official is announced. youngamerican (wtf?) 16:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and later recreate per confirmation found by Oakster. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate when something is actually know. There are three(?) more PPVs beofre this one. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Close, 4 (Breaking Point, Hell in a Cell, Bragging Rights, Survivor Series). TJ Spyke 17:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No true source this event is actually happening or replacing anything. It seems WWE are becoming TNA or worse WCW. Come on so many gimmicks it is not even funny.--WillC 22:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Armageddon for now. Sadly the event has now been officially confirmed by WWE, so I think it should be treated more or less how Breaking Point, Hell in a Cell and Bragging Rights were done, keep them as redirects to the old events until we get closer to the event (usually two months, which by my calculations is 12 October). -- Θaks ter 09:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Through some bizarre turn of events, it turns out that the WWE event with this name that TicketMaster was selling tickets for is actually this event, promoted by WWE with this name. If it's the official name, the article should be there. Perhaps the main Armageddon page should stay where it is, but obviously this year's event needs to be under the correct name. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the article is kept, at most it will be redirected. When time comes to create an article for the event (no sooner than late October), it will be at TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs. TJ Spyke 00:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Oakster. Get Dumb 02:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect for now. Abductive (reasoning) 01:42, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Concerns have been partly addressed, and the rest doesn't warrant deletion. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P90X[edit]

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

An IP who inserted a {{db-spam}} on this article has self-reverted. He shouldn't have: the article is 100% promotional, and the references, numerous as they are, are all trivial. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have done a major re-write...not that I have any particular interest in the subject, but see if it is more acceptable now. Frmatt (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Yeah, the article has a very positive POV, but there is substantial coverage in the references cited from CNN and the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Being promoted on infomercials is not a barrier to notability. Getting coverage in mainstream media establishes notability, but I would like more independent sources like those two. The others are a bit thin as independent and substantial sourcing. There is usually a downside to exercise doodads promoted on TV. Most wind up pushed out of the way. If any stories address those problems it should be included. (At least the Nordic Trak is a great place to hang clothes!). WP:NPOV is to be achieved by editing, not deletion. Edison (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough after a review of GNews, haven't been able to find a single dissatisfied person. Main sources are reputable and semi-reputable (campus newspapers), but no negative reviews about this product. Maybe the NPOV isn't actually NPOV, and actually reflects the response of consumers? Frmatt (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can this even be considered for Afd. There are notable sources about a notable exercise program. Please check the google news archives and notice that the article receives 2000 views a day which is 2+ orders of magnitude higher than most wikipedia articles. Everything I wrote provides good information about the program and if you find more substantial information about p90x regardless of what it is please give interested people more information instead of less. I see no reason for taking off my freely licensed commons image or the exercise table. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information here as all of the information I provided was relevant to the program. If you are craving a harsh criticism section to "balance out" the article please try to find substantiated sources for it as I was unable.

Andman8 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot find a policy or guideline which says article are kept or deleted based on number of views. I do not take an above average number of views of the Wikipedia article as a legitimate "Keep" reason any more than noting a small number of views would be grounds for deletion. What statistic did you use to support the claim that2000 views per day is "2 orders of magnitude" greater than the average article? Edison (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a metric to look into the popularity of an article, not any of its merits good or bad. I like pooling information on to wikipedia so others can be informed better on a subject. I grabbed an FA an random [8] which has 50 views a day comparatively. I feel since we are talking about notability, the popularity of the article should be looked at in conjunction with google news archives sources to determine the notability of a given topic. A lot of people want information about the program and as there are credible sources to back it up I really wouldn't want this information lost seeing as I volunteered a lot of my time finding and pooling the information on wikipedia for others to get benefit from. Andman8 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just came across this looking for more information on the program. Article definitely needs some major improvements, but shouldn't be deleted. Cmiych (talk) 18:53, 7 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) 12:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Cowboy[edit]

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

Article lacks an assertion of notability and independent reliable sources TM 15:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - with no reliable third-party sourcing, this doesn't meet WP standards, however this individual seems to have a fan base of some type, so no bias for re-creation later on. Frmatt (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be about a fan who dresses as a cowboy and has appeared in crowd shots of sporting events. Completely non-notable. Majorclanger (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fans like this can be notable, but there appear to be no relevant Google news hits, and the claims of 3d party coverage are unreferenced, and may well be no more than crowd shot videos and photos. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wolfowitz.--Judo112 (talk) 13:21, 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) 05:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wally (game)[edit]

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

seems like a neologism or a game that someone invented at school one day. It's unreferenced to boot - could be original research for all I know. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds a lot like dodgeball. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A made up game. Joe Chill (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything to substantiate the claims in the article, aside from finding out about Wallyball. Joshdboz (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP (I ask again, why isn't there a speedy criterion for games?). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:29, 7 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 deleted. Deleted by User:R'n'B per WP:CSD G7. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kibum Kim (Motorola Research Engineer)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Inadequately referenced article about a research engineer. One referenced inserted by the deprodder is a paper written by the subject, the other is an article with a trivial mention of the subject. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. This one has been speedily deleted several times under slightly different names without the subject of the article becoming any more notable. Favonian (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Can't see how he would pass WP:BIO Ohconfucius (talk) 15:05, 7 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) 12:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Gibbs[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Non-notable. Refs are a Google books search page for subject's father, a blank Fashion Model Directory page (big red flag), a blog, and a self-published site for subject's business firm. A GNews search just turns up results regarding other women of the same name. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate references. No hint of notability besides that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Non notable, lack of WP:RS references. Martin451 (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Non-notable per guidelines, and lack of suitable references. Alphageekpa (talk) 21:40, 7 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 Pejavara Matha Guru Parampara. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pejawar Swamiji[edit]

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

The person mentioned in the article is same as Vishwesha Theertharu.therefore delete this page Sarangsaras (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; merge content into Vishwesha Theertharu and turn this into a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per C.Fred. When two articles about the same person have non-identical content, and the person's notability is not an issue, that's the only option available. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Merge tag was already in place, the nominator of this has been blocked for being a disruptive puppet master, it's best to close this nomination and let the merge take place. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pejavara Matha Guru Parampara which is a list of the swamis of Pejavar Math. Also keep Vishwesha Theertharu which is n article about the current pontiff of the Matha. --Deepak D'Souza 05:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Wikid ^as© 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pejavara Matha Guru Parampara per Deepak D'Souza as this is a title not restricted to the current holder(?). -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:34, 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 redirect to Cradlesong. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someday (Rob Thomas song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Fails WP:NSONGS. Suggest redirect. SummerPhD (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment- then why not just be bold and redirect? Why bring it here? Umbralcorax (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cradlesong per WP:NSONGS. Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. No prejudice against recreating when the song has charted. talking birds 15:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to cradlesong per WP:NSONGS. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:30, 7 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) 05:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Clan[edit]

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

I originally speedily deleted this article but the author objected on my talk page. The article claims that the group own and administer the most popular Battlefield 2142 "Titan" servers in the world, but the source provided doesn't verify that as far as I can see. ... discospinster _talk 13:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just another gaming clan as far as I can see. No coverage in reliable, third-party sources worth speaking of. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, no it's not "Just another" gaming clan. Firstly, Z-Clan is a club or cooperative just as there are many on Wikipedia ranging from soccer clubs to boating cluns to strip clubs only doesn't have a physical location and I don't think this should be treated any differently. Secondly, apologies if this is posted either incorrectly or in the wrong place previously. Since this was deleted as it was apparently too verbose for the place I originally posted I have reposted here. I presume this is the correct place.
I created and article in Wiki entitled Z-Clan which was immediately selected for Speedy Deletion with the assertion A7; which I presume alludes to "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". I have posted on the Talk page of the person who deleted it (DiscoSpinster) requsting an explanation as to why but have yet had no response (I'm not being critcal, I realise that we all have a life and other things to do). Since I didn't have a reply, I posted the following on the Talk page of the Admin BorgHunter and this is his subsequent reply.

Hi BorgHunter Sorry for dumping this on you but with my being a bit of a "Trekky" it serves you right for having a Trekky Username !!!

I'm looking for some advice. I posted an Article which I had written with title Z-Clan with the reason A7; which I presume alludes to "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". The article was deleted by an Admin named DiscoSpinster. I have left a message on her talk page requesting an explanation and advice but have had no response. The reason that Z Clan is notable is that it is the No.1 gaming group in it's field, it operates and administers the No.1 ranked servers in the world and is the only gaming organisation in the world (again, within it's field) that own and operate servers on different continents.

A few examples of Wiki articles (not related to my Article)I found within a couple of minutes that seem fall well short of A7 and have nothing "Notable" about them are these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Motorcyclists_Alliance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_House_Cruising_Club
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burneside_Clay_Shooting_Club
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racquet_Club_of_Chicago

I'm not saying that these should be deleted at all but there seems to be no consistancy. I can't see anything important or significant in any of these where as Z-Clan Own, operate and administer the top ranked gaming servers in the world and the only ones to do so on 2 continents.

Could you please help me understand what the requirement would be to fullfill this criteria in my instance as it seems, on the face of it a certain amount of

hypocrisy and predjudice with regards to this?

Many thanks

Carlos

Carlosfundango (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point that the article, as it was written, didn't really meet the criteria for speedy deletion, though I'm not sure that it wouldn't eventually be deleted for failing notability. Your best bet is to wander over to deletion review and list it there; it might get listed on AfD to give a

chance for comment. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like the Admins to reconsider the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia on the following grounds that define it's significance and notability.

Z-Clan/Z gaming is not the normal run-of-mill clan/gaming collective formed by a few kids. It's members are professionals whose average age is around 35 and the current eldest member is a retired Admiral in the US Navy who is in his mid 70's. The only "Kids" are those children who are the sons or daughters of members. It currently has a membership of nearly 300 making it probably the largest Clan of its type. The Z-Clan/Z gaming website ( [9] ) has between 5000 and 7000 "Hits" per day which is clearly not in the same league as BBC.co.uk or Microsoft.com but is a truly remarkable figure for what it is and demonstrates our sigificance.

Z-Clan/Z gaming was formed in the beginning of 2008 and is thus a mature organisation and very unlikely to disappear in the near future.

Z-Clan/Z gaming owns, operates and administers the No.1 ranked public gaming server in the world (in it's community). (Verifiable [10] ). Ironically, this will show that we are currently at number 4 or 5, this is due our servers having been targetted by hackers over the last month and a half which has had a devasting effect on our server population. Unfortunately being ranked No.1 in the world has its disadvantages too. As soon the hackers are brought to justice or get bored we shall return to No.1. The history shows us at No.1.

Z-Clan/Z gaming owns, operates and administers multiple public gaming servers in 2 continents (Verifiable [11] )- the only Clan/gaming cooperative in the world to do so. This covers the North America, South America, Europe, Africa and Middle East. We shall soon be increasing this coverage to include Asia too making Z-Clan truly Global.

Z-Clan/Z gaming is the only Clan/gaming cooperative in the world (within its community) to regularly have public free to enter competitions with prizes. ( Verifiable [12])

Z-Clan/Z gaming recruits members not on the basis of nationality, ability or "Who you know" as other Clans do. We recruit on the basis of adherence to theethos "Think Different" covered in the Article I wrote. It's a case of quality not quantity. This again makes Z Clan unique.

Z-Clan/Z gaming serves a community of around 180,000 active users. There are an unknown quantity of inactive users. This is not an insignificant amount of people.

In terms of Notability, We cannot get more "Notable" within the boundaries of what we are and our policies with perhaps the exception of committing some heinous crime. It is unlikely that you will find a secondary source whereby Z-Clan is talked about apart from forums; it's just not the nature of the beast that we are. The times that we have been requested to talk publicly about Z-Clan were politely declined. We are happy to sit at the top - quietly. We just don't feel neither need to pubicly extol our virtues or self gratify. Which, clearly in this case is to our detriment but none the less a position with which overall we are happy with.
I have cited above, a number of random Wiki enties that seem on the face it to have no Notability associated with them whatsover and yet are included. Equally, I fail to see their "Significance" neither, but again they are none the less included and have been for some time. By this, I conclude that Notability and Significance is not an "Absolute" requirement but more of a guideline for an entry in Wikipedia and with this I would ask you to reconsider the inclusion (re-written if need be) of the Z-Clan article.

Thanks for your time

Regards

Carlosfundango (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and speedy should have stuck. An article needs independent, reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage (explaining in some way why it should be considered notable instead of just mentioning it) to be a Wikipedia article. This doesn't have a single one. It looks promotional, and nothing about the group even sounds remotely notable enough for an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of verifiability or notability (WP:V, WP:N). In response to the above users: For the purposes of this discussion, inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Your group's demographic is not notability. That you are a mature organization is not notability. That you run "the No.1 ranked public gaming server" does not make you notable, with our without hackers. Your competitions, recruiting process and number of users do not make you notable. If we are "unlikely to find a secondary source" for Z-Clan, then by definition this information does not belong in WP, a tertiary source. Marasmusine (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Carlosfundango claims that I have not responded to the question left on my talk page — this is untrue, as I left a response before I initiated the AfD discussion (see [13]). ... discospinster _talk 17:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you had responded to my question and thank you for that. I unfortunately copied the aricle in it's entirety from a previous post. I apologise if I made it seem as though you ignored my question. Mea Culpa.

