Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 20

< 19 April	21 April >

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. Non-notable as per WP:MUSIC (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me Vs. You[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to correct a misinterpretation/assumption in the nomination. The guideline WP:MUSIC says that demos are general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SunCreator is right that it isn't assumed not to be notable... but this one isn't. No sources, few google hits and relatively little content bar the track listing. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-notable as per WP:MUSIC (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayed Demo[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable without significant coverage of which I can find none. Rehevkor ✉ 17:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to correct a misinterpretation/assumption in the nomination. The guideline WP:MUSIC says that demos are general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-notable as per WP:MUSIC (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hand Over Fist[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable without significant coverage of which I can find none. Rehevkor ✉ 17:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. I am not sure of the significance between "demo" and "for sale" - a demo or to give it its full spelling "demonstration" is a recording for showing what the song/artist is capable of. Once it is for sale then it can't really be a demo, but an official recording. All by the way, as notability is not established. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please define the word "demo" and place this album in that context. Just because an article brands something a demo does not make it so. The claim needs to be cited and there are no references in this article. Futhermore, a demo once released is no longer a demo but a release, QED, as pointed above by Richhoncho, though the master copy remains a demo. I can't !vote on whether this article should be kept, though, as I have no idea how notable its subject is, there being no references as I pointed out --Jubilee ♫clipman 01:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response There is no Wikipedia: namespace definition of a demo, but there is Demo (music) and the simple fact that this article explicitly states that this is a demo several times. A demo does not cease to be a demo once money is exchanged. Cf. Nebraska (album) or Magnapop (album), which are demo albums that someone can buy with cash money. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nebraska proves the point well, whether or not my rationale is correct: your blunt statement that "Demos are assumed non-notable" is the issue here, as I pointed out in another debate. Now that you have contextualised that statement by stating that we need to prove WP:SIGCOV, then I concur. Springsteen's album consisting entirely of demos (therefore a "demo album" according to Demo (music)) is 100% notable, this album probably is not notable. Hence, I will now vote --Jubilee ♫clipman 05:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:SIGCOV --Jubilee ♫clipman 05:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to correct a misinterpretation/assumption in the nomination. The guideline WP:MUSIC says that demos are general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. That's a point the nom is fully aware of now after recent discussion elsewhere --Jubilee ♫clipman 01:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-notable list, WP:OR (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball one-game playoff broadcasters[edit]

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

A sublist of information on a topic for which the primary list (simply List of Major League Baseball one-game tie-breakers) does not exist. Also incomplete, as it does not include the 1948 game, for example. All together just a non-notable, incomplete, and unneeded separate page ultimately focused on one tiny fact: Broadcasters.

Currently, with no list of the games, the info can just go to the individual game pages. And even if the games get their own list (Wizardman and myself are discussing possibly doing this) the broadcasters could simply be included at that list as a piece of information. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a table at One-game playoff, without the broadcaster info. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't imagine why this would be useful as its own article. However, the author could probably write a spin-out article called List of Major League Baseball one game playoffs and throw in the TV broadcasting information in a lesser form. There's nothing particularly significant about who the commentator was on what amounts to an additional post-season game. Mandsford (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apps4Brands[edit]

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

Non-notable social media websites, only claimed to be founded this year - contested PROD -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability whatsoever. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the Original PRODder of the article. It is in no way notable; I have searched for sources to no avail. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klhtq5 (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC) This is a new social media site so it does not have a lot of publicity, but it is an actual company. The website is currently going through construction. Please do not delete! It would probably cause my professor to fail me in my capstone class, which I need to pass in order to graduate. IF you go to CloveApp.com, Magnify.net, or Involver.com you will see that this is a legitimate page.[reply]

Hi. Nobody is claiming that the company and the sites do not exist - just that they are not notable in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, which require references from multiple independent sources - see WP:N and WP:RS. If such third-party coverage does not yet exist, then the company does not yet qualify for an article - but when it does, it will -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, spam/db-web. Hairhorn (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising and patent nonsense: Engaging their customers, prospects, employees and other influencers on social networks, attaining attention of influencers through Earned Media, automating the process to lower the cost of investment in new employees and custom solutions and maintaining consistent branding and voice on multiple earned media platforms. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Existence is insufficient justification for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unique demo that actually ended up making the band notable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live Demonstration[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and this is unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the album only need references, but it is notable. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Album by a notable band, no other issues with it. Sources are easy to come by here. Shadowjams (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to correct a misinterpretation/assumption in the nomination. The guideline WP:MUSIC says that demos are general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the article could use some more references to show that the demo is worthy of being regarded as a stand-alone item, but there are glimmers of evidence that this is the case. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable demo. Unusual, but worthy of an article as it seems to meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Roxx Regime Demos[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Wikipedia's guideline for album notability: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." This is an official Stryper album, consisting of songs from Stryper's pre-Stryper days, when they called themselves The Roxx Regime. This is not a demo. The album was released on 7 July 2007 by Stryper.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Notability is thusly established. The editor who placed this article in AfD is ignoring the provided reliable verifiable sources on the talk page and the article itself which show that "The Roxx Regime Demos" is not a demo, but is an album released in 2007 by Stryper. Amsaim (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Stryper Discography on Official Website". Stryper. Retrieved 21 April 2010.
^ "The Roxx Regime Demos - AllMusic.com Review". AllMusic.com. Retrieved 21 April 2010.
^ "Stryper Discography at RollingStone.com". RollingStone.com. Retrieved 26 March 2010.
^ "Stryper - Discography". MetalMusicArchives.com. Retrieved 21 April 2010.
^ "Stryper - Complete Album Discography". Spirit of Metal Webzine. Retrieved 21 April 2010.

Comment None of those sources establish notability, simply the existence of the demo, which was never in doubt. In point of fact, one of your sources explicitly states that it's a demo (in addition to the name of the album, of course), and notes that it's only for die-hard fans. Since it's a self-released demo, it is assumed non-notable by WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add to that: "officially released albums may have sufficient notability". Note may not will --Jubilee ♫clipman 04:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Amsaim above. The nominator is hunting down articles with "demo" in the title or text and proposing deletion without further investigation. Or if he is investigating, he isn't saying any more than "assumed non notable..." The guideline on demos exists and should be observed, but the fact that guideline does not define what a demo IS should allow for some flexibility in special cases like one. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you doubting that this is a demo album or are you granting that it is, but is somehow notable? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, because I don't see this as a strict black-and-white issue. I was referencing your unnecessarily inflexible take on the term "demo" which is not even defined in the WP guideline that is the basis for many of your recent AfDs on articles that use the term "demo" in many different ways. See the discussion here. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tangential discussion

Comment - The article nowhere claims that the album is a demo, just that the songs on it were demos. In fact, it only explicitly states that one of the songs was a demo: "except for the track "Honestly" which is taken from a later demo". Indeed, it states that the album "is an album by Stryper consisting of songs originally released under the band's previous name" [my emphasis]. If the songs were released, then they were no longer demos, QED. However, this does indeed state that the album "is comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos". But that's a moot point because the album was released by Fifty-Three Five Records in 2007 (catalogue number 0725) according to that same source. Should Anthology 3 be deleted because that album consists of "demos" and previously unreleased out-takes? There can be no doubt that this present article needs a lot of work but I do have a strong feeling that this album is truly notable going by the sources I have so far read, as snipets like this seem to suggest. It is hard to source this album beyond passing mentions, however, (and the webmasters at the Rolling Stone site seem to have deleted or moved their reviews pages). So, ignoring the nom's rationale and looking at WP:V and, especially, WP:SIGCOV instead, is this album discussed in reliable independent sources beyond passing mentions? I have no idea... The Verifiability policy is the key here, IMO, rather than WP:MUSIC's advice (and note the disclaimer at the head of that document: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb...") --Jubilee ♫clipman 03:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response "Should Anthology 3 be deleted because that album consists of "demos" and previously unreleased out-takes?" No, because there is significant coverage, per WP:MUSIC. The distinction that you are making between the tracks being demos and demo albums being sold commercially is a false one, as you yourself point out by referring to Anthology 3. The controversy is not whether or not this exist, but whether or not there is enough significant coverage for this self-released demo album to have an article here and it seems clear to me that the answer is no. Almost all of these sources simply list this as existing rather than providing substantial coverage or critical commentary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point I was making. I think all of us were confused by your blunt statement "Demos are assumed non-notable" which is true (per "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable") unless "they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources", as I pointed out and as you have now clarified was your actual meaning. There is a difference, though, between a demo, per se, and a release of a demo. Pretty moot point, however, if neither demo nor release are actually given "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". BTW, I tried to source this album further but failed. Your modified rationale (i.e. including the point you made about SIGCOV) probably does give us pause for thought here. Hence my !vote --Jubilee ♫clipman 04:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominating editor is now distancing himself from his original nomination rationale, which was "Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC." Now he tries to find fault in the independent coverage of 'The Roxx Regime Demos'. "The Roxx Regime Demos" album has received significant coverage by numerous sources. Here is a small list of additional sources which address the subject directly in detail. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 (in German), 15, 16, 17. These sources prove that 'The Roxx Regime Demos' album did receive significant coverage from reliable and verifiable sources which are independent from the subject of the article. Amsaim (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If the nominator is now contexualising his rationale, that can only be a good thing. Better still, if this debate has moved you to prove that the album has received significant coverage from independent reliable sources then that's fantastic. Indeed: "however, they [=demos etc] may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources" (WP:NALBUMS) which you are going a long way to prove. Whether its a "demo album" (whatever that means) or an official album is a moot point, therefore, if it passes SIGCOV. Also, I am not sure the point you are trying to make by constantly linking to the nom's block history. Cheers --Jubilee ♫clipman 17:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale "The nominating editor is now distancing himself from his original nomination rationale" No, I'm not. Since demos are assumed non-notable, there must be extra coverage to assert its notability, unlike a standard studio album. Let's take a look at these sources:

[1] Reliable?, just repeats the press release, no critical commentary
[2] Reliable?, no critical commentary
[3] Reliable?, critical commentary with review
[4] Reliable?, no critical commentary
[5] Online retailer, unreliable and no critical commentary
[6] Reliable?, no critical commentary
[7] Reliable?, no critical commentary
[8] First-party source, no critical commentary
[9] Reliable?, no critical commentary
[10] Reliable, but no critical commentary
[11] and [12] Reliable?, no critical commentary
[13] Reliable?, apparently a review
[14] Reliable?, no critical commentary
[15] Reliable?, no critical commentary
[16]Reliable?, critical commentary with a review
[17] First-party source
[18] Reliable and critical commentary
[19] First-party source
[20] Reliable?, no critical commentary