Carlosfundango (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ... discospinster _talk 19:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask Carlosfundango to please note WP:TLDR. Stifle (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I could not find any sources on Google and Google News Archive. Cunard (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal-clear A7 speedy imho. --Stormie (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability and verifiability issues, article consists almost entirely of soapbox material. 12:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong delete – Wikipedia is not your own web host. Borderline speedy deletion as spam. MuZemike 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N, possible conflict of interest. Anyone in any gaming clan will claim that their gaming clan is not "just another gaming clan". Una Laguna^Talk 15:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per MuZemike. Also pointing out other articles doesn't make a difference per WP:OTHERSTUFF --Teancum (talk) 14:09, 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) 12:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WareX[edit]

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

This would appear to be a protologism OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 13:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copy and paste of the lead section of Warez. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any GHits for this usage of the word. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:47, 8 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) 06:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsboro Businesses and Buildings[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. This is an attempt to resurrect several articles that have previously been deleted by combining them with information about other nonnotable businesses to produce one great mass of nonnotability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junken Building (Pittsboro Pizzeria) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge, along with User talk:Tone#Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge. Deor (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After this AfD was initiated, the article's author moved the article back into his user space in an attempt to prevent a deletion discussion from taking place. (He's used this trick before.) I've undone the move. Let's get this decided here. Deor (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but I'm sure the writer could move it to a local wiki or start his own local building and business guide. However, wikipedia is not a webhost or an indiscriminate repository. Verbal chat 14:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. This is getting really tiresome. --L P ^talk 16:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:LIST criteria for list creation. --Jayron32 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better suited to some kind of local business directory. Nevard (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge For one thing, this is not the only Pittsboro in America. For another, wikipedia is not intended to be a branch of the local chamber of commerce. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a business directory. Postoak (talk) 20:41, 9 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. It would seem that the article has been moved to Velykyi Khodachkiv. It would be innapropriate to act on it now that it has changed significantly. As a side note, editors referring to others in respect to their nationality aren't helping there point and are only serving to make their votes seem like POVish rambling. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chodaczkow Wielki massacre[edit]

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

The article does not have a single reliable source to support its existence, after several months. The article's creator himself supports its deletion for this specific reason (see the talk page here for his agreement: [14] and here for the preceding discussion: [15]). The article's continued existence has served as a magnet, prompting some editors to try to add information based on unreliable sources. The discussion of this is here: [16].—Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustian (talk • contribs)

Delete, for the above reasons. People deserve a barnstar for at least trying, if you ask me, and I gotta give it to the article's creator for being a good sport about it on the talk page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 8 sources have been added. But Faustian removed it. 1. Szczepański and Siekierka book where u can find exact number of victims, based on recoletions 2. Stanisław Żurek book, 3. Prus (SS-Galizien. Patrioci czy zbrodniarze?) and Korman (A.Korman - "Nieukarane zbrodnie SS-Galizien z lat 1943-1945" - Londyn 1989.) books, 4. Page source, 5. Page source (number of victims), 6. Czesław E. Blicharski Chyba ten eufemizm "działalność rewolucyjna" pokrywa zbrodnie ludobójstwa, dokonane przez "rewolucjonistów" w takich miejscowościach jak np. Chodaczków Wielki z 862 zamordowanymi, 7. 7 - Utworzona na wiosnę 1943 roku z zamieszkujących dawne polskie Kresy Wschodnie ukraińskich ochotników jednostka 14 Dywizja Grenadierów SS wsławiła się głównie polowaniem na partyzantów na Lubelszczyźnie i licznymi masakrami ludności cywilnej. Najbardziej znane z nich to mord dokonany na 868 Polakach w lutym 1944 roku w Hucie Pieniackiej i' masakra w Chodaczkowie Wielkim, gdzie zginęły 862 osoby. 8. 8 In Chodaczkow Wielki SS "Galizien" mourdered 862 osoby.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor above is one of the ones adding all the information from unreliable sources. Please see article's discussion pages.Faustian (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Has wikipedia really fallen so low that now even articles about mass massacres of civilians are deleted!??! Loosmark (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if reliable sources can't be found to support the allegations. Now if Poeticbent adds his vote (I am abstaining because I think involved editors shouldn't be voting here, right?) all three people adding unreliable Polish nationalist info will be represented here.Faustian (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U didnt read this book, how can you say its is untrue. You are Ukrainian and you want to whitewashing the roles of SS-Galizien in massacres of Poles.--Paweł5586 (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks.Faustian (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not added any info to that article therefore it's not clear what are you talking about. Loosmark (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First of all, we should discuss the sources presented in the article, and then we will determine if they are reliable. Therefore, I suggest moving our exchange there, and I hope we will achieve some understanding and work out a solution. Tymek (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've done that. Please review.Faustian (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faustian is troublemaker, he denied my published source but used webpage source and have been warned by admin--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That source was an interview witht he director of Slovakia's national uprising museum.Faustian (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. One of the biggest massacres in Eastern Poland during World War II. I'm surprised that it is still just a stub after all these years. I guess, the big brother (with his busy little helpers) must be watching us here. --Poeticbent talk 21:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, of which "big brother" do you speak?Horlo (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most information about the massacres in eastern Poland were blacklisted during the Soviet reign of power. That’s why so little was being written about them with scores of professional historians fearing the loss of their steady jobs before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Please read our short biography of Władysław Siemaszko – one of the first Polish writers who broke the wall of silence after the liberation of Poland in 1989. --Poeticbent talk 01:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, of which "big brother" do you speak?Horlo (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the wikipedia page, Siemaszko was a member of the notorious 27th Division of the Home Army which Yale Historian Timothy Snyder has linked to atrocities against Ukrainian civilians. Here it is, the first paragraph on the page. Nice source, indeed.Faustian (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faustian, I'm not going to vote on this one (unless I see something really compelling) but per our earlier discussion I don't think that Snyder links the 27th AK Division to atrocities against Ukrainians, he simply says (in the sources of his that I can actually access) that they fought Ukrainians, presumably UPA, which is an altogether different thing than committing atrocities. I do not see the evidence in the link you provide here (or the one below) either - there's no accessibility to Google books.radek (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snyder know nothing about it and about 27WDP, he used Ukrainian nationalists lies as source. Read Motyka about 27th Division of the Home Army, he got special section about it. Remember that only 2 thousands civilian Ukrainians were killed in Volhynia (most of them by self-defence revenge and 201 Shutzman battalion) against 60 thousands Poles.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use your energy not to discuss here, but rather to find reliable sources for this article - if there are no such sources, the article should be removed. Horlo (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a firthy. The information is incorrect and as a result credible sources for it do not exist. It should be removed, or at least removed until proper academic sources appear. Bandurist (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since everyone else seems to be voting. Once reliable sources are found I will fully support a new article. Until then, it only serves as a magnet for POV-pushing using nonreliable sources.Faustian (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC) *Note. Faustian is the nominator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have a problem with lack of sources for the idea of "massacre". As per Faustian, this article will only attract non-reliable sources. Did innocent people die during World War II? Absolutely. Was every death a massacre? Absolutely not. No reliable sources, so the article should be deleted. Even the editor who wrote this article thinks so, for crying out loud. Horlo (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

862 people butchered - this is massacre, author didnt say here to delete article. I am looking for more sources, and more articles about SS-Galizien crimes will rise. Today about Palikrowy massacre.--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reliable sources that describe these deaths, I will gladly change my vote. However, there are none on the page. The author said to delete the article here [[17]].Horlo (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was March! I have found 8 sources about this massacre. As I ealier said the source - Siekierka & Komański is reliable.--Paweł5586 (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem - you add 8 sources, and then are very happy that one of them is reliable! Why do you add the other 7? To make the 8th look good?Horlo (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are suspect the 1st does not supply a page number the 2nd is to a book on Google books that we can not read as its blanked out and the third looks to be a blog in Polish. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::These are pages from Siekierka's book, if you want I will translate it from Polish. Below each article are sources - number of publications and reccolections. Author discovered 45 names of victims--Paweł5586 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Szczepan Siekierka is also not a reliable source. He's not a historian, is a veteran of Polish self-defence units that according to Yale historian Timothy Snyder were killing Ukrainian civilians. Evidence is [here it is, the first paragraph on the page, and his book is not published by an academic press or other reputable source but by a Polish publisher that publishes a lot of anti-Ukrainian propaganda.Faustian (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siemaszko isnt historian too but her book now is quoted in every book about Volhynia. She set number of victims which now is used for official Polish statement. As I said in chodaczkow talk, book was used by Motyka as source, was reviewed by historians. And dont blame self-defence for killing Ukrainians, they didnt start massacres, they had to fight for their lives, some soldiers saw mutilated bodies of own family members thats why they revenged. You dont understant it, try to see 6-months old baby sticked by knife to table (in Parośle I). Its tragedy.--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also = potential POVFORK from the main Massacres of Poles article.Galassi (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This potential source (Worldcat listing) appears to be from a reputable publisher that would be neutral in respect to Polish/Ukranian disputes, but the snippets displayed by Google Books aren't quite enough to be usable. Maybe someone watching this discussion has access to the book to see if it can be used as a source? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good find. Please note that there are other book references to Chodaczkow Wielki massacre online in the form of similar snippets. Meanwhile, the editors who work so hard to have this stub deleted will not accept anything less than a full book in English, blessed by the their own personal highest authority. This is a catch twenty two. Even though your book reference might be available at a university library nearby, it would still lack the Google full page display for the purists. --Poeticbent talk 19:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the snippets include info about a massacre.Faustian (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I'm not an expert on WWII but this certainly looks notable to me.Simonm223 (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't notability, it is a lack of reliable sources. If a reliable source were found than this event would of course be notable. The article isn't up for deletion due to notability but because there are no reliable sources for it.Faustian (talk) 23:26, 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, Skomorokh 12:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP – many sources, 1. These are pages from Henryk Komański, Szczepan Siekierka, Ludobójstwo dokonane przez nacjonalistów ukraińskich na Polakach w województwie tarnopolskim w latach 1939-1946; 1182 pages, format B5, 379 illustrations, hard cover. We go exact description of event. Authors couldnt make it up. We got 45 names of victims. This book is used by historians, e.g. Grzegorz Motyka as source, and was reviewed by historians. 2. Grzegorz Rąkowski, Przewodnik krajoznawczo-historyczny po Ukrainie Zachodniej, Part 1. Oficyna Wydawnicza "Rewasz". 3. Table with number of victims in Tarnopol county by Association Commemorating Victims of the Crime of Ukrainian nationalists. And other sources on web pages Czesław E. Blicharski 1, Page source 2, 3, 4 and books by Żurek, Korman and Prus.--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pawel just voted twice to keep.Faustian (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Changed the oversight into one vote and one comment. --Poeticbent talk 15:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I'm not an expert on polish history, but this incident certainly seems notable enough for inclusion. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theincident is notable, if it did occur. It is not up to deletion due to notability, but due to no reliable sources to support the existence of the events claimed. If an article existed about the Japanese capture of Los Angeles during World War II, this event would be notable but there wouldn't, presumably, be reliable sources for such an article and it therefore would have to be deleted.Faustian (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per refs found by Phil Bridger and Paweł5586, and per Umbralcorax and per Simonm223 --Mokhov (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now convinced of the insufficient reliability of the said sources. I agree with the recent move of the article to Velykyi Khodachkiv and will not oppose the deletion of the Chodaczkow Wielki massacre redirect. --Mokhov (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please take a look at these sources, even the ones given just above by Pavel5586 - the first one apparently good because "the authors couldn't make it up" - the last two on-line newspapers, one a scan from a book which was barely readable. The lead in "other sources on web pages" - again a straight text page with no explanation - very likely a personal webpage. The problem here is that such pages do not represent reliable sources. Even information published by organizations called "Association Commemorating Victims of the Crime of Ukrainian nationalists" are not reliable if those organizations are relied upon only by their members. That's the issue here. I have many times suggested that Pavel5586 spend less time here and more time finding reliable sources so that this article can remain. However, it seems that these are the best that can be found, and they are not really good at all. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you implying that the massacre doesn't deserve a stub in Wiki because the webpages, newspapers, travel books, photographs and scans cannot sufficiently confirm that the massacre took place? Or, that the massacre didn’t take place? --Poeticbent talk 15:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please let me state my opinion again, as I stated in my original vote, to avoid misunderstanding - if there are reliable sources that show this massacre as described in the article took place, I will gladly change my vote to keep the article.

I hope that's clear.

Now, please let me reply to your comments: to create a website is free and easy, and anybody can do it. To scan a few pages from a book and then upload the scan is free and easy, and anybody can do it. That's why very high standards must be adhered to on Wikipedia. Otherwise, coasttocoastam.com could be considered a reliable justification for the existence of chupacabras. Now, I am not saying that chupacabras do not exist, I am saying that coasttocoastam.com is not enough to make me believe in something, and if a Wikipedia article about chupacabras existed only because of coasttocoastam.com, I would vote to remove that article, also. Likewise, I am not saying that this massacre did not take place, I am saying that the webpages, newspapers, travel books, photographs, and scans provided on the page are simply not reliable enough and do not stand up to questioning.

Please do not take the fact that I am using an extreme example as any disrespect to martyrs of World War II. I used it simply because it is a very clear example of why webpages and book scans cannot and must not be used as references.

Perhaps I may once again suggest that the energy put into the discussion here be put into finding sources for the article. I believe that this is the third time I have said that.

Perhaps I may offer another piece of advice - it may be worthwhile to look for sources which do not directly blame Ukrainians.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment *1) It is a Polish event that happened in Ukraine that seems to be not significant enough to have a separate article in the Polish, or the Ukrainian or Russian wikis.
2) It doesn't seem to be a town or village that has a wiki entry.
3) The Galizien division which was blamed for the massacre was in training at that time (April) until its deployment in July. (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bandurist voted twice to delete. --Mokhov (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bandurist has edited the comment above - Mokhov's statement was true when it was written. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - real unfortunate event, real story. No reason to delete it.--Jacurek (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, could someone find a reliable source attesting to its occurance? Other massacres such as Huta Pieniacka massacre have reliable sources describing them. This one conspicuously doesn't. Shouldn't we have evidence from reliable sources first, and then the article? The reason this is up for deletion is because after several months no reliable sources have been found, not because the event (if there were a reliable source) wasn't notable.Faustian (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice google translation of the Polish wikipedia page for one of the sources used in this article is here. People here may want to read about the disturbing photo and what Korman did with it.Faustian (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An interview of ChW survivor-resident Aniela Hrynowiecka makes no mention of any UPA massacre http://www.mountainvoices.org/Testimony.asp%3Fid=213.html . Galassi (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. In the lengthy interview the woman states that Poles were chased off and "assaulted" but does not mention any massacres or killings or Ukrainian UPA or SS at all. So this article relies on unreliable sources, and interviews that are contradictory.Faustian (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is beginning to look foolish. The growing complexity of the above misguided and prejudicial proposal incited the Ukrainian tag-team to finally go bananas. Please make a note of it. One pro-Ukrainian editor puts in an irrelevant link,[18] and... presto, another Ukrainian editor calls it an unreliable, contradictory source presumably confirming the validity of his stance against the existence of this article. – Stop stabbing in the dark, people! The anonymous woman from an interview quoted by Galassi left the village long before the massacre... Meanwhile, the rock solid reference I put in recently in a form of an article called "Zbrodnie wojenne ukraińskich żołnierzy SS-Galizien" (War Crimes of SS-Galizien) from the Magazine Na Rubieży, 52/1001 was immediately deleted by the same user Galassi.[19] Is anybody listening? Somebody please, end this circus. --Poeticbent talk 20:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down your "rock solid reference" you see that it is based on the discreditted work of Wiktor Poliszczuk. Nice try. And please don't asume bad faith of other editors by falsely claiming a "tag team". It was the side opposing deletion that solicited others on this issue as shown on this diff: [20].Faustian (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For God’s sake, will you ever stop playing hookies with me from one article to the next? This is the list of references quoted in the article I brought in:

A.Korman - "Nieukarane zbrodnie SS-Galizien z lat 1943-1945" - Londyn 1989.
W.Poliszczuk -"Gorzka prawda" - Toronto-Warszawa 1995.
E.Prus - "Rycerze żelaznej ostrogi" - Wrocław 2000.
A.Kubasik - "Arcybiskupa A.Szeptyckiego wizja ukraińskiego narodu, państwa i cerkwi" - Kraków 1999.
J.Mackiewicz - "Kontra" - Londyn 1984.
J.Wilczur - "Zbrodnia bez kary" - 'Na Rubieży' - nr 52/1001.

By the way, this is the last time I'm taking part in this exchange. --Poeticbent talk 21:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A veritable collection of unreliable sources. This isn't the place to repeat it, but the sources are described in detail here: [21].Faustian (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, perhaps we could agree to limit the discussion here. Let's just vote and leave space for other editors to do the same. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Faustian and Bandurist: how is this AfD affected now that the article has moved to Velykyi Khodachkiv and the massacre wikilink is now just a redirect. The move implies the article is now more about a geographic location, which is automatically notable and verifiable (and therefore must be kept). The alleged massacre under this move is not the main point of the article anymore and it seems the AfD is now moot. BTW, I support the move, but should the redirect be kept for AfD or how will it all work? --Mokhov (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that with the redirect the new article ought not be deleted. There remain serious Reliable Source issues with all info in that article pertaining to the alleged massacre but that's an issue that is distinct from this. An article called "Chodaczkow Wielki massacre" based purely on nonreliable sources should be deleted. Velykyi Khodachkiv on the other hands seems acceptable for the exact reasons you gave. Let's wait and see if someone from among some of the Polish editors tries to undo the redirect.Faustian (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is ok, but word alledge should be replaced by according to. In Polish Wiki, we have mention about Massacre in Chodaczków in SS-Galizien article.--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:03, 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. Off-wiki comments notwithstanding, those wanting deletion didn't rebut about passing WP:ENTERTAINER to swing consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Caso[edit]

If you came here because http://community.watchtheguild.com/forum/topics/save-vince-casos-wikipedia, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

Or from http://forum.anchorcove.net/viewtopic.php?f=42&p=16908

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

One of my wikistalkers User:Mathieas feels the need to disagree/revert me, so I have to spam another afd. Subject seems to fail WP:BIO/WP:N and seems to be only known for being in The Guild so redirect there. Otterathome (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First off, I recent the baseless accusation that I am a wikistalker. Second I find it laughable that User:Otterathome is concerned with spamming afd subjects given the number of articles he has nominated for deletion in the past two weeks. Third, User:Otterathome unilaterally decided to replace an article with a redirect, I reverted it and stated on the articles talk page that I believed it warranted discussion and nomination before being deleted. He then went and replaced the article again with a redirect. So yes I do disagree with him. Mathieas (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so his comments about you and about "spamming" are unproductive at best, and are maybe even uncivil. Fine. So, why do you feel this subject passes notability criteria (WP:BIO/WP:N)? -MrFizyx (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's borderline. WP:BIO requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Well, true, if 'multiple' is 'two', and 'notable' is 'can be read about online'. Given that he's actively working, I'd veer towards keep, for now. Rogerborg (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted by cfryrer, The Guild, now in it's third season, has been nominated for a number of notable web based video awards. It has received such incredible support that Xbox worked with the cast to produce a music video "Do You Wanna Date My Avatar" which went to number one on both itunes and Amazon downloads. I believe that the cast also voiced characters for a game produced by them and even invited the cast to a recent game launch. The program is also popular enought to have time slots at the recent Comicom and PAX. I believe that this program will becaome more popular, rather than less, meaning that it's stars will become more popular, rather than less. So that decision is, do we delete the entry for the sake of semantics only to put the same entry up again in 6 months time... or do we give him the benefit of six months grace and see where the growing popularity of The Guild takes him?... --Chuxsta (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above two comments are very WP:CRYSTAL, and we require sources so it passes WP:N.--Otterathome (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This man does not meet WP:N standard.Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Both Simonm and Otterathome seem to think that failing WP:N means that a subject is not notable. This is a not true. WP:N clearly states: "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines". As Rogerborg has said, the subject meets (just about) WP:ENTERTAINER. As WP:N states that meeting "one of the more subject-specific guidelines" (such as WP:ENTERTAINER) makes a subject notable it is obvious that the subject is notable. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain which part of WP:ENTERTAINER it passes.--Otterathome (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The part that says he's notable if he's had: "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." And arguably the part that says "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's had one signicant role in this "American Fork" film which I'm having trouble finding much information on to see whether it's very notable. And co-starred (according to the article) in The Guild web series. We have no reliable source on having a large cult/fanbase following. If we had one non-trivial article so it passes WP:N then that'd be no problem. But so far he's played a role in one web series and and a role in what appears to be a low profile film.--Otterathome (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like you're pretty sure that you're right and equally I am sure that I'm right so going back and forth would be a bit of a pointless excercise. ;) We both seem to have said what we think on the subject and we'll just have to see what the deleting admin thinks. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You re-assured me he had a 'following/fanbase' yet you can't back it up with sources making it original research.--Otterathome (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otterathome, I actually said he is notable because he has had significant roles in a notable film and television show (American Fork and The Guild). I then said the arguably he is also notable as having a large fanbase, "arguably" seems to have been the right way to describe it ;p, I said that in regard to Lindaestabrook's comment below (which I suggest you read as it explains the fan base better than I can.) Anyway, I feel like right now I am simply repeating what others have said previously and you are repeating what you (and others) have already said and no ones really changing their minds and nothing new is coming in, which is why I think we should just leave this discussion as finished and let the admin decide. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as he's a primary cast member of a web series notable enough to have a exclusive distribution contract with Microsoft and their own ComicCon panel..--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The show is distributed through their console, if it was that notable there'd be more sources on him available.--Otterathome (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is established by non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. I don't see any sources in this article that satisfy WP:RS. If these are found and added then I will reconsider my vote. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree it is a borderline case; however, under WP:Entertainer A subject is notable if they have a large 'cult' following. The Guild and Vincent Caso both fall under this I believe. Large online fan base, they were the toast of ComicCon and Blizzcon, I believe that qualifies as a large cult following. Also, WP:Del says that deference should be given to stub articles because of the ability to improve upon them. Also, for completion sake the article should not be deleted since it would create a hole (a dead link to a major player) in the Guild coverage. Lastly, rather then simply turning the page into a redirect as otterathome did unilaterally perhaps the material could be merged into another article. Mathieas (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One thing to keep in mind here, an AFD Guideline that Otter has repeatedly and flagrantly disregarded: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Something that needs to be debated and decided if any reasonable result is to be achieved; if it is believed that notability critera are not met, is it because they CANNOT be, or simply because it's an article in the early stage of its life-cycle? There are some other issues here as well: the NOM ITSELF has issues with WP:CIVIL and outright states that he's nom'd the article because of the actions of a SINGLE USER, which is at least dangerously close to WP:POINT(especially if no attempt was made at consensus before or after the actions in question). Given that the nominator is currently on report at both wikiquette and AN/I for issues related to a different web series(Including AFD-ing an actor's article twice in three weeks, with a DRV inbetween)... This isn't as cut and dried as people just stumbling upon it now might think, and needs a lot more in-depth discussion and thought than may immediately be apparent. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bring this up anon, I actually came here from AN/I, and it does seem a little like Otter has nominated this article to prove a point. However, this in no way changes my opinion on what should be done with the article. I don't think that we should let a users "reputation" change the way we treat the AfDs that they nominate. I don't think that we should let the drama of the wiki cause the deletion of "good" articles, nor should we cause it to allow us to keep "bad" articles. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh aye. Problem there comes when you check the edit history of the article. Otter's first edit, the one that got reverted, was to blank and redirect the page. Mathieas constested the 'unilateral deletion' and left a note on the talk page when he reverted. Otter then re-reverted to the redirect version, saying it wasn't a deletion, Mathieas re-re-reverted that saying it seemed like it to him, then Otter nom'd here. Over 24 hours later, Otter went through and put up a notability template and a couple fact tags. The overall effect is that he tried to sneak the redirection through, got caught, nom'd it as a result, then went back and added the templates and tags you would've expected to be step one after the fact. Diffs: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] Now, of course, people having been notified of the issues, there are actually people trying to fix it. The problem isn't just that Otter's nom has problems, it's that no attempt whatsoever has been made to determine if the problem with the article is lack of sources(and therefore notability) or that the available sources aren't included in the article(and therefore it's just a young article that needs work). This has largely happened because of the way Otter went about this nom. He tried to sneak it through. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say the show has a following, not him.--Otterathome (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Additional sources support a stand-alone article. I do not feel the project could benefit from it's deletion. -MrFizyx (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? It still fails WP:N.--Otterathome (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that just enough in-line citations have been pieced together to pass, also there is room for expansion as Caso begins to do some of his own interviews (like this one). I think your initial effort to merge & redirect was reasonable, but doing so now would not be productive. -MrFizyx (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with MrFizyx's rationale.--Milowent (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sorry, I'm just trying to join the discussion and don't understand all of the parameters or abbreviations, but if it helps, American Fork, a film that this actor is a lead in, is also coming to theaters soon and it will then be available on Netflix, etc. There's already an entry on Netflix for it. Someone said that the show has a following, but the actor does not. This is not true. If you googled him, you might know this. There is a fan club and website being started for him and he is well known amongst the show's forums and other fansites, including Whedonage for being something of a teen heartthrob, receiving marriage proposals and phone numbers slipped to him at conventions. He's also got almost 1700 follower on Twitter - maybe not Ashton Kutcher levels, but this actor has his own following. In addition, The Guild is a multi-award winning web phenomenon, in its 3rd season now, sponsored by Microsoft/Xbox/Sprint and the music video they just did went to #1 on iTunes and Amazon downloads with nearly 4 million views on YouTube alone so far. Every cast member of that show deserves their own page. And thank you to the person who signed my entry for me before - I didn't know how, but have since learned.Lindaestabrook (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Gage (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above NRTurner (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the necessary reliable sources which establish that this person is notable, i.e., which cover him in depth. I note without prejudice that this article could easily be merged to The Guild. I also note that this nomination seems quite WP:POINTed, and would suggest that any further contributors consider the article on its merits, rather than the nominator on his merits. --Izno (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that being, this nomination even lasting for a week, much less being seriously considered by people, encourages more Point-y noms, particularly by Otter, as it provides the appearance of his tactics WORKING. What should've happened is, quite frankly, a relist. This nom is tainted, because it's not a good-faith nom. It should've been closed days ago and left for the people that ARE trying to improve things to deal with. If it really deserves deletion, it should be nominated purely on its own merits(or lack thereof), and not because one guy wants to delete its entire category off the encyclopedia. Why? Because if it does end up getting deleted because of a point-y nom by a guy on a crusade, it's just going to piss off everyone that actually cares about it. They're going to feel cheated, that it wasn't a legitimate deletion, and that people are condoning point-y behavior. If it doesn't get deleted, Otter's going to feel vindicated in Nom-ing by the fact that it was seriously considered, and will probably nom it again in a month, maybe with a DRV inbetween. Either way, it's ultimately bad. If the nom isn't objective, no one is going to believe the result is either. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand your initial point, and asking for a relist. But I disagree that this nomination is "tainted" simply for what was left in the initial message of nominating the article. He makes the point in the nomination (correctly, IMO, of course) that the article subject lacks notability at this time.
    That said, if you're truly concerned on the behavior of the nominator, I would suggest leaving a note on his talk page at the least and an RFC at the most. I suspect there is room for improvement... and if there isn't, removal is an option, as always (not that I hope it comes to that, of course). --Izno (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just accidentally clicked the 'discussion' tab here and discovered that for some reason, someone tried to leave a keep vote on the talk page. The hell? -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 03:38, 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 no consensus. The contention in this AfD dealt with whether the article passes the WP:GNG and whether it, by existing, meets the requirements of our current accepted standards. The inital comments about Google Maps being a enough to pass as a secondary source were discounted as weak, as were arguments consisting simply 'per above'. While I am leaning towards a deletion on the point of sufficient sourcing, the major sticking point lies with the argument that state routes are notable by default. Given the mixed responses in this AfD, it would be innapropriate to swim against the status quo. Whether state routes are notable by default is a topic for the Wikiproject, and much more examined discussion encompassing all articles needs to take place. As such, no consensus reflects the conflict between the lack of sources and the accepted practice currently in place. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Route 64[edit]