As you can see, there is only one source that is clearly reliable and provides critical commentary and virtually all of the sources are repetitions of the press release or simply discographies that mention the album exists. None of this amounts to the significant coverage required to make an article for a demo album. This fails WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has hardened himself in his belief, that an officially released album by a notable band is a demo. Again he deviates from his original nomination rationale (Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC) and is now calling 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a "demo album". There is no such thing as a demo album. Recording companies and labels do not release demos. What they release is albums and singles. The band Stryper released 'The Roxx Regime Demos' officially as an album. In Europe this album is sold officially with an official LC (label code) number. Each country in the EU has its own version of the LC number. Demos do not receive LC numbers. Albums do. Stryper calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album. Allmusic.com confirms this and calls the album a compilation. RollingStones.com calls it an album as well. (The link to the RollingStones.com entry on 'The Roxx Regime Demos' mysteriously disappeared a few days after I added the rollingstones.com link to the article.) MSN.com calls this album a compilation. MTV.com calls it an album. vh1.com calls it an album. Numerous other reliable sources call 'TheRoxx Regime Demos' either an album or a compilation. Only the nominator of this AfD keeps on insisting that this is a demo. The closing admin of this AfD is called upon to decide whether she/he wants to go against the judgement of music professionals from MSN.com, RollingStones.com, Allmusic.com, MTV.com and vh1.com who call 'TheRoxx Regime Demos' an album, or whether she/he wants to follow the personal opinion of the nominator in calling 'TheRoxx Regime Demos' a demo. Amsaim (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demo albums Whether or not something is a demo and whether or not it is a compilation album are not mutually exclusive. You claim that there is no such thing as a demo album, but Nebraska (album) and everything else in Category:Demo albums contradicts that. I have no idea where you get the idea that a demo album can't have an LC number, but that doesn't change the fact that this album is made up of demos and according to WP:MUSIC, it should be assumed non-notable until there is enough significant thrid-party coverage. There is not, so the article should be deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem to understand the difference between a demo and an album consisting of demo songs. In the music business, there is no such thing as a "demo album". It's either a demo recording or an officially released album. Please try to understand the difference. Bruce Springsteens album Nebraska is exactly that: an album consisting of demo-songs which Springsteen wrote and recorded himself. According to the Wikipedia entry on Nebraska, "Springsteen ultimately decided to release the demos as a standalone album". The very moment the recording company officially released these demo songs on an album, with professional audio mastering, with an album cover, with the vinyl and the LC number, it became an official album and ceized to be a demo. That's the difference. What Springsteen did in 1982 with 'Nebraska' is the exact same thing that Stryper did with 'The Roxx Regime Demos' in 2007: taking previously recorded demo-songs to the studio, audio-mastering the demo-songs, and then officially releasing these demo-songs as an official album, with CD/album cover, LC number etc. One wonders why you decided to take Stryper's version to Afd while leaving Bruce Springsteens' Nebraska? Amsaim (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage It's very simple: Nebraska has significant coverage. I don't see what is confusing about this. Jubileeclipman, feel free to collapse this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

End - I can't see you convincing each other of your respective positions in this matter, so I suggest you end this discussion now (or, better still, take it to your talk pages). I will collapse this section if you continue. Thanks --Jubilee ♫clipman 20:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. If notability cannot be verified, the article becomes unviable (irrespective of the notability or otherwise of the subject of any related article, in this case the band) --Jubilee ♫clipman 04:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Addendum - The information could be merged into the band's article however, if it is deemed a useful addition to it --Jubilee ♫clipman 04:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Amsaim has gone a long way to provide proof of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. However, most are either track listings or previews and the Rolling Stones link breaks my end (in UK), unfortunately: [21]. That said, there does appear to be enough independent coverage out there for the album to pass SIGCOV and I suspect there will be more where they came from --Jubilee ♫clipman 17:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears as if the nominator is unwilling to accept the simple given fact: 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is the name of an album which was officially released by Stryper in 2007 by their record company "Fifty-Three Five Records". Stryper lists this album as part of their official album discography here. Nowhere does Allmusic.com call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a Demo. This is what Allmusic.com explicitly writes:

QUOTE
"And the 2007 compilation, Roxx Regime Demos, is comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos from this pre-Stryper edition of the band."
END OF QUOTE

Allmusic.com does not call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo. It calls it a compilation. And a compilation is not a demo. Allmusic.com declares is to be a Compilation, and when you check Stryper's discography at Allmusic.com you will see 'The Roxx Regime Demos' listed under compilations. RollingStones.com listed 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as part of Stryper's discography, however since April 2010 RollingStones.com has changed their website and thus Stryper's discography is no longer viewable. There is a huge difference between a demo which is usually created unprofessionally without any mastering involved, and a fully mastered album such as Stryper's 2007 release "The Roxx Regime Demos". Nowhere does allmusic.com write that 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is only for die-hard fans, the way the nominator claims. This is what allmusic.com writes:

QUOTE

"Obviously aimed at die-hard Stryper fans, Roxx Regime Demos provides an authentic snapshot of the group in their early stages.

END OF QUOTE

In summary, the nominator is ignoring these facts, and is openly lying by misquoting a reliable source, claiming that Allmusic.com calls 'Roxx Regime Demos' a demo, claiming that Allmusic.com declares 'The Roxx Regime Demos' to be only for die-hard fans. The nominator is merely voicing his own personal opinion about this article, and in the face of prevailing evidence decides to ignore the given facts. While Stryper themselves, music professionals from allmusic.com and from various other sources call 'Roxx Regime Demos' a compilation or an album, this nominator is unimpressed by the facts. By bringing this notable article to AfD, ignoring the provided reliable verifiable sources, and by lying about & misquoting reliable sources, the nominator thus is again acting in a disruptive manner. Amsaim (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lying? I'm not lying. There is nothing about a compilation that makes it mutually-exclusive of being a demo. And if this is indeed composed of demos, I fail to see how this is not a demo album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - when Justin first PRODed this article, there was no "prevailing evidence" to prove that this album ("demo" or otherwise) passes SIGCOV or even WP:V. When he later sent it here, the article wasn't much better. It is getting better however. I would prefer to AFG here, therefore, rather than throw accusations of POV pushing and personal agenda around. My recent change in vote take no account whatever of your personal reflections above: I recast my vote because you (just marginally) proved SIGCOV. WP:HEY, in other words --Jubilee ♫clipman 17:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with a little bit can improve this page. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while perhaps this album started as demos, it didn't end up as demos so the naming is perhaps confusing. So I've removed the demo category from the article accordingly. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Once the demos were compiled and officially released, they are no longer demos, no matter under what name the band (or label) chooses to market them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Demos in their original form are generally non-notable. However if a band or record company takes the demo recording(s) and packages and releases them as an actual album then at that point it IS an album and should be judged by the same criteria as any other album. Exxolon (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Planet of the Apes (1968 film)#Plot. Consensus for redirect - does not require separate article for this movie quote. The quote is more easily understood from the context of the film itself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damned Dirty Ape[edit]

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

Do we really need a whole separate and unsourced article on this quote alone, rather than just a subsection in Planet of the Apes (1968 film)? Delete? Redirect? Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or, less preferably, redirect to Planet of the Apes (1968 film). Interestingly, the AFI 100 Quotes page has "Get your stinking paws off me," while Planet of the Apes (1968 film)#Plot gives "Take your stinking paws off me." Anyone know for sure which is right and feel like fixing the error? Glenfarclas (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect per ~~everybody else~~ the majority. From this Youtube video and IMDb, it appears to be "take". This damned dirty editor has made the adjustment to the AFI article with his own stinking paws. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite "everyone". The article now cites 19 appearances in film and television other than Planet of the Apes (1968 film), so lets not make an example of one of the more notable, (and probably the best sourced), entries in Category:Quotes from film and television. Its fun and that's a scarce commodity around here.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could say "Tomorrow is another day" from Gone With the Wind and "No wire hangers ever" from Mommie Dearest are ~~arguably equally as notable~~ probably used in other media just as frequently this line but neither line has a separate article. The "Damned Dirty Ape" line itself is not notable enough for a completely separate article outside the original film filled with nothing but trivial references to the utterance of the line within other media. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count 11 each in IMDb; just under 58%. That's not including the more obscure references to damn dirty apes in film and television or any of the references in print. Movie quotes are permitted to have articles on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but it appears your estimate of notability is rather subjective.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Gone With the Wind, see Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn, which is top of the American Film Institute's list. We certainly do cover notable material of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Planet of the Apes (1968 film)#Plot, since it's theoretically possible that someone might hear an old man say "damned dirty ape" and wonder what that's all about. I think that there are very few movie quotes that rate their own article, although many of these can and should be redirects. Mandsford (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Planet of the Apes (1968 film)#Plot, it's probably one of the most recognizable movie quotes, but I don't believe any movie quote deserves its own article, should always be a redirect to the movie. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm adding 5 references, lots of examples and some wikilinks to the article. Creating a memorable quotes section in Planet of the Apes (1968 film) and redirecting to it would work except other instances would be out of place. LOL, I hear "Get your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!" (skip directly to it)—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Reaction section or create a "Culture significance" section of Planet of the Apes (1968 film). Sottolacqua (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section would be preferable to an article called "Planet of the Apes in popular culture". Mandsford (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest someone close this AfD so people can edit normally or continue the discussion at Talk:Planet of the Apes (1968 film).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to see it closed just yet. Although the trend so far is for a redirect, it's not exactly a snowball. There may be other editors who feel that the article should be kept, or who feel that it should be deleted. It's only fair that the article's supporters be given an opportunity to be heard. Mandsford (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Bearcat and the others who voted Redirect to#Plot, Redirect or Delete meant to discard the content of the article. I would have thought deletion is no longer on the table, here, because I subsequently addressed the issues behind this AfD: the lack of sourcing and orphan–issue, (and even added more material, none of which was difficult). Thank you Clarityfiend, for working with me to improve to improve the article. "Old men" like me appreciate all the help we can get.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article. I found two journal articles that refer briefly to the line (I've added details of these to the Talk page if anyone wants to do anything with them - I guess one could draw from them the info that this is the first line he says to the apes and that it's significant in the development of the relationship between the species) but it doesn't seem to me that there's enough for an article, no matter how long the list of throwaway parodies gets. Include a redirect, of course, for both "Damned Dirty Ape" and "Damn Dirty Ape". --Zeborah (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article well sourced and no longer orphaned. The number of references in other films shows this is one of film's insider references. Film buffs will appreciate this article. Short articles are possible. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The line is described by numerous sources such as Guide to American cinema as a memorable or famous line and so the topic is notable. The rest is a matter of content editing, not deletion. Good work is being done finding scholarly accounts of the topic on the article's talk page and so we should follow our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the film. The mistake that Colonel Warden makes is equating mentions with notability. We gain nothing by spreading content out across articles just because there's some mention of them. Readers gain much more by having content in one place, as long as the size or subject matter of the content doesn't detract from the article. Spreading these out makes no sense when the indications of separate notability are this trivial, it just invites contradictions, unnecessary extra edits, watching, maintenance, and vandalism. I would say [and others have] the same for "Say hello to my little friend". Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake you make is to suppose that there is a single redirect target. This phrase is discussed by the sources in multiple contexts - the original movie; the remake; Charlton Heston; the AFI's list; discussion of the relations between apes and man; etc. In such cases, it makes sense to have an article which brings all these together. This is normal encyclopaedic practise and our web structure makes this especially sensible for us. Massive, wall-of-text articles are quite unsuitable for the smartphones which are now commonly used to access Wikipedia and so we should be deliberately structuring our content around this form factor. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Planet of the Apes (1968 film). Movie quotes, no matter how popular, don't need separate articles. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the movie article. AniMate 03:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd settle for a redirect, but Damn Dirty Ape isn't a proper noun. All kinds of wrong. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ape is a noun and so this is a perfectly normal noun phrase just like Great Ape or Barbary Ape. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor means it should be in sentence case: "Damned dirty ape" --Jubilee ♫clipman 05:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shows how a catch phrase could survive and be reused through the decades following it. Wikipedia is not paper, there no reason this can't have an article of its own. Dream Focus 10:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Its not that notable (its only the 66th most memerable line, that means theresa 65 that are more memberable).Slatersteven (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They can be added as well, if they haven't already been. Wikipedia is not paper, it never running out of space. Dream Focus 14:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is not whether there is space for the information. The debate relates to whether or not this film quote is notable enough to warrant an article separate from the 1968 film. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also my point was that its come 66th, not that there would have to be 65 other pages. I was not aware that comming 66th in anything was notable. If it had been in say the top three (or if it couold be estavblished that this changed cinema) this might be different.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Planet of the Apes (1968 film)#Plot. No significant coverage. Famous does not necessarily imply notable. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Planet of the Apes. Some mention of this in reliable sources, but really not much more than a list of appearances. Adequate coverage in the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing more than a trivia article and I really don't see anyone purposefully searching for "Damned Dirty Ape" rather than going directly to the Planet of the Apes and finding the correct article from the list (unless they forgot where the quote came from—but even then we are not Google) --Jubilee♫clipman 05:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OTOH: Here's looking at you, kid redirects and Play it again, Sam is a genuine disambiguation page. Redirect might be OK, I guess, but the title is still incorrect: it should be in sentence case --Jubilee ♫clipman 05:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9 to 5 Mac[edit]