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

Does not meet our criteria for inclusion. Notability is defined as, "... significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject ...". I question the independence of a government discussing its own roads. That is, how is the New Jersey Department of Transportation considered independent of the roads located in its own state? –blurpeace ^(talk) 11:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't see anything in there that tells me why this is a notable road. iMatthew ^talk at 11:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject as required by WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. It's a pretty interesting article, and how many state highways do you know of are just a bridge. In addition, this article has been nominated as one of those Engineering Good Articles. I think you're being a little too harsh. Also, and more importantly, I think it's good to have entries for roads in here so that if one is taking a trip, one can find information about stuff along the way. 71.255.102.198 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Governments talking about their own roads are often the major source of information about the engineering and construction of those roads, aside from newspaper articles, many of which might be old, etc. Just because it's one-sided / POV information doesn't mean it's not necessarily reliable. Besides, if we throw this article out, then we might as well throw out articles on Adam and Eve and Noah, both of which ultimately derive from a single POV source (the Bible) as well. But it's appropriate to fish for secondary sources. — Rickyrab | Talk 12:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Illogical argument. WP:GNG requires secondary sources; it isn't a question of deleting because the sources are biased. The Adam and Eve example is a poor one; how many journal articles have been written about Adam and Eve? How many books? How many entries in other encyclopaedias, how many television programs, how many radio programs? Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what would you recommend to someone wanting to find out more about New Jersey highways and roads such as 64? — Rickyrab | Talk 13:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google maps? ;p. I don't care how useful an article is, if it can't fulfil our very, very basic standards of notability it isn't worth including. You'd do well to read this. Ironholds (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory (nor is it an altas,71.255.102.198 ), this road does not meet the standards for notability. (see WP:N) Markb (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Is there a Wikidirectory or Wikiatlas out there to put this article on? — Rickyrab | Talk 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Yellowikis"? Maybe "Wikidirectory" would've been a better name for that site. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is well written and would be viable with more references other than from NJ DOT. It is also featured on the main page in the "did you know" section--T1980 (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
none of those are valid keep reasons. It would indeed be viable with more references - such references don't exist. If you can provide references that allow the article to pass WP:GNG, do so. Ironholds (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the reliable secondary sources? — Rickyrab | Talk 13:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query what criteria make a road notable? Saga City (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As for secondary sources I would imagine that this appears in a number of maps and atlases published independently of the state - it would seem silly to quote them all. Is anyone suggesting that this is a hoax? Saga City (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GNG for the inclusion guidelines. Nope, nobody says this is a hoax; a mention in an atlas doesn't pass the guideline, though; firstly it isn't "significant" coverage, secondly such atlases cover every road, including tiny twisty little dead end lanes; nobody would suggest that articles on those are notable. Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point do the sources have to be literary ones? — Rickyrab | Talk 13:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  No. Have you read WP:GNG? Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google Maps and Windows Live would arguably satisfy GNG... — Rickyrab | Talk 13:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Windows live? Google maps falls foul of the same thing I've explained below about atlases.Ironholds (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was thinking of Windows Live Local, which is essentially similar to Google Maps. It probably goes under a different name those days. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a mention in an atlas doesn't satisfy the guidelines. Care to explain? — Rickyrab | Talk 13:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, WP:GNG requires "significant" coverage; a picture of the road in relation to other roads doesn't provide that. Secondly, every road is covered by an atlas. How does an atlas demonstrate the notability of this road when it provides the same coverage of Hicksville Lane, Tennessee, a dead-end leading to a wooden shack and an outhouse? Ironholds (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still the well-written article objection I have to deletion. If it provides a useful source of information, it should be put somewhere. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hell no; that's not even a valid objection. I can write an incredibly well-written article about myself, doesn't mean we need to include it. Take a read through Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly "I like it" "It's useful" "it's interesting".
    - I don't necessarily mean keeping it on Wikipedia; it could be as useful off-wiki and linked. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- On the other hand, if the road can be shown by the map to be a primary connector between several population centers or notable areas by that atlas, one can presume the road to be notable to some extent. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope. There isn't a specific road notability guideline; the guideline for roads is WP:GNG. If you can fulfil that requirement, do so. If you can't, stop coming up with silly keep reasons. Ironholds (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then we might as well take this argument to GNG, as atlases are indeed reliable secondary sources. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Never said they weren't. Reliable, yes. Secondary, yes. Significant coverage, no. Ironholds (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        See discussion page of GNG — Rickyrab | Talk 13:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Your edit there was reverted, and didn't solve the problem anyway. Atlases are reliable sources in most situations, but they have not given this road significant coverage, which is required by WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We'll see what consensus says about the edit to GNG. As for "significant coverage", we'd need to look it up in the atlases to see whether it's a notable road or not, under my criteria. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, but your criteria have no standing in guideline or policy, you just inserted them. That's like trying to win a game of chess by changing the rules. Under the notability guideline as currently accepted, a brief mention of a road, along with every other road, is not "significant coverage". Please either a) come up with a decent argument or b) stop trying to make things up in an attempt to get this kept. Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Interestingly enough, Route 64 appears to fail notability even under my criteria. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having been designated a State highway in 1938 and constructed in 1939, very few thrid-party sources will be available online. State expenditure and construction like this would have certainly generated coverage at the time. That such coverage is not yet cited in the article says nothing about its lack of existance. Searching with the links provided will certainly not help either, as newspaper coverage would discuss the construction of a bridge over the Pennsylvania Railroad right-of-way and built under an old route number designation. Offline sources are bound to exist for this, and just need to be found. Deletion would be counter-productive when the article would be easily verified and kept with a trip to a library. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. This is a well-written article about a unique road (it is so short) that is adequately referenced with a variety of legitimate sources. It satisfies all Wikipedia policy and guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. In particular, it complies with WP:MOS and WP:N. For notability, it has significant coverage and reliable sources that are presumed to be independent of the subject. Further, it passed WP:DYK, whose inline citation criterion implicitly requires notability. Truthanado (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me where these sources are in the article that pass WP:GNG? Ironholds (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to know what sources there are myself. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here are the WP:GNG criteria and how the article satisfies each:

significant coverage - no original research is involved; there are multiple primary and secondary sources
reliable - Rutgers University is considered reliable; it is used twice; NJDOT is also considered reliable
sources - Rutgers University and the several atlases/maps cited are secondary sources
independent of the subject - Acknowledging that NJDOT may not be independent, Rutgers University is independent; it is neither on the road nor does it have anything to do with its maintenance. And the USDOT is clearly independent.
presumed- "substantive coverage in reliable sources [discussed above] establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion"

Isn't it ironic that this simple article about a road has generated more discussion in a few hours than the more wide-ranging discussions about date usage and the deprecation of future templates? Interesting, isn't it? Truthanado (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the multiple secondary sources (reliable, third-party sourced independent of the subject, et al) must demonstrate significant coverage. "everything puts together adds up to a couple of paragraphs" isn't significant coverage. Note that each secondary source must show "significant coverage"; the primary ones don't come into this. Ironholds (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rutgers is probably quasi-independent, seeing as it's a state school. But there's a tradition of independent analysis by tenured professors. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I write. Independence is not in question; significant coverage is. Ironholds (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which boils down to what is meant by significant. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. So why did you bring up whether or not Rutgers is quasi-independent? Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to clarify someone else's point about whether Rutgers was an independent source, which is another requirement of CNG. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that a total of 9 references covering 6 different organizations and a span of 71 years is significant coverage. If not, then we must all consider deleting 90% of Wikipedia articles because many of them have significantly less coverage than this article does. Truthanado (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't getting it. The multiple independent, secondary, third-party, reliable sources required under WP:GNG must each show "significant coverage". WP:GNG requires everything in one source (or two sources, obviously); it isn't a case of pick and mix where you can add coverage by primary sources into the fray. Ironholds (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does CNG say that the reliable sources must each show significant coverage? Can you point to that requirement? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text itself and the footnote ("The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial.", for example) is written in such a way as to imply that both sources must give "significant" coverage. Even taking that away and applying significant coverage on all the secondary sources collectively it still doesn't pass. Ironholds (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "each" doesn't even appear anywhere in Wikipedia:Notability. I don't know where that requirement would come from. It certainly is not any interpretation I have ever heard in various other notability discussions I have been involved in. I guess we will just have to have our different opinions. Further attempts at discussion are fruitless. Truthanado (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets go without "each" for now, then. Explain how the secondary sources in the article add up to "significant coverage". Ironholds (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visit the library before deciding keep or delete. I'm neither for keeping this on Wikipedia nor for deleting this from Wikipedia. I do, however, advise caution before rushing to delete something for lack of secondary sources. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather a shift in attitude. you don't want to keep it or delete it? And are you personally volunteering to trawl the library? Ironholds (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if this road has any park-and-rides on it. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any evidence of notability. Roads are not included by default, and, even if they were, if this qualified, I think my road would. It's older, and there was some coverage around the time it got tarmaced... Unless we have some reliable sources discussing this, mindless assertions that the road is notable or the article is useful count for nothing. J Milburn (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, a redirect to State highways in New Jersey may be appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We need an off wiki directory of roads and infrastructure that discusses their history and evolution... that's my feeling at the moment. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikia is thataway. Ironholds (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Found a wiki that might be useful if people work on it: Transportation Wiki — Rickyrab | Talk 14:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity, what road is "your road"? — Rickyrab | Talk 13:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I live here, so that should give you an idea of how unimportant it is. Check the historical map, it's labelled. J Milburn (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of significant 3rd party source coverage. Please inform me if this situation changes. Majorly talk 14:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong comment Blurpeace, I don't see how the your deletion rationale relates specifically to this article. Is this the only road article on all of Wikipedia which has no secondary sources? Would you be willing to take on a mass AfD of all such road articles, if more could be found? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mass AfDs in a situation like this are problematic. Most mass AfDs are for things which, as a rule, should not be considered notable; every episode of a 15-minute youtube show, say. Articles like this ideally require individual review and individual discussion as to notability, and I feel a mass AfD would dissolve into chaos. Ironholds (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds has essentially stated what I was going to. For now, this should be handled on a case-by-case basis. A request for comments may be necessary in the future. –blurpeace ^(talk) 14:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
View this as an attempt to break the ice on what I, and other editors interpret as non-notable articles. –blurpeace ^(talk) 14:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge salvagable content and redirect to State highways in New Jersey per Milburn, or keep as separate article if enough sources can be found. (BTW, I just came into this debate because the article was at the Did you know section of the Main Page.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. (Not sure if enough sources can be found. It may be historically notable, but it doesn't look geographically notable.) — Rickyrab | Talk 17:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination made me laugh a lot. It is really a grandiose mockery when article which passed DYK process, and is featured on the main page is nominated for deletion. Strong keep this article, as it is a part of a large system covering all "state roads". - Darwinek (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is far more rigorous than DYK. That's like saying "It is really a grandiose mockery when article which passed the new page patrol process is later tagged as lacking sources", and using that as a justification to remove a template warning about the lack of sources. How about we focus on whether the article actually meets our criteria- what makes you think the fact that this is a state road makes it worth covering? It seems fairly clear that there aren't any reliable sources that agree with you... J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Darwinek, would you mind making an argument based on ooh, guidelines and policy? Obviously you must have such an argument - the hilarious and mocking nomination can make one, so I'm sure a user of your calibre can think of something valid. Ironholds (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it surprising that the roads wikiproject members haven't trooped in to declare that every numbered road is notable, as in past discussions of very short numbered roads. Edison (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, so far most of us brainless zombies that edit road articles are voting merge. Sorry to disappoint you by breaking your homogeneous stereotype. =-) Dave (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete It is verifiable, but apparently not notable, due to the lack of reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a directory nor a map nor a road atlas. Edison (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge(selectively merge) Trim to avoid giving this itty bitty piece of the road undue weight in the article. Per the arguments of NE2. Edison (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY STRONG SUPER KEEP - Bad faith nom, you might as well have done what that lowlife did and nominate Wii for deletion. --Morzabeta (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked indef, indented. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Current standards allow for articles on individual state highways. Until and unless this changes, nominating a single page is not an appropriate course of action. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the current standard. Please see WP:USRD/NT. The current standard typically results in *most* state highways getting individual articles, but not all. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Juliancolton, and also because the argument that publications by the government are somehow not reliable just because they are about a public piece of infrastructure like this is a terrible argument: the government has no reason to promote, exaggerate, or fabricate information about a road the way that a company would have about its product. Mango juice^talk 19:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the arguments. Nobody has ever claimed they're not reliable, we're claiming that they don't pass WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the heart of which is the notion that government information is somehow not reliable or independent. So yes, it is quite relevant. Read the nomination, it's right there. Mango juice^talk 00:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop twisting our words. I have never brought in to question whether the NJDOT is reliable. I am questioning the independence of the source from the subject matter. How is a government discussing its own roads a proof of notability? –blurpeace ^(talk) 01:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No point, WP:GNG shouldn't be used on things of this nature anyway. Juliancolton's argument is really the most important one. What I'm saying is that the government sources are perfectly usable and provide verifiability which is really all we need; WP:N does not apply to everything blindly. Mango juice^talk 01:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to County Route 571 (New Jersey), which is the route's signed designation. NJ 64 was built as a short relocation of County Route 7, which later became part of the larger CR 571. It's not too important on its own, but as part of CR 571 it certainly is important enough to be mentioned. --NE2 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NE2. --LJ (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NE2 Dave (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ per NE2. Though its a shame that a GA has to be merged into another article. But there is a lack of non-primary sources, so I say merge. Admrboltz (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Keep after significant reworking to history section. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into County Route 571 (New Jersey) per points raised by NE2. As the route is essentially part of another route with an article, it makes since that the article could give substantial coverage to this part of the road and its unique designation. I fully agree with Jiliancolton that consensus has not changed regarding the notability of state highways (I guess I should note that I would support a "keep" over a "delete" if "merge" is shot down), it makes more sense to include this stretch of road the article for the longer route. youngamerican (wtf?) 20:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should add that most of the article should be merged as lose as little as possible of this article, especially as updated. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least Merge I can't see how this article fails any policies (it would be a very unusual directory that was anything like this article) so the only issue here is notability. If there is not enough verifiable material to write an independent article then per the editing policy the content should be preserved by merging to another article such as suggested by NE2 so long as the verifiable content is not lost. Davewild (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Changed to just be keep as I think the additions since my comment make the case for keeping stronger and a merge is no longer appropriate. Davewild (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just a dang road. Second choice merge. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor reason to delete if ever I saw one. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument. Majorly talk 21:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Gill Giller Gillerger (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What above? Thus far, all people opposing the deletion have been refuted. –blurpeace ^(talk)