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

doesn't add anything that is not already in the Apple community page BruceGrubb (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shadowjams (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Apple community. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MacScoop[edit]

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

Url now directs to Silicon Rumors which has numerous Warning Cannot modify header information errors, the most recent article in its Active forum topic is dated 12-28-2008, and the text was a verbatim repeat (including the references) of what was in the Apple community page (ie it provide no additional information warranting a separate page). BruceGrubb (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. The New York Times reference to its sibling site, MacOSXRumors.com, is sufficient to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issue is not that it wasn't notable but that the exact same information was already covered in the Apple community article ie there is no reason for THIS article to exist.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, or rather redirect to the other article. IMO. David V Houston (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Catone[edit]

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

There is nothing here that suggests this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. As far as I can tell he is a regular investment advisor. There are 72 "unique" Google results for "Daniel Catone", and 48 for "Dan Catone". ... discospinster _talk 21:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. andy (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant vanispam -Drdisque (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable businessman. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. If the organization that the person is "famous" for founding doesn't even have a page, then the person obviously has no lasting significance. ~BLM (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -There seems to be no sources or facts that set this person apart on notability or anything else for that matter. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge discussion may be pursued on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International response to Hurricane Katrina[edit]

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

'Propose for Deletion': This article is just a list of standard international responses, and is flag cruft. Its not notable and does provide any useful information about the event. Karun1234 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This article could be of use to people, but a separate article doesn't make since. ~BLM (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Such information should be in one of the Katrina articles. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well sourced article, and it is notable when the world comes together to aid victims of a calamity. I consider this one especially important; it's amazing how many Americans have the view that "We give foreign aid to people all over the world and nobody helps us when we need it". Mandsford (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its just a list of standard responses, similiar in content to the International Response to the Poland crash. 124.176.26.4 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. [22], [23]. The same goes for the SPA nominator: [24] — Rankiri (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-written article on this subject is indeed possible (although it needs a complete rewrite; preserving the citations while converting the list of statistics into encyclopedic prose). I'm not sure what "flagcruft" is supposed to mean: the article can have the same content without individual flags next to the points. Them From Space 00:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has no relevance and does not provide any useful information about Hurricane Katrina. It could be merged in a summary to say "Many countries provided the US with support" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.195.128 (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC) — 123.200.195.128 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, This subject has clearly been covered in depth by many sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Its just flag waving nonsense, notable and without any citations. 124.176.26.4 (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, as you pointed out in your first delete vote, its just a list of standard responses, similiar in content to the International Response to the Poland crash. Is there anyone else who wants to delete this besides SPAs and IP addresses? Mandsford (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and well-sourced, so no case for deletion. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford and Alzarian16 David V Houston (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A John Prabhakar[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography, apparently written by the subject. But there's no evidence of notability offered - this gentleman seems to be an ordinary academic, and so the article does not meet the standards laid down by WP:PROF. Preaching on TV or being the founder of a non-notable organization doesn't make one notable either. St Anselm (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For all I know, "Grace Gospel Mission Society" is notable. However, the article isn't telling me that, because it cites no reliable sources, and, being an autobiography, is written in the style of an advertisement (with wording like "visit our website www.gracegospelmission.org"). At the very least this article needs rewriting and better sources. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - editor has reposted the article at A. John Prabhakar. I've tagged that one for speedy deletion as a duplicate for now. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it here, as it is the more correct spelling, but it should be included in this deletion debate. Brad 03:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any mentions of the subject in reliable sources. It is possible that sources exist in the Telugu language, but nobody is adding them. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. He sounds like a praiseworthy person and has done some good things, but notability is not there. As for his academic credentials, the article says that he is only working on his doctorate. --MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G7, tagged by author of only substantial content. JohnCD (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis AD[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable game - fails WP:N and WP:RS andy (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also tried looking for sources under it's Korean title "올스타☆ Another Day" but the results weren't promising. Marasmusine (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no usable, reliable coverage found. --Teancum (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor fancruft. No ascertaition of WP:N and no WP:RS. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Tomassini[edit]

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

Notability is not sufficiently established. Ghits don't appear to turn up any reliable sources to support notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional~~ Keep – There are quite a lot of sources available in well-known Italian publications and I've added them to the article. Note that he also performs as simply "Simone". The article is a mess, that's for sure. It's seems to have been written by a fan and largely cribbed from his website. I'm in the process of cleaning it up and removing the hype. Voceditenore (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update Article re-written and referenced to multiple sources. Voceditenore (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Voceditenore's excellent additions to the article's sources and content which now clearly establish the article's notability.4meter4 (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much better. I deleted an earlier version of the article in Dec for copyright violations. This looks much better and appears to have lots of sources now. Pigman☿/talk 21:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Simone, and I created the old page. How can I prove that I have te right to use that text? This new page contains some information that is not true (Simone NEVER released an album called Ladra), and it's missing a lot more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.160.119 (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Simone, to add copyright text or images to an article you need to follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials (or the message on it:Discussioni utente:SimoneTomassini), and you need to follow them exactly, or they will be deleted. But please note that material from websites and fansites is invariably unencyclopedic and promotional in tone (as the original version of the article was) and will be heavily edited to conform to Wikipedia's standards. Note that you had the same problems with the Italian version. See it:Discussione:Simone (cantante). It also has to be referenced to reliable published sources that are independent of the article's subject. You cannot use the article as an alternative website for yourself, or include information which cannot be verified externally. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography (or in Italian: it:Wikipedia:Autobiografie) and also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (or in Italian: it:Wikipedia:Pagine promozionali o celebrative). As for the "non-existent" album please see this. However, as the album has not been written about in the press, it is OK to leave it out. I am now going to copy-edit your latest addition to make it conform to Wikipedia policy and standards, please do not change it. Also, if you have any connection to User:Simonetarantino, note that the two photos added to the article contravene Wikipedia's policy on "fair use" images and have deletion notices. Voceditenore (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Note that the article was created by User:Simonetta70, as was the deleted version (see User talk:Simonetta70), and heavily edited by 69.86.160.119 who claims to be the article's subject as well as the article's creator (including the deleted version). If you have a user name, I strongly suggest that you log in and edit under that name only to avoid confusion. Voceditenore (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC) (comment edited by Voceditenore (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

After reading the message left by 69.86.160.119 at User talk:Pigman#Simone Tomassini I am a little concerned with what's going on here with the user names and identity claims. Here and at the User talk page, 69.86.160.119 claims to be Simone Tomassini and the creator of the current and deleted articles on him. Yet, as noted above, both were created by User:Simonetta70. Note also that both here and at the user page, the IP refers to "Simone" in the third person and at the User talk page says "we were actually about to add some new interesting things". Is this person not actually Simone Tomassini, but his publicist or a member of his fan club acting on his behalf? If so, they should not be claiming to be the man himself. Nor should more than one person be editing under the same account. Voceditenore (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the user 69.86.160.119 and Simonetarantino are the same user. I never claimed to be the singer, just we have the same name (quite common). All Voceditenore comments are rights; about the pictures, I got it directly from the artist with express consent to use it for this article. As for the non existent album, the artist never released it, neather approve it when the label Azzurra Music publish it. Please Voceditenore, since you are an expert and it seem you are also very correct and fair, I would love your help on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonetarantino (talk • contribs) 13:02, 23 April 2010

Thanks for clearing up that you are not Simone Tomassini. But if you say you created the article, you must also be User:Simonetta70. You need to read this page for guidance on editing from multiple accounts. Re the photographs, they will be deleted unless you document the permission properly. Please read the proper procedure at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Simply saying you have permission is not enough, and Wikipedia does not allow fair use of images of living people under any circumstances with or without permission. The copyright holder needs to release them under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. Obviously another photographer took the live performance photo not Tomassini. Tomassini doesn't have the right to give away the photographer's work without his permission. The CD cover, if uploaded as "fair use" can only be used in an article specifically about that CD, not to illustrate the article about the singer. I think you need to get help with this from Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voceditenore, no problem, and thanks for all your suggestions. No, I am not Simonetta70. I created another article about the singer that was deleted. I am just modifying and correcting this one, adding content. I will have all the pictures with the right license. Feel free to help more, your contrubition is really appreciated. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.160.119 (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No indication of importance or significance (A7) decltype (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin Mania[edit]

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

Delete, preferably Speedy delete. Article was tagged for speedy delete (A7) and tag was removed without explanation. There is nothing at all in the article to indicate notability, and there are no sources. A web search produces mostly forums, facebook, etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7:Unremarkable website -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The Speedy template was removed by the original author, so its removal could have been reverted -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wonder how I missed that. I have now restored the speedy deletion tag. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - One month old fan site with no assertion of notability much less actual notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jari-Veikko Kauppinen[edit]

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

No indication of notability. No references added and a quick search reveals no sources that could establish notability. (Note: Almost only SPA's on this article as well). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

indication of notability is for example finnish Mitä Missä Milloin and danish Se og Sket. References EMG tournament has been approved in the Official Olympic Committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toolscrips (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:BIO. teevee (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Famous ensyclopedias MMM and Se & Sket are reliable sources of information. This issue has a lot of information more —Preceding unsigned comment added by TIksu (talk • contribs) 10:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

~~This personal information is in several dictionaries all in europe. what is matter? Ransu Rapea (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete Par nom, fails WP:BIO. Also note that both "Encyclopedia's" mentioned refer to Wikipedia. Only the first is linked, but it is essenially a list of birthday dates, and the name "Kauppinen" is not on that list. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barring better sourcing. No clear claim to notability, no indication that the sources are anything more than mentions. Also an annoying sock drawer. Hairhorn (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is a SSP Case related to this AFD. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet case closed, accounts blocked. Striping AFD contributions from blocked accounts.Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --hydrox (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Skinny Water[edit]

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

Article fails notability and is stuffed with pseudoscience from the manufacturer's press releases. Zero Google Scholar hits, zero PubMed hits, a one-line mention in New Scientist in 2006, and zero Google News hits. Some web results, but these are either unreliable sources or published by the company selling the product. The few reliable sources listed in the article deal with some of the ingredients of the product, not the product itself. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this is part of a class project, a possible alternative to deletion would be to merge into flavored water, but the article would require a complete re-write to deal with the broader topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert. It's one of those 'drink our suppliment and you will lose weight' products. It certainly does exist but google produces just one weak review which says there's no scientific evidence to say this works. Of course it doesn't work, its just crap dressed up as pseudo science. Szzuk (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising - and WP:BOLLOCKS -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement for a totally non-notable product. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I previously noticed this article from it being part of the class project, and I noted that at least the article creator is trying to put in reliable sources. If we can remove the advertising content, the article could be made acceptable. There are several sources out there which express skepticism of the product's claims and which could be used in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather vague wave at the internet. Could you be more specific about these sources? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the non-press release content found in this Google News search. I'm not saying that these sources say a lot about this product, but a few of them could help tone down the hype involved here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all press releases, what isn't mentions the product in passing. For example, there is a single sentence about the product in the best source on that list NYT story, which is from a reliable source but such passing mentions don't help establish notability. It would however be a great source for the flavored water article into which this article might be merged. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to flavored water along with its one example of reliably-sourced, third-party coverage. A good faith effort by a student compelled to fulfill a class assignment without sufficient grasp of Wikipedia policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - This product certainly isn't notable enough for its own article, unless Metropolitan90 can link to the sources s/he is talking about. I guess a merge would be OK, but it seems like only a very small portion of this article really should end up in the flavored water article. As this is a school assignment, could this be userfied? P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 23:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've already offered to do that on the author's talkpage. This is an unfortunate situation. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising, lack of reliable sources. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and inappropriately written as promotional material. Peacock (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW, WP:NEO, WP:NPOV -- coined term serving as excuse for attack on Fox News. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foxality[edit]