But that doesn't necessarily mean the arguments are no longer valid. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of refute is, "to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous". If the argument has been proven wrong, it is no longer valid. –blurpeace ^(talk) 00:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (and note that I don't agree with either of you). I'm pretty sure that Julian knows what the word "refute" means. Some of the arguments have been contested to varying levels of success, but I would not go as far as to say "all...have been refuted." I'm sure that the closing admin will take all opinions into account and make a thoughtful closure. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Juliancolton. Jeni ^(talk) 23:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, aside from the precedent that state highways are always notable, how could this possibly pass GA without the coverage required for notability? We indeed have plenty of coverage; there's no need to merge this to another article. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though it is just a bridge over the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, NJ 64 does have historical significance and can sustain its own article. If it is found by the majority that this article is not worthy of being on its own, then it should be merged into County Route 571 (New Jersey) as it serves as that route's bridge over the railroad line. Dough4872 (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ per NE2.—JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The history is vastly improved and gives the article more notability.—JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there is an accepted community consensus that highways maintained at a certain level are, as a class, good enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is similar to the situation for populated places where verification of their existence at any point in time is all that is needed to merit an individual article. Additionally, this is a well-developed, sourced article. Future decisions on whether to merge with another article or not should be left to the relevant WikiProject. --Polaron | Talk 02:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*How about topic ban my big ass and your problems will dissapear. - If you want problems solved, topic ban me.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 02:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- That is not an appropriate comment. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - On any other argument, I might be willing to say delete. However, a road does not have the ability to write an article, so, the nom does nothing for me. Anyway, it is standard for the roads project, and I think there would need to be a mass change before this article should be viewed as not notable. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It is obvious that the original nom was made before the work was put in that brought it to a 'Did you know?'. MMetro (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article has changed little since the nomination. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I would say merge but apparently people believe that there is historic info. Merge Typically a <1 mile route gets merged at USRD. There's just not enough material that could be written about a 0.32 mile route. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simply doesn't pass WP:GNG, and not surprising, because it's just a tiny road. RichsLaw (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a state route. --Son (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the policy or guideline stating that state routes are somehow exempt from WP:GNG

Please read WP:USRD/NT; state routes typically are notable, but not all are notable for their own article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit

I spent evening looking up stuff for NJ 64, and valila! (yes I know this is spelled wrong). I found a number of good information, and I'd like this AFD extended so the article can be revisited.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 01:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Indeed you have added more info, but nothing that makes this road meet WP:GNG, maybe the bridge itself does? Markb (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it does, and being the bridge has no interesting characteristics, it would be a bore, and have a very long name, because of that. Also, putting the route is basically that now, none of the designation stuff belongs in a bridge article.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 11:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Fair enough. After a little research, I see there is a essay on the notability of roads that is useful. Before anyone tries to make a distinction, a road is a highway, certainly in US law. Markb (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I want to add, is now that the NJ had made it clear they originally wanted to make NJ 64 a freeway, and for many decades after, it seems this may add to 64's clear notability. Length isn't everything.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 12:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Length isn't everything, class isn't everything - in this case, WP:GNG is. I'd appreciate if you road enthusiasts could actually make arguments based on guidelines and policies rather than "stuff that makes sense in the Wikipedia inside my head". Ironholds (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely no consensus in this discussion and it is doubtful that further discussion would lead to anything but further differences of opinion. Therefore, per Wikipedia policy, I suggest this AfD discussion be closed and the article left as-is (i.e.-Keep, not delete), reason = no consensus reached. Truthanado (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is serving more than the purpose of debating a deletion. It has become a venue for discussion, thus I believe it should be left open until closure time. –blurpeace ^(talk) 02:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with blurpeace. While there is a pretty good chance that this will end up nc, this is a good discussion to have from time to time per WP:CCC. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm not sure whether or not a State Route in the USA is equivalent to a Motorway or an A Road in the UK, but either way it meets the notability threshold. Article is well sourced, and as it has passed through the GA process there should be no doubt that it should be kept. What next, nominating a FA for AfD? Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a criterion for good articles. The prose relies primarily on sources from the government that maintains the road. How does that prove its notability? –blurpeace ^(talk) 11:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the government finds it fit to document these roads extensively, surely they must be somewhat notable, at least in their eyes. And in order for an article to pass GA, its sources must meet content criteria such as WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR; therefore, the fact that this article is a GA may be an indicator that it is sufficiently notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it is not an indicator. The sources are reliable, but that does not necessarily mean they're independent of the subject. The NJDOT's mission statement is, "Improving Lives by Improving Transportation." Wouldn't you assume that documenting roads would one of their duties? –blurpeace ^(talk) 16:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this becoming a WP:PS issue - not an AFD thing :| - Anyway, dividing up all sources looks like this:

1, 9, 14 - NJ Department of Transportation
4, 7, 8, 10, 11 - NJ State Legislature and Governor Alfred Driscoll. Being the state legislature's job or reason is to legislate the roads, not detail and maintain them, this would not be a PS vio.
17, 18 - Rutgers University. Even though its published on the DOT site, and with the DOT in mind, the official publisher of this study would be Rutgers University, which falls under the same reasoning for the previous one:
2 - The United States Department of Transportation. This would be more of a secondary to the NJDOT, because the feds do not maintain NJ 64.
3, 5, 6, 12, 13 - Maps from several different organizations. (Not primary as none are from the state)
14 and 15 - News articles, obvious secondary source.

This is how it looks to me. You can disagree - but these are how it fall.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 16:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, remove, merge... whatever just no need for an article dedicated to this road. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I am against any AfD for a single article with a rationale that could cover hundreds of similar articles. If future AfD's like this can be prevented by changing the notability policy, I would be in favor of that as well. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on this somewhat (since I previously wrote the same as only a "comment"), if this AfD closes as keep, I would be in favor of rewriting the policy to prevent future AfD's like this, and if it closes as delete or merge, then I would expect the delete voters here to be in favor of deleting many other road articles as well. But to have an AfD for just this one article leaves me confused and frustrated. I believe that sometimes an article that may not be notable by itself should be kept because it is part of a larger whole ... for an example of another such situation see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2069 lunar eclipse. By itself, the May 2069 lunar eclipse article wasn't much, but deleting it would have crippled the usability of the other lunar eclipse articles, and the lunar eclipses taken as a whole are certainly notable.

Likewise, surely no one would call the US highway system non-notable. If this road article were taken as part of a group, I think it would considered as notable. This is why I object to the single-article AfD. If the article were shorter, I would be in favor of a merge, but I believe this article should stand alone because merging it (and articles like it) into larger pages would produce very long articles. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was willing to support a merge untill I read the article. If you can write that much on a road that is only .32 miles long it says this road is unique. A lack of references would also argue for a merge, but clearly this is a well referenced article. How many GA class articles does anyone think deserve deletion? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the discussion? The article is based on primary sources. In theory, I could write an article on an actor solely on sources taken from his website, but that does not make him notable, does it? The good article assessment does not necessarily establish notability, but may be an indicator of it. –blurpeace ^(talk) 01:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and nothing is inheritably notable. I fail to see the discussion of this road in reliable, third-party sources; which is the basis of the notability guidelines which apply for all articles. Individual state routes can be notable, but not all are and this one doesn't appear to be. Them From Space 03:14, 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galveston Bay Area[edit]

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

While phrase "Galveston Bay Area" exists, it has no boundaries, nor is it on any Texas template. There is already a Galveston Bay, Greater Houston, Southeast Texas, etc.. Does info repeated in each of these articles require repeating again because of a vague geographical phrase? The city of Galveston is included, unnamed, in Greater Houston. This article appears to be "compensation" for not having a named MSA! Student7 (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this is a pretty common phrase used for this area, not just madeup. It cites quite a few reliable sources that used either "Galveston Bay Area" or "Bay Area Houston". I believe it has just as much significance as the San Francisco Bay Area. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 16:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt is referred to by reliable sources, and just because it's vague does not mean that "Galveston Bay Area" is not a notable phenomenon or designation. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With respect to Student7 I am not sure I understand the justifications provided. I would request a clarification. The Galveston Bay article discusses the Bay, not the metro area. Greater Houston obviously encompasses this area, but then Greater Houston is encompassed by Texas, Southern United States, United States, North America, and Earth. Should we remove Greater Houston? And, of course, we could go on. It seems to me that the only valid question is whether this geographical region is noteworthy in its own right (i.e. is it recognized by authoritative sources as a distinct region). I do agree that it is valid to ask where we draw the line on notability but, unless you are going to propose deleting a lot of other existing articles, I don't see how this one falls low enough on the notability scale to merit deletion (if that is what you are really getting at). --Mcorazao (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article covers a unique and notable area that is within Greater Houston. It really has nothing to do with the Houston MSA (or the lack of). When a visitor asks a Houstonian "Where do the astronauts live?", we tell them southeast of the city in the Galveston Bay area, usually off "Bay Area Blvd." [29] Postoak (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve - Article contains some unique relevant information, that is properly sourced in third party RS. However an effort should be made to improve the focus of the article and avoid extensive duplication of information already covered and/or presented in Greater Houston. As it stands right now, a Merge tag might be more appropriate than a AFD tag. --Nsaum75 (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naum75, thanks. Can you elaborate more on Improve and merge in the talk page? --Mcorazao (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Remember, everything that goes into Houston (and allied places), has to be placed or considered for Greater Houston, considered for Southeast Texas, and now, for Galveston Bay. You really need to be considering a limit to maintenance here. You are all enthused to do this but what happens when the current set of editors move on? Which articles get abandoned and out of date? Normally, the MSAs, at the first level don't do well at all and are normally out of date (Greater Houston). Developing three higher level articles, all requiring maintenance does not seem too smart to me. You need to be thinking about an upper limit here. Can you draw the line before "East Texas"? How about "Gulf of Mexico Area"? (Hopefully there isn't one now! :{ Student7 (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The problem is no one uses the term "Gulf of Mexico Area". The area surrounding the Gulf of Mexico is composed of two countries, many states, and many cultures. There is nothing useful about linking the entire area together for a description. The Galveston Bay Area however is useful. It is used by many in the area to describe the place in which they live. If, years in the future, the area undergoes substantial change and it is no longer grouped together as a "region" by mainstream sources, those editors in the future may decide that it is no longer useful, and delete it. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 14:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I do agree that maintenance is an issue as well as the larger question of where does Wikipedia draw the line for notability. I personally believe Wikipedia should establish a clearer policy on where that line is drawn. Nevertheless, this topic is much more notable than the examples you are giving and, regardless, is more notable than many other well-accepted topics in Wikipedia. For my part I have deliberately tried to ensure that most of the content is not information that is subject to rapid change so that, even if it is not well-maintained, it will still be relevant for the forseeable future. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you mean GBA is "lower level", right? East Texas encompasses Greater Houston which encompasses Galveston Bay Area.

BTW, to address the "upper limit" question, part of the reason the article discusses the geographic boundaries in such a loose way is to address that issue, or at least part of it. That is, we could create separate articles for the BAHEP's definition of the Bay Area (Pasdena to League City), the JSC-centered definition of the Bay Area (Clear Lake to League City), the southwest bay definition (Pasadena to Texas City), etc., etc. To me that would be silly. There is not enough notability in those little distinctions to merit separate articles. So I deliberately incorporated these varying definitions into one article. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, can this be shut down? I understand that there are still some concerns about the article but can we agree that there is no consensus for deletion?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 07:01, 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, though some of the "keep" recommendations were given lesser weight in this closure, and one "delete" recommendation (the G4) was also given lesser weight. Greatest weight was given to those recommendations based on an analysis of the sources.

There is well-argued support for a redirect to 2009 allegations of tapping up in English football, and I think discussion about this excellent idea should continue on the article's talk page; an AfD closure as "keep" does not prevent the redirect from being made if consensus exists to do so.

From an AfD closure point of view, what this discussion has established is that Gaël Kakuta should not be a redlink on Wikipedia. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaël Kakuta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gael Kakuta

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

Youth football player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Any and all media attention is purely because of WP:ONEEVENT - his 'tapping up' by Chelsea (for those not in the know, he was asked to break his contract with one club to sign for another). This tapping up could have happened to any player - indeed, it has happened to other players, and they have had articles deleted, such as Nathan Porritt and Paul Pogba - and the fact that it happened to be Kakuta who was caught it no reason for him to have an article of his own. Giant Snowman 09:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable because of one event Spiderone 09:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2009 allegations of tapping up in English football per ChrisTheDude Spiderone 08:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he was not 'caught up' in it, he was found responsible and as such was fined a massive amount. Its in the interest of the encyclopaedia to provide knowledge on individuals that the public will search for and want to know about. Also he is going to have a professional career so I have to ask what the point of deleting it is, its just a petty argument --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also can I make clear i dont like throwing around links like Wikipedia:ONEEVENT but in this case the event is him breaking his contract to go to chelsea, he was fully responsible for what happened, Chelsea merely induced him to do it. The appeal chelsea are mounting is to defend them, not him. He did wrong the onus is on Chelsea to prove they didn't tell him to do it --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was he fully responsible though? - "the club was found guilty of inducing Gael Kakuta to break his contract with Lens in 2007. Giant Snowman 15:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm always for deleting youth footballers articles, but this one is particular. and could create a precedent in football transfers regulations, such as Jean-Marc Bosman did. This case has provoked mass of reactions in France, including the FFF's president, and Rama Yade, ministry of sports. Though he still fails WP:ATHLETE, I believe he now pass WP:N.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What if people forgot about him in 2 months time? You can't say this will have the same effect as the Bosman incident yet. Spiderone 12:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's doubtful that anyone will forget this in two months. Chelsea are likely to appeal the ban which will keep him in the news. And even if they don't appeal, the fact that they will be serving the ban will also keep him in the news. Either way, this issue will not go awayNamzie11 (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ban will keep Chelsea in the news, not Kakuta. Giant Snowman 08:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It may only be one event, but it's an event with far-reaching consequences. As he was a central figure in it and has received plenty of coverage, I believe he passes the notability bar. 8lgm (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Spiderone has a good point - saying he will have an effect on football is WP:CRYSTALLBALLery. Giant Snowman 12:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I love 1E myself, but a key element in applying that rule is, in my mind, how much we know about the subject that doesn't pertain to the one event. In this case, quite a bit. Does that information come from reliable sources? Yes, it does. That's a prima facie pass on WP:GNG, and so the article should be kept. RGTraynor 10:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but would he have received such coverage if it wasn't for the recent scandal? No, he wouldn't. As WP:NTEMP says, "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for individuals known for one event." Giant Snowman 11:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G4, the player has done nothing of note since the first two discussions (he's been injured for the last six months!). The recent coverage isn't for anything Kakuta has done, it's because Chelsea have (apparently) broken the rules and have subsequently been punished by FIFA. Kakuta isn't any more notable than (say) Paul Pogba, who was signed by a "big four" English club, also in controversial circumstances. There is no guarantee that Kakuta will do anything of note in his career. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a vote yet clearly show disregard for other by not reading my comments? I addressed the main points you have made. The player himself was responsible for termination of contract and your comparison is poor because it is not an equal one. --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G4 is definitely not applicable here, for the article differs significantly from the original version. -- Luk ^talk 16:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion (not meeting the WP:ATHLETE guideline) has not been addressed. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(...)This excludes articles that are not substantially identical to the deleted version(...). -- Luk ^talk 13:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the subject is notable for this event only. I think we shouldn't rush into any decision right away. Defaulting to keep. -- Luk ^talk 16:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While he may not be notable yet under WP:ATHLETE, he is still a notable person, even if it is only for one event, the media coverage is significant enough to warrant an article. He is not just another Chelsea youth player. He is more notable than Paul Pogba because the Pogba incident is just an allegation at the moment. Besides, Kakuta's was really the first of its kind - it sets a precedent for punishments and treatment of youngsters in the future. It has lead to discussions of banning transfers of Under-18s. It doesn't really matter what he is notable for, so long as he is notable. - mspete93 [talk] 16:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this story could affect Manchester United about Paul Pogba, as his former club Le Havre AC went to FIFA. In that case, I don't think it's WP:CRYSTALBALL to say there would be consequences.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; not a oneevent case and I expect he'll be on the Man U team within a few months of his ban ending. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL. And he is a Chelsea player in any case. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heh, I had him mixed up with Paul Pogba. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like a future star. --Muhammad(talk) 23:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 'future star' comments are more than irrelevant, as being definitely against WP:CRYSTAL. Speedy deletion does not apply, but notability does not change, since we're talking about an example of a subject who received coverage only because of the improper way he was signed by his current club (thus, WP:ONEEVENT applies). Such content should therefore be included into Chelsea F.C. season 2009-10, and the article be deleted until the guy actually manages to play competitive football (in case he does). --Angelo (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ignoring all rules, people are going to want to know who this guy is and will come to Wikipedia to find out. If not keep, then at least redirect it to a page that gives details of the case. BEVE (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe he is not a "common" youth player. He is a single case on his own: It's THE youth player who was condemned for leaving his former club. This is an unique situation.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unique?!?! - even though Paul Pogba and Jeremy Helan are in similar situations, as is an unnamed Crewe player? Giant Snowman 10:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im interested in knowing why you care so much about having this deleted, we should have as many articles as can be justified. It defeats the point of the project to strive so hard to find a reason an article shouldn't be here, it should be just the opposite. So accept this article is going to be kept and stop trying so hard comparing chalk and cheese cases. Im not commenting anymore on this AFD --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care so much - i.e. I don't lose sleep over this - but this article, in my opinion, doesn't meet notability for Wikipedia. And I wil not "accept this article is going to be kept", when there is still (at least) another 5 days of discussion! Giant Snowman 11:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, the BBC has details of a fourth player. I'd hardly say that Kakuta is unique! Giant Snowman 14:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for other users to note, the above user is failing to distiguish between allegation and proven fact. It is natural that Kakuta landmark case would spur a rise in the number of allegations, if anything the fact that Kakuta is cited in these aticles establishes more notability as the first youth footballer to "be found out" --Childzy ¤ Talk 14:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Kakuta is indeed the only proven case, as Childzy claims, then why does that last link I have provided say that "Everton have been ordered to pay Leeds an initial compensation fee of £600,000 for 16-year-old defender Luke Garbutt" - would one club give money to another based purely on allegations? Giant Snowman 14:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The arguments are now getting petty, i was merely making it known that you referred to it being a 4th case when in fact it wasn't. Furthermore the compensation isnt for "tapping up", its because the player is under a certain age, Burnley have to pay Manchester United compenstation for signing Richard Eckersley. Basically, the Kakuta case is the only current proven case of a player terminating his precontract to join a club that may have asked him to do it. So I've presented my argument now (not to you specifically, im guessing your mind isnt for changing) so let's just leave it up to others to vote --Childzy ¤ Talk 14:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing - Kakuta went from Lens to Chelsea because he broke his contract i.e. he was illegally taken, right? In the Garbutt case, "Leeds chairman Ken Bates accused the Toffees of "nicking" the England youth international when the player joined the Premier League club in the summer." Both players broke contracts to sign for a bigger club. The only difference between the two cases is that one club was punished by FIFA, one by the FA. Giant Snowman 14:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is not the only case around of Chelsea signing a youngster in controversial methods. There was a 15-year old Italian kid named Vincenzo Camilleri[30] (he is now 17 and made his Serie A debut last year[31]). It seems like a common practice from English football clubs, due to the huge number of cases like these (also Macheda and Giuseppe Rossi were hailed as quite controversial when they happened), so maybe the whole issue just deserves its own article. --Angelo (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another young player, allededly poached by one club by another, is named today - do ALL these players that I have mentioned deserve articles? Giant Snowman 20:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point. As an aside note, Man Utd has five Italian youngsters in their academy (Macheda from Lazio, Petrucci from AS Roma, Fornasier from Fiorentina, Massacci and Pucciarelli from Empoli); and Empoli is also considering legal actions regarding Massacci's case. I have also already mentioned about Vincenzo Camilleri, the article is a nice reading because it is a proof Kakuta is definitely not the first case of a spoiled youngster. --Angelo (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - due to the media impact & attention that ALL these players are having/giving, I am more than happy for Kakuta (and the others) to be redirected to an article such as 2009 allegations of tapping up in English football, following the precedent set by the Nathan Porritt AfD, when it was decided that his article should be redirect to 2006 allegations of corruption in English football. Giant Snowman 14:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there have been all these further allegations BECAUSE of the Kakuta case only improve the case for him being worthy of an article - as I said yesterday it sets a precedent. - mspete93 [talk] 15:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it more as a case of the straw that broke the camel's back - that fact that Chelsea were punished severely because they illegally signed a player (and the important point is that it could have been ANY player - Kakuta just happens to be the unlucky one who was caught out) gave confidence to other clubs to speak out. Giant Snowman 15:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are we supposed to think he is less notable than someone who makes one substitute appearance for a club in the Conference? 82.41.216.72 (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That just shows the stupidity of the notability system, or at least how we should not follow the guidlines exactly - WP:Ignore all rules - mspete93 [talk] 17:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that a player in the Conference is notable? They're not, as they wouldn't pass WP:ATHLETE...Giant Snowman 17:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example, perhaps, but there are plenty of such players on Wikipedia, and noone seems to be getting worked up about them. Is he less notable than someone who makes a substitute appearance for a club in the 2nd division then? (I'm not actually sure why a Conference player would fail WP:ATHLETE; many players in the Conference are full time, and "fully professional" doesn't appear to be defined). Anyway he is notable for something which has nothing to do with his appearances or lack of them. 82.41.216.72 (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I said this guy was "unique", it was in the way he is the first to be condemned by FIFA. I aknowledge that many French youth footballers left for England. (Jérémie Aliadière, Anthony Le Tallec etc...)--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create new article: Clearly Mr. Kakuta's actions have lead to a more widespread issue opening up with the likes of Manchester United and Manchester City now being reported by French clubs for tapping up youngsters. I suggest, since the only reason Gael's involvement here on Wikipedia is for this one issue and this said issue is growing in notability with more and more cases each day, that a new Wikipedia article is created to cover this new story in football. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 10:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have suggested that Kakuta and the other players are redirected to a new article - called something like 2009 allegations of tapping up in English football - until they become notable in their own right as professional athletes. Giant Snowman 13:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry for pinching your idea there Snowman. Well I suggest we be bold and create the article, anyway. ;-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 13:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of copying me! And I think you're right - we should create the article regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Do you want to have a go at it then? Giant Snowman 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not atm. I have to go to work soon. However, I shall get started on the article tonight. I'll be back around half past nine. ;-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 14:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would start it myself but I'm at work as we speak, naughty me! But I finish in 90mins, I may create a little stub when I get back home, for you to improve upon! Giant Snowman 14:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20 to one in the morning and I'm finished. \o/ The article just needs some love and attention to properly flourish. ;-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 23:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2009 allegations of tapping up in English football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep player has clearly become notable due to recent media events and it is reasonable to keep such an article as people will be interested. Eldumpo (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People aren't interested in the person, they're interested in the event he just happened to be caught in. Giant Snowman 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively the events that started because of him --Childzy ¤ Talk 18:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well no - as Angelo has proven above, events were in motion before Kakuta's story broke. Giant Snowman 18:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But honestly, have any of the other players or clubs you talking about been found guilty of anything? They havent, Kakuta is so far the only proven case. the rest have popped up because of him. Kakuta is the precedent that has started all these other clubs moaning. This is fact and i am merely debating your fallacies here, whether the article is kept or not is not my concern. P.s when does this AFD end anyway? --Childzy ¤ Talk 18:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there were cases reported long before Kakuta - as Angelo has previously pointed out. And the AfD ends on 14th September, I think. Giant Snowman 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What people? I am more interested in youth players at Premiership clubs than I am in fringe squad players at Rochdale. I know which I consider to be more "notable" even if a few wikipedian editors disagree.86.1.198.74 (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And are you still interested in that player if he is released by that Premiership club, and never plays in professional match? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel as though this is a bit different than ONEEVENT. Kakuta was already a prominent youth footballer, and this compounds that status. matt91486 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a prominent youth footballer doesn't mean you pass WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 19:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2009 allegations of tapping up in English football. Relevant search term. Article on the footballer alone is not notable. --Jimbo^[online] 19:56, 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) 11:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vasiljevsk Lamaj[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP about a footballer who hasn't played professionally Spiderone 08:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 15:01, 8 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) 11:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erand Rica[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't made an appearance at professional level Spiderone 08:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 15:02, 8 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) 11:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Shehu[edit]

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

Hasn't played in the top flight of a league that isn't even professional. Spiderone 08:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 15:02, 8 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) 11:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marsid Dushku[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Negligible Google hits apart from this [32] which shows him playing in the third level of Albanian football Spiderone 08:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 15:02, 8 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. A7 Tone 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Salindrija[edit]

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

New bio article by new user. Notability anyone? –BuickCentury Driver 08:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any WP:RS on this person. Looks like a straightforward {{db-bio}} to me, but since you declined it, I reverted my tag. Tim Song (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: db-bio. Joe Chill (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Support deleting this. Sooner the better, it is not even close to notable.--TM 15:47, 7 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 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NeoPong Software[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP, nothing in gnews, all the sources in this article are unreliable. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Hey, they have a page on IGN, that should establish some notability. And I do agree with you the article is in bad shape and needs cleanup. That's all. Jeremjay 24 21:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I was wrong. One of their games has an IGN page and that should make the company notable. And come on, it's a game company, they publish games, that has to be notable.Jeremjay 24 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP is the criteria not simply being a game company. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I couldn't find anything in reliable sources providing any significant coverage. And no, not every game company is notable. MuZemike 20:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - publishing games, or having an IGN directory entry for a game, is not notability. Significant coverage is what's needed. Marasmusine (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no substantial coverage about this company. This very brief IGN article is the only thing resembling coverage that I could find and it essentially says nothing other than they haven't released anything. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 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 delete by G3. lifebaka++ 04:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Shape Of You (Jewel album)[edit]

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

No sources of any kind, no google hits, possible hoax Caldorwards4 (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, possibly WP:HOAX. talking birds 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a borderline hoax. Google hits prove "The Shape of You" is a song Jewel has performed on her recent tour, but I cannot find any information about that being the title of an album, or even an album in the works including that song. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:40, 7 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 - Nomination retracted; article has been improved significantly and now shows notability.

New Concorde[edit]

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

Company does not appear to be notable; None of the films listed has an article. Also, the article consists only of one and a half lines of horribly written text so far - and an "under construction" template, which is not very encouraging given what we've seen so far. — Sebastian 07:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It appears they also made #Munchie Strikes Back, listed below, although there is no link to that article in this article. — Sebastian 07:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been improved to show notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:38, 9 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. per WP:SNOW and WP:SK. De facto withdrawn nomination as nom has conceded legitimacy. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oberfucking[edit]

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

The name makes me wonder whether this place really exists or if this is a joke. –BuickCentury Driver 06:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Real place, as shown here [33] from a reliable - verifiable - thrid party source. As such, meets our guidelines for inclusion. Who would have believed? ShoesssS ^Talk 07:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fucking, Austria. — Sebastian 07:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep per Tim Song. — Sebastian 09:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real place. Redirecting is inappropriate since we are talking about two quite different places. See [34]. Tim Song (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Suggest speedy keep, in that two independent sources validate the existence of the village and as such a de facto notability Keep. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 08:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is legit but it still makes me wonder why someone would give a such a title to a town. –BuickCentury Driver 08:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are thinking in modern day English, not German and or the time period. The towns were named before the English connotation of the word was even though of. Remember, it is a big world out there. What we consider as trivia another country or culture would consider as important. Likewise with customs and traditions. ShoesssS ^Talk
Comment: This AfD should be cited as an example of why no editor should file one without going over WP:BEFORE. RGTraynor 10:38, 7 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.