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

This is a neologism, and appears to consist of quite a bit of original research. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix hardcore[edit]

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

Pure original research/essay. Article has been tagged as unreferenced since 2006 and tagged with "notability" since 2007. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No establishment of notability. --Absenteeist Ⓣ Ⓒ 20:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too fuzzy, is a magazine article at best. Szzuk (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn, due to mixed opinions about the article. Heymid (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Flight 407[edit]

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

I don't think that this article is notable enough. This incident/accident did not affect the industry, and no injuries or fatalities were caused by this tail-strike occurence. Heymid (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH, non notable. At least based on the information available David V Houston (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ATSB's interim report release indicates that the investigation has led the operator to institute "procedural, training and technical initiatives across its fleet and operations", and Airbus "has released a modified version of its cockpit performance-planning tool and is developing a software package that automatically checks the consistency of the flight data being entered into the aircraft's flight computers by flight crews". The ATSB investigation is continuing. User:LeadSongDog come howl 18:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems about as close as you can get to a major air catastrophe and still escape. Looks like it got a lot of mainstream press coverage, and was taken very seriously by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. -- Boing! said Zebedee 19:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not policy. --Absenteeist Ⓣ Ⓒ 19:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or give a serious makeover. Two references which are important to the substance of this article, [25] and [26], can no longer be accessed. Moriori (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other online refs now provided for those points, although online access to the source isn't in any sense mandatory to meet WP:V.User:LeadSongDog come howl 20:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the closest thing to a major air disaster in Australia for years and the subject of major investigation. Shaz91 (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly, this will end as a no consensus or as a keep, but no injuries, no historical significance. Per WP:AIRCRASH, this should probably be merged to the airline article. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Emirates Airlines#Incidents and accidents (there is a section there already but it needs updating and very minor expansion). This does not meet the WP:AIRCRASH criteria for a standalone article. Although WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, it enjoys widespread consensus for the majority of it. The most significant area of disagreement is related to hull-loss accidents and is thus not relevant to this incident. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad enough to be classified as an accident by the ATSB, and seems unusual enough to warrant inclusion. No deaths (thank goodness), but significant damage to both aircraft and air field equipment, and the air crew was asked to resign. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fascinating reading, well-sourced. Relevant to discussions of human factors in aviation safety. Mote (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 7 Great Lies of Network Marketing[edit]

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

The subject appears not to meet the notability criteria. Prods removed by creator without the addition of sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is on the article can be found by searching. It doesn't saying anything about the author, but summarizes each point. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Wikipedia is not a book library. See WP:What Wikipedia is not. Heymid (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable book, original research content, and aren't there a hell of a lot more involved than just these seven? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a 35-page e-pamphlet, given away free to promote the author's website/system. About as non-notable as you can get. --MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dasha Astafieva[edit]

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

Not notable Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 55th Anniversary Playmate is more notable than just a random playmate of the month. David V Houston (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David V. Houston. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A perusal of several of the Google News hits convinces me she satisfies the general notability guidelines. The article should be fleshed out more using those sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people). 55 Anniversary playmate? Why is that notable? Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure does for me. She has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. ie [27][28] The depth and number of the english sources found in the Google News search satisfy me; not even counting the other languages. The fact that she is the 55th anniversary playmate is often repeated in the coverage by reliable sources shows that it is her sign of notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that being playmate of the month was, until recently, considered notable, but that the PORNBIO(?) guidelines were revised removing that. That suggests to me that most any notability over that level is probably notable. Whether it should be, or not, ought not to affect this particular nomination, correct? David V Houston (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What? Delete Playboy's 55th Anniversary Playmate??? That's nothing less than just plain crazy! Glenn Francis (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, what is notable about the 55 anniversary playmate? Nothing at all. It's a list, anniversary playmates. Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is already on this list of playboy playmates 2009 here with a picture and everything, she fails all notability for her own biography.

Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Glenn Francis (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those lists that you are using as an example were created because of the slash and burn campaign that went on after the Playmate clause was removed from PORNBIO. I'd rather not have them at all but barring that, I'd prefer that they just point to the main article. I've been trying to save anything that you seem to want deleted. That's the reason for the duplication. Dismas|^(talk) 05:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination by Off2riorob, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them. I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of 2010 playmates)--Milowent (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Dismas|^(talk) 05:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think people are also missing that she was PMOY for the Ukraine edition of the magazine. Dismas|^(talk) 10:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides being a Playmate, which is notable whether WP:PORNBIO mentions it specifically or not, she was Playmate of the Year (Ukraine), 55th anniversary playmate (these anniversary playmates are always bigger deals than the regular monthlies), and, incidentally, easily passes GNG. Dekkappai (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being PMOY and 55th anniversary playmate makes her very notable as per WP:PORNSTAR. --Morenooso (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG per Google News hits. Epbr123 (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if not all the playmates are notable, she is,for the reasons given above. This nomination shows the refusal to recognize first, that there is no general consensus that playmates of the month are non-notable--which is excusable, because this is being tested in the present series of nominations-- but also an apparent belief that no playmate can be notable unless there is notability quite aside from it, regardless of the related circumstances--and there was never any even local agreement on that. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Leigh Andrews[edit]