LOL Yeah, I know, this discussion is closed, but this was ridiculous to begin with. — Rickyrab | Talk 12:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MuZemike 22:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Bolen[edit]

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

A character that will appear in the future. We don't know anything about the contract. Probably will be a recurring character like some last season for which we didn't have enough feedback to create separate articles. Plus, there isn't enough context, it's unreferenced (i'm only assuming that this character will really appear -last year they changed the name of a character as far as i remember), wikipedia is not a CRYSTALBALL, etc. Magioladitis (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The season premiere is only a short time away; the key information has been confirmed by the creator of the show about a week ago (so I added it to the article); and even though the article is lousy, deleting it will just result in two weeks of minor drama as the article is recreated and rechallenged, until the show airs and there'll be a consensus to keep it in some form. The odds are that TV Guide's returning-show roundup will fill in enough gaps to settle the question anyway, and that will have hit the racks before this AFD discussion ends. Not worth the trouble. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you Wolfowitz. And ofcourse until the first show is aired there is a low interest for the new characters article. But as season6 progresses we will see that Angie Bolens article will grow and it will soon be a wikipedia worthy article even in written form so to say.--Judo112 (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. The character right now has no notability at all. --LoЯd ۞pεth 22:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No characters of seasons 3, 4 or 5 managed to establish their own article because of lack of noteworthy material. Only exception Katherine Mayfair whose article consists of plot only. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Desperate Housewives (season 6) for time being. There aren't enough sources out there to confirm notability today, but there may be by the mid/end of the season. Joshdboz (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe in the future". That's exactly CRYSTALBALL. If we allow this, we can also allow articles about amatour football players because maybe in the future they become professionals. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article shouldnt have been put up for Afd until after september 27, until then this current Afd discussion will only be full of claims from both sides. How can anyone really tell if this Angie Bolen will be a major character or not. Neither side has hard proof of it,it seems. Had we just waited until after september 27, this Afd discussion would have been mutch easier to handle and mutch more clear cut. For me this situation can only be resolved in a kept article on Bolen for new possible evaluation on possible Afd nomination after 2-3 episodes into season 6 of DH.--Judo112 (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles for fictional characters are usually dubious at best. There are already dozens of DH related pages, with more being added; I'm sure anything worthwhile to say about this character can be added to them.--RDBury (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep deleting an article on a soon Desperate Housewives regular character is neither good or productive. And it will only be re-written after the september 27 premiere. It seems to me that Angie will be a regular and will probably stay for more than one season soon getting Susan Mayer status for example as a wikipedia article.--Judo112 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a correct claim from the nominator that Angie probably will be a recurring character, it has been confirmed long ago that she will be a DH regular and will appear in the first episode (also confirmed on the characters own article) and will have the same status as Susan Mayer or Bree Hodge when it comes to Wikipedia articles on fictional characters. So to delete it will only be a waste of time because it will be re-written ASAP after september 27.--Judo112 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other regular characters on the show that don't have an article. (For example Nick Bolen, Julie Mayer, Porter Scavo). The criterion (not that I agree with it) seems to be that only one of the dozen or so main characters is notable enough for their own page and the rest are listed in in the List of Characters page or one of the Acquaintances of ... pages.--RDBury (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Porter Scavo, or Julie Mayer has had major parts on the show even tough they where regulars at one point or another. Characters like Susan Mayer, Carlos Solis or Bree Hodge that is DH main characters that appear in almost every episode are regular characters that deserves individual Wikipedia articles. Angie Bolen will be as i have understood it one of the DH on the show and will be a series regular.. which indicates that she will have a major part in season6 that will go on for season 7etc etc..---Judo112 (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources exist.[35] There's enough for a small articles now, and they're will be more when the season starts. Meets NOTE. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a obivous Keep article for me. One that will have to be re-written after september 27 anyway if deleted. Already established regular character that will have a mjaor part in seaosn 6 and onwards probably.--Judo112 (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you say the same exactly one year ago for Jackson Hart? You are not sure if the character gets a major role neither. You just wrote "probably" -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never written anything about Jackson Hart:).--Judo112 (talk) 21:55, 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. Brandon (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Larson[edit]

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

Non-notable deputy sheriff who was died in 1969. Google News Archive returns some results; however, this should be deleted because the subject is notable for only one event, his death. Wikipedia is not a memorial. I cannot find any coverage of him before he died. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, sorry to say. This has become an all to common an occurrence. Though considered notable 50years ago, has become just a news item for a day or two, and only a local news item at that. And Wikipedia is not a news service. Typically I would have said merge into the Ventura County Sheriff's Department, however, these officers are alreay listed there and memorlised. ShoesssS ^Talk 06:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial. Crafty (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:N/CA#Victims. Clubmarx (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a memorial. Joe Chill (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N/CA#Victims. Very closely related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryce Patten. I'm OK with the mention at Ventura County Sheriff's Department and would not object to a redirect.Location (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Location (talk) 03:59, 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. Brandon (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Patten[edit]

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

I removed the speedy because A7 does not apply; notability is asserted.

Non-notable deputy sheriff who was murdered in 1960. Google News Archive returns many results; however, this should be deleted because the subject is notable for only one event, his death. Wikipedia is not a memorial. I cannot find any coverage of him before he died. Cunard (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, sorry to say. This has become an all to common an occurrence. Though considered notable 50years ago, has become just a news item for a day or two, and only a local news item at that. And Wikipedia is not a news service. Typically I would have said merge into the Ventura County Sheriff's Department, however, these officers are alreay listed there and memorlised. ShoesssS ^Talk 06:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Neither of his jobs, nor anything he has done (apart from dying) bestow notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, under WP:N/CA#Victims. Clubmarx (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N/CA#Victims. I'm OK with the mention at Ventura County Sheriff's Department and would not object to a redirect. Location (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Location (talk) 03:59, 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. Brandon (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Aguirre[edit]

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

I removed the speedy because A7 does not apply; notability is asserted.

Non-notable deputy sheriff who was murdered in 1996. Google News Archive returns many results; however, this should be deleted because the subject is notable for only one event, his death. Wikipedia is not a memorial. I cannot find any coverage of him before he died. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, sorry to say. This has become an all to common an occurrence. Though considered notable 50years ago, has become just a news item for a day or two, and only a local news item at that. And Wikipedia is not a news service. Typically I would have said merge into the Ventura County Sheriff's Department, however, these officers are alreay listed there and memorlised. ShoesssS ^Talk 06:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Neither his job, nor anything he has done (apart from dying) bestow notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how asserted notability applies to not speedy deleting this, see WP:N/CA#Victims. Even if there is a news article about the crime, that does not make someone automatically notable. Clubmarx (talk) 14:45, 7 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. Brandon (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Whitney[edit]

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

Non-notable police officer who was killed in a traffic collision in 1998. Google News Archive returns many results; however, this should be deleted because the subject notable for only one event, her death. Wikipedia is not a memorial. I cannot find any coverage of her before she died. Cunard (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, sorry to say. This has become an all to common an occurrence. Though considered notable 50years ago, has become just a news item for a day or two, and only a local news item at that. And Wikipedia is not a news service. Typically I would have said merge into the Ventura County Sheriff's Department, however, these officers are alreay listed there and memorlised. ShoesssS ^Talk 06:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial. Crafty (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Neither her job, nor anything she has done (apart from dying) bestow notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See WP:N/CA#Victims. Clubmarx (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N/CA#Victims. Very closely related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryce Patten. I'm OK with the mention at Ventura County Sheriff's Department and would not object to a redirect.Location (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Location (talk) 03:59, 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. Brandon (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Coghill[edit]

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

Article about a musician that does not pass WP:BIO, and is largely unsourced. Asserts enough notability to not be a speedy candidate. Kevin (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not completely clear if this person has made multiple albums on major independent labels. The solo work definitely does not seem notable. But, there is a big WP:COI issue in that the article author seems to be the subject of the article. Clubmarx (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mega Delete. NN person. Google News shows no results, search shows nothing to make this person notable. $TheWeak$ $Willed$ (T * G) 15:15, 8 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. Brandon (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copenology[edit]

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

Prodded last year with rationale: "Seems to be an attempt to promote a neologism as well as the person who coined it. Not many Google hits." Prod was removed, but I agree. I suspect the main contributer to have a conflict of interest. Article was previously more promotional; it has been whittled down and now it is too short to be very helpful. Rigadoun (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparently non-notable term used by almost no-one. For a term that purports itself to be a valid neuroscience concept, it has exactly ONE hit in google scholar: [36] and that one is spammier than Terry Jones in a dress. I see nothing in any reasonable search to indicate this is a real, accepted scientific concept. --Jayron32 05:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No hits at all on Google News and 1 hit at Google Scholar, where you would figure the term would be listed, and that one hit was actually a promotional site for the original author of this piece, as shown here [37]. Sorry to say SPAM hiding as an article. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 05:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how did it last this long? Tim Song (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proof of notability 14:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Rirunmot (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Brandon (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Tompson[edit]

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

Suspected WP:HOAX. Unreferenced. Zero relevant Gnews hit - very unlikely for an investment tycoon. Zero Ghit, either - see [38]. Edited almost exclusively by a number of SPAs. Tim Song (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Tim Song (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a hoax. Found no references in Google News. Regarding the claim as the the 5th wealthiest Australian, sorry to say Henry Nicholas took that spot, at least according to Forbes. For the claim that Mr.Tompson expanded BHP into the largest mining company in the world, sorry to say that all I found was that Brian Gilbertson was named as the CEO in 2001, the date the company was formed, followed by Chip Goodyear in 2003 until 2007 when he was followed by Marius Kloppers as noted here BHP Billiton, no mention of Mr.Tompson. What more can we say. ShoesssS ^Talk 05:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax. Can't find anything to substantiate this, including searches with an "h" in his surname. Joshdboz (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom - seems to be a hoax. The article was created and expanded by a string of single purpose accounts, which is also never a good sign. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 8 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. Brandon (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Toronto Mississauga Students' Union[edit]

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

I really believe this organization exists. However, I can find no evidence that this organization passes the notability guidelines or the organization guidelines. This does not appear to meet the basic inclusion criteria. The article contains only self-published websites as references, as does a raw Google search. Google News turns up a smattering of news articles where the name of the organization pops up in a sentance here or there, but there does not appear to be any substantial coverage in any of these cites, just a brief mention. Jayron32 04:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jayron32--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 04:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG, totally non notable outside the university. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual students' union do not generally pass WP:ORG. Possible redirect to the University article Ohconfucius (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No historical impact. Abductive (reasoning) 16:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other SU's with Wiki articles include Algonquin Students' Association, Brock University Students' Union, Carleton University Students' Association, McMaster Students Union, Alma Mater Society, Ryerson Students' Union, Central Student Association, Your Student Association, Student Federation of the University of Ottawa, Federation of Students, University of Waterloo, The University of Western Ontario, Wilfrid Laurier University Students' Union, York Federation of Students, and many others. Peter on Blocks (talk)
- Each of these is decided on its own merits. We are aware of the existence of other articles on possibly non-notable associations, and you could help us be researching the ones you have found, and if they are not notable, nominating them for deletion as well. Abductive (reasoning) 00:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There maybe, somewhere else in all of Wikipedia, at least one other article which is not currently nominated for deletion but could be. The existance of that article does not excuse this one of its shortcomings. --Jayron32 03:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:08, 7 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 Dover Area High School#Vocal Music Department. NW (Talk) 02:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance (Select Choir)[edit]

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

Merge/Redirect - to Dover Area School District where the group is already listed. Sorry to say just not enough coverage out there to establish notability for its own article at this time. However, I was able to cite and reference the group performing at the White House, but feel that this in itself is just not enough. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 03:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it doesn't satisfy the criteria for inclusion.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 04:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dover Area School District. Crafty (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Crafty. If not changed, at least delete #Members, as almost all choirs have a soprano, alto, bass, tenor nothing special about that. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 09:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The choir IS notable compared to other choirs due to the fact that it has performed in various high-end venues. The section with the sections of the choir is to be edited to contain the members' names ASAP. ALSO the group does major community charity work. I am working to find a reference on the most recent and major charity gig "Tunes For Tucker" in which the group raised money for a terminally ill child in the area. Do you think this is significant enough to keep the page?

Comment – I understand the hard work done from both the Choirs standpoint and from the author’s viewpoint in putting together the article. However, at this point I believe a redirect to Dover Area School District is more appropriate. That way the choir itself is recognized and it gives a chance for the author of the piece to gather the necessary references to meet current notability guidelines. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:17, 10 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 List of Nokia products. NW (Talk) 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia X6[edit]

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

No evidence for notability, and Wikipedia is not a mirror of every manufacturer's catalog of gadgets. Edison (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect - I agree with the nominator. However I believe a merge and redirect to List of Nokia products is more suitable in this case, as it is already established and edited on a daily bases (the list not the individual article). Or go with delete under crystal ball as the item is not released yetThanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a redirect to list of Nokia products might be better than deleting per WP:CRYSTAL for a number of reasons.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 04:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge No need to delete, plausible search term and relevent content can be placed in the list article. --Jayron32 06:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Agree with above users, the important info currently on the page can be merged into the list. While we're on the topic, the Nokia X3 could also be redirected and merged into the list, per similar reasons. SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nowadays mobile phones((gadgets) are even more important/(passionate) than cars for young people. Google gives 5.5 million hists for search Nokia X6. It is notability.Jack007 (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This appears to be a page from a product catalog. The are 0 news hits and it's not due for release until next quarter. Internet hit counts are not evidence of notability; they can be affected by all sorts of thing that have nothing to do with being noteworthy. (See WP:GHITS.)--RDBury (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I don't know why this always seems to happen. There was a war over the entry for the Nokia N85, which (at the time) was the only Nokia current product that didn't have an entry. It kept getting added and deleted. People use Wikipedia for precisely this kind of information, as well as for 'traditional' encyclopedia entries.PVarjak (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid reason to keep the article; please read WP:USEFUL.--RDBury (talk) 04:35, 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 redirect to Matt Beaumont. NW (Talk) 02:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E Squared (novel)[edit]

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

As it has just in published,and is not in any WorldCat library yet, I do not see how it can already be notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The book is a follow up to one of the first email based epistolary novel. It is written by a successful author who is well known. To delete the article based on the fact it's in no WorldCat library stems more from the fact of it's recent release than it not being noteworthy. --Lorcav (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lorcav's argument. Sources will become avalible in time. Patience. Francium12 (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd also like to point out that a more appropriate Google search (E2 Matt Beaumont) gives many more results and sources than the above "Find Sources" link. --Lorcav (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia does not bank on future notability; WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I did a careful search, and this book is not (yet) notable; no reviews or even mentions at all in reliable sources. Abductive (reasoning) 16:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While i agree that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we are not talking about a future event. We are talking about a book that has been published and, clearly, already exists. It's not speculative to detail this book and the article makes no mention of future events or anything else forbidden. It is published by an imprint of one of the world's largest publishing companies. I fail to see why this page has any less relevancy than many others.--Lorcav (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be kept - the book is the sequel to a genre-creating novel, and is one of the few titles in the world to be written entirely in email/sms/im, therefore is noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.216.27 (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Wasn't sorted. Now sorted and relisted. Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculations of future notability is WP:CRYSTAL. Other than the single source, I can't find any WP:RS despite a search. Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author, Matt Beaumont, as the best alternative to deletion. There is a high chance of this book receiving reviews in the future since its prequel, e (novel), is notable. Because this book will likely become notable in the future, there is no reason to delete this content, which is already sourced with a review from Den of Geek. A redirect will prevent the content in this article from being lost. When/If this novel becomes notable, the redirect can be undone. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this sequel is from a major publisher, so author has not fallen from grace. regardless of press coverage currently, its essentially notable as an original work stemming from a previous notable work. now, if we get endless sequels, with less and less sales, maybe after a while no new articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect: Unfortunately, the Keep arguments are all based on fallacies. Let's review the notability criteria for books. "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." No. It hasn't been. "The book has won a major literary award." No. It hasn't. "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." What reliable sources would those be, please? "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." Nope. "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes." Once again, fails. There is nothing in this criteria giving a free pass for sequels. There is nothing in this criteria guaranteeing notability for every book Bantam publishes. There is nothing in this criteria guaranteeing notability for epistolary novels written in e-mail. And ... beyond that, "Sources will become avalible [sic] in time" is a garbage Keep rationale; WP:V requires that reliable sources exist, not at some indefinite point in the future, but as the fundamental requirement to sustain an article. To quote from WP:V, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Ravenswing 10:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matt Beaumont. Just because the first book is notable does not automatically make this one notable. If reliable sources later rise up, the article can be revived. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 16:00, 7 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Conti[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that the subject has received the significant coverage by independent, reliable sources required to meet the general notability guideline. I haven't been able to find any coverage that could be used to verify the information in the article - save a couple of videos of someone named "Brett Conti" skateboarding ([39], [40]). The main claim of notability in the article would seem to be per WP:ATHLETE - competing at the professional level of the sport but without anything to verify even that fact I don't see how we can keep a biography of a living person (and minor at that) which has remained unsourced for almost a year. Frankly - videos aside - I'm not 100% convinced the article's not at least in portion a hoax. None of the listed videos get anything on Google except in relation to this article (examples: [41], [42], [43]) Guest9999 (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Truth be told, I can find no outright claim of notability, and I find farcical that a 16 year old claims to be a "professional" skateboarder. Boot this puppy. Ravenswing 10:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verification. ~~I do not think a speedy deletion is appropriate however, since the article asserts notability through the claim of being professional, satisfying WP:ATHLETE. This claim, however, is without source.~~ WP:HOAX. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 15:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just out of curiosity, where does it say that the word "professional" constitutes a claim of notability? I work for a living; that makes me a "professional," without conferring notability. Neither does being a professional satisfy WP:ATHLETE; the current interpretation of "fully professional" excludes semi-pro leagues, low minor leagues and amateurs who receive stipends (such as in junior hockey leagues). Ravenswing 00:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Good point. Being a non-league sport, a claim of notability through skateboarding would have to be "a competition of equivalent standing" per WP:ATHLETE. Comment stricken. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 22:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to not meet speedy delete criterion A7 an article has to contain a credible claim as to the importance or significance of its topic - a lower bar than notability. Guest9999 (talk) 22:28, 11 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. Brandon (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosho (The Prisoner)[edit]

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

Probably should not have been restored: even with remake coming up, crystal ballery claim that its importance might increase is dubious reason for content. Article wholly lacks references to reliable sources, offers original research on its rules and presentations, and in general is simply trivial. --EEMIV (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the TV series article. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. The article says it appears in only two episodes; such a trivial facet of the show hardly deserves coverage in the series article (or anywhere at Wikipedia). --EEMIV (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I restored the article because it was a contested PROD deletion, where an IP made a reasonable request for undeletion; such requests are automatically honored. I therefore object to the notion that the article "probably should not have been restored". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. If it makes you feel better, read it as "[requested to be] restored." --EEMIV (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am surprised it survived speedy deletion and a PROD but it doesn't seem to have any claim to notability at all. --BozMo talk 09:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Although I do agree the restore was appropriate. Gaining consensus for deletion/inclusion from the community is a valuable thing. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 15:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find 2-3 google book hits for this. It's a pity there isn't an episode for it to be merged to. Nerfari (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as (... wait for it ...) just not notable. No reliable, independent sources establish the encyclopedic value of this outside the narrow context of the television show itself. So a mention there - brief at that - is more than sufficient. Anything else is mere fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 21:09, 9 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. SNOW Tone 18:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12 Days of Nickmas[edit]

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

Article does not attempt to establish notability. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 01:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cruftiest Nickcruft that's ever crufted. An article about a 30-second promo?! Now I've seen everything (sigh). No sources, no lasting notability, and no need for this to exist. Nate • (chatter) 04:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fancruft which does not establish notability. Crafty (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as cruft. Also, TV ads can be listed on Wikipedia without issue. See the Television advertisement article. Not an article of its own but mentioned nonetheless... --> RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 09:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not many adverts are independently notable. This one is no exception. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like most commercials, non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fancruft, non-notable commercial. Frmatt (talk) 15:56, 7 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 London mayoral election 2008#Winston McKenzie. Merging seems like a good compromise here. The delete arguments are certainly far stronger, but it seems that there might be some information that can be salvaged from this article. NW (Talk) 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winston McKenzie[edit]

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

fails both WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. A mere candidate is not notable, and if we're including him based on his references that fails as well. The only refs I can find are local ones that fail WP:NOT#NEWS (an article on him being "disillusioned" after losing his electoral deposit) and another single local news reference from the BBC that fails WP:NOT#NEWS (a notice from the Croydon local news that he's registered as a candidate). Ironholds (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (creator). Notable, by virtue of references. He was the subject of mainstream media attention (as well as those already referenced, he was the subject of this BBC profile, etc), due to his having run for an important position. There are a large number of Croydon Guardian references to him (not a 'notice' that he's a candidate, but several recurring stories, actually), as he is rather famous in the borough (when he fails to make an X-Factor audition, he makes the news...). Bastin 23:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. I ran and lost an election last year, and I'd fail both of the 2 notability tests if someone put a page up about me. Tangurena (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I lost an election last year, too. But that's not the point. The point is given in WP:POLITICIAN, which you cite:

“

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

”

I am showing that he has received significant coverage, and that this coverage is on-going because of his celebrity, rather than just because of the notability of the event. Bastin 19:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep - coverage around his candidacy looks significant; he was also a professional boxer and the national amateur champion at his weight, which seems to meet WP:ATHLETE. Warofdreams talk 01:15, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the BBC story. I wouldn't have said that otherwise. There is no presumption of notability for people who do not win the nomination of a major party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Delete He fails WP:N. There are not SEVERAL independent reliable sources about the subject. The BBC News article is actually from a Croydon BBC site - far cry from national coverage. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm with Ohconfucius. The BBC article certainly qualifies as one reliable source. WP:V requires multiple reliable sources. Does anyone have others to proffer? As far as the athlete bit, the BritishBoxing.net link (which is broken, but can be retrieved through the Internet Archive) states that McKenzie was solely an amateur boxer, and with a record of only 6-6-1, which wouldn't likely make him the national champion in anything. The article states that his brother was successful, but notability isn't inherited. RGTraynor 10:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For sources, try the BBC interview above, this BBC profile, the Guardian article cited currently, this reference from the Independent, as well as the several 'local' BBC pages and the "Winston+McKenzie" 58 articles in the Croydon Guardian. And that's just from a five minute Google search.

And, yeah, he's not notable for his boxing pedigree. Boo-hoo. Bastin 11:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, but [www.mckenzieboxercise.com/family.html this website], which appears to be run by his family, states that he was a professional boxer for a while. Warofdreams talk 10:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... "not a reliable source" covers it. I couldn't find any sources in ten minutes positively, reliably, identifying McKenzie as anything other than an amateur boxer with a spotty record. RGTraynor 12:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until candidate is more successful, at the minute we seem to be in WP:ONEEVENT realms, and until the subject is more successful, that polices cautions us not to have an article. Maybe mention at the page on the actual election itself. Hiding T 10:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to London_mayoral_election,_2008#Winston_McKenzie. If he gains more notability in the future, this can be revived. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 22:41, 10 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. Brandon (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Pulco[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Brief career, minor career that never reached notability; no reliable sources to be found. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 00:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Does not pass WP:N Ohconfucius (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 22:25, 10 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. Brandon (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Goodman Logelin[edit]

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

Was tagged as CSD A7, but she has arguably some ~~notability~~significance as the namesake of a foundation. There is also an entry about her at Scripps College#Notable Alumnae. — Sebastian 00:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent notability. What she herself did is non-notable, what others did in her name is irrelevant. I find no sources covering her independently of the foundation, and if the foundation really is notable enough we can have an article on that, not on her. notability is not inherited, and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Ironholds (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ironholds. Evil saltine (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ironholds. In my statement, I meant significance, not notability. — Sebastian 03:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The foundation's notability is questionable, hers is not. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 04:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anyone can create a foundation, so it's not even an assertion of notability in my book. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:15, 7 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 Article has been substantially improved; there are no more delete votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianHelm (talk • contribs)

Munchie Strikes Back[edit]

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

Unspeedying deletion. Was incorrectly tagged as A1. It's a terrible start for an article, but it does have some links that show that it has some marginal notability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Sebastian 23:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Yup.... quite a poor beginning. However, A quick search has conviced me, that poor as it is at the moment, there is enough available so that the article can be markedly improved. As I have some time today, I will do just that. I'll be back in a couple hours or so with a progress report. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has now been expanded and sourced. I found numerous reviews of the film and all reviewers agree that it is a piece of crap... but even crap can have the coverage needed to meet the GNG. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's message. — Sebastian 03:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only hits, at Google News as shown here [44] give 6 listings. One a brief review, one a Press release that the DVD just came out, two just listings of the time it will be playing at the local theater and finally two quick reviews in a foreign news paper. This does not meet our notability standards unless they changed drastically recently. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 06:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Struck delete and moved to keep based on the work doe. Nice job by the way, and Keeping my word (yes Pun intended). ShoesssS ^Talk 23:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, Google News is not the only place one might find in-depth articles in genre-specific reliable sources that show a film meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG. But thank you for showing the way to even more than are in the article. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. However you failed to point out that the guidelines also state "... The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. 1.The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. 2.The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.3.The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. 4.The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.5.The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. 6..The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. " If you can point me to any one of the 4 criteria, I am more than happy to reconsider, but I can not find them. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 08:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... as I'm sure you've read, the WP:NF guideline begins wiith "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline." which itself states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I am hard pressed to understand how you see the provided in-depth reliable sources as somehow failing to meet the GNG. The quoted attributes are simply criteria for determining when or if one might expect that "the required sources are likely to exist". They are not themselves notability criteria. They advise that if the listed circumstances exist, one might likely expect to find RS... they do not instruct that lack of meeting the guiding attributes ipso-facto means that one will cannot and will not find reliable sources. I hate that Wikipedia is being more and more couched in confusing overlays of verbiage, when a simple sentence might say it all. Consensus and multiple discussions has agreed that W:NF's general principles pretty much advise "if some of the following circumstances exist, you should be able to find sources". Following the guideline of WP:NF, I found "the required sources"... meeting WP:NF, WP:GNG, and thus WP:N. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing nominator This article has gone through significant improvements since it was put up for deletion.[45] Ikip (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Munchie page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Strong keep In the alternative, redirect to Munchie, there are several notable sources in this article now. I respect the nominator, SebastianHelm, for changing his mind and deciding not to delete. That is very respectable. Ikip (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements and as film does get over 40 Google Books hits, i.e. is verifiable through reliable sources. Moreover subject is indeed covered in at least one published encyclopedia and per our First pillar, we are in part a collection of what appears in specialized encyclopedias. So, good work Michael (I have added one source to help out that reception section some more) and kudos to the nominator for being open-minded enough to switch stances upon evaluation of the improvements. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:59, 7 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. Brandon (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open challenges for human race[edit]

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

Nice idea, but there are so many unsolved challenges out there; it seems unrealistic that we could write an article about all of them. — Sebastian 22:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Joe Chill (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Noble effort, but hopelessly unwieldy and a PoV magnet. youngamerican (wtf?) 03:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom here.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 04:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. scale of name of article is too great. this one task is not really a challenge for human race, just for historians, etc. to creator: the list would have to have at least 100 items, be in list format, have clear rational inclusion criteria, and be renamed. also, each item would have to link to an article. no redlinks! if its a challenge to human race, and its not written about yet, were fucked (as a species, i mean, not us humble encyclopedia editors). It might actually make a nice list if done properly, but it would be a lot of work.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR magnet. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all the above. One could write, Make the whole population conservative while another could write, Eliminate conservatism. Etc. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be testing the waters, with one challenge so far, but it would only be original synthesis. Challenge to the human race #2-- make it snow. Mandsford (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it is a nice idea, but there's nothing there to suggest the challenge of listing all notable challenges to mankind will be done. RichsLaw (talk) 09:05, 8 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphobia (2 nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzhou No. 3 Middle School[edit]

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

Delete unsourced one-liner for a nn school. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite its name this is a high school and one of the first 14 provincial high schools to be designated a key high school; in a country as big as China that's pretty notable. I will add a source for verification but expansion will need to await a search in Chinese. In this regard, it is important to avoid systemic bias. TerriersFan (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- What is a "key high school"? Geo Swan (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Today, the word "key high school" holds little meaning to the Chinese. There are "Key high schools" for the province, there are "key high schools" county, there are "key high schools" for the city, there are even "key high schools" for the township and village. Besides, "ESLJobs.CN" is not what I would say RF. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 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) 23:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:DEFACTO where it states " 3.1 Items with de facto notability High schools" Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 06:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First of all, why is "Middle School" in this school's title if it is a high school? I'm guessing it has something to do with the differences in education systems of different countries. True, precedent has dictated that all high schools are notable, but how does this correlate to Chinese schools? Experts on this subject are definitely needed. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 01:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the Chinese name, "zhongxue", which literally translates to "middle school", refers to the stage between primary school ("xiaoxue", lit. "small school") and university ("daxue", lit. "big school"); that is, it includes both middle school and high school in English. But, some Chinese "zhongxue"s are middle school only; some are high school only; some (like the one I attended) include both parts, so verification is necessary. And when people translate the name, you get massive variations. Per cache of the school's website, it is quite clear that this one is a high school. So keep per precedent. Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. Many thanks to Tim Song for the informative, elaborate explanation. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 01:54, 7 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. Brandon (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative production of knowledge[edit]

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

Reads like a personal essay. Beland (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Synthesis. Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#ESSAY. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 04:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYN. Crafty (talk) 06:10, 7 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.