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

Not notable Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't it recently decided that 'Playmate of the Month' was no longer sufficiently notable? David V Houston (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When putting an article up for deletion, you need to state why you are putting it up for deletion more then "not notable." Why is this person not notable? Just saying not notable is not giving the people information they need in discussing a biography related AfD. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people). Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated.--Milowent (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to list article. Does not evidence notability as defined by substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources unrelated to the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I haven't found significant coverage of her to meet WP:N. The consensus at the RfC was pretty clear. Them From Space 00:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have added proof of at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Nilsson, a playmate article has not been deleted at AfD since mid 2004 (and that was only once), so the RFC seems a bit askew from the past precedent, for whatever you feel that is worth.--Milowent (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our standards have increased dramatically since mid-2004. Back then you could practically get an article about anything on here. Thankfully today we have higher standards than that. Remember, consensus can change. Them From Space 03:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it can, but the AfD history show the opposite here.--Milowent (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has some independent coverage but not enough to pass WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. No evidence of passing notability criteria in WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. EuroPride (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consensus is and remains that athis is a major achievment and they are all notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My !vote above was mostly a blanket vote (no playmate article has been deleted for something like 6 years), but did no one google this person? I see all these hits about her being reported to be a potential "girlfriend" to Hugh Hefner. I added two cites to the article.--Milowent (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG. Being mentioned in gossip columns for one's willingness to sleep with a geriatric celebrity is not evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- to the geriatric celebrity it is.--Milowent (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Vernola[edit]

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

Not notable Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't it recently decided that 'Playmate of the Month' was no longer sufficiently notable? David V Houston (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When putting an article up for deletion, you need to state why you are putting it up for deletion more then "not notable." Why is this person not notable? Just saying not notable is not giving the people information they need in discussing a biography related AfD. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people). Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated.--Milowent (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to list article. Does not evidence notability as defined by substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources unrelated to the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. No evidence of passing notability criteria in WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. EuroPride (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consensus is and remains that they are all notable, as seen =by the entire series of nominations here. If any individual one happens not to get the necessary attention because of the excessive number of nominations, it is clearly because of an attempt to overwhelm afd, and the articles will soon be reinstated. DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG. In this particular case, the subject is the playmate for the June 2010 issue, which is not released yet I would assume. No playmate article has been deleted in about 6 years of AfDs, so presumably this article was created in anticipation of additional information being added. E.g., you can see the slew of keeps on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Rae Young--Milowent (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the consensus at the RfC was pretty clear that this distinction is not suitable for inclusion within itself, and the RfC was widely advertised with much more participation than at these AfD debates. Because of this sourcing requirement no subjects get automatic inclusion or "inherited notability", which is basically the argument that some editors are making above. I haven't found the level of coverage necessary to meet the GNG. This article also fails WP:CRYSTAL, as it is only deals with future speculation about a distinction that isn't notable in itself. Them From Space 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even really see a "consensus" at that RFC, to be honest. There were more "removes" than "keeps" but not a clear consensus.--Milowent (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero relevant GNews hits, negligible Google presence in general, and no reliable sources verifying the main claim to notability. The only "reference" is a self-published source that somehow has been treated as reliable for other articles, even though BLP pretty clearly says otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kassie Lyn Logsdon[edit]

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

Not notable. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't it recently decided that 'Playmate of the Month' was no longer sufficiently notable? David V Houston (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When putting an article up for deletion, you need to state why you are putting it up for deletion more then "not notable." Why is this person not notable? Just saying not notable is not giving the people information they need in discussing a biography related AfD. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people).Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (Note I have posted this same comments on other playmate AfDs which were nominated at about the same time, i guess)--Milowent (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, its newsworthy, especially when you see them move onto more successful things see - Kelly Werstler, Pamela Anderson, Shannon Tweed, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonynose (talk • contribs) 22:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By longstanding general consensus despite a rather obscure attempt to overthrow it in a local decision, which the community is clearly rejecting. DGG ( talk ) 08:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to list article. Does not evidence notability as defined by substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources unrelated to the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. No evidence of passing notability criteria in WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. EuroPride (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT, no indication the subject can yet satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

55th United Kingdom general election[edit]

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

Delete until the completion of the ongoing election as little useful information can be added until then. Philip Stevens (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I forget the right terminology - I started to say hold, or whatever we call it. It's a bit premature to have an article on the subject, when the date's not set. Holding off until the date is set might make sense. OTOH, this is most positively certainly a notable topic. And we do know that the election has to be held soon. So... Ja, it's a bit early, but not much, so keep it until it's appropriate. David V Houston (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed the fact that this is the NEXT election after the current one. Due to the Parliamentary system, the election in this article could happen as early as this fall, if the government falls. Definitely WP:CRYSTAL. !vote changed to delete. David V Houston (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL Jonathan McLeod (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'I assume you mean point 1 ("1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place"). If so, it is clear that this event is definitely notable and certain to take place. The point highlights that the 2020 Summer Olympics is appropriate. This election could even happen in 2010 if a hung parliament occurs. There's no way an absolute date can be given just as no date was known for the 2010 election until 2 weeks ago. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a page on the 2010 election until the beginning of April.WikiWebbie (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I obviously have a personal interest here as the creator of the article. Some people have since pointed out that it would be better to create the article on May 7th and maybe they are correct. May 7th is only two weeks and a bit away, so it seems a bit pointless having a two-week debate on it only to restore it just a few days later. We're all agreed that it is an article that will need to be written at some point. Sporting events are normally listed well in advance - often before the dates or hosts are known. I've applied the same principle here. Since we know the date for the 2010 election, we can give a final date for the election. The date for the 2010 election was completely unknown until two weeks ago. WikiWebbie (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The proper article is here - United Kingdom general election, 2010. Szzuk (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

' You're wrong! This is the one after that. Your point is invalidated.WikiWebbie (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL and fatal WP:OR. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

' As explained above, it is not WP:CRYSTAL as it meets the requirements. It is not WP:OR at all. Your nearly as bad as these politicians - making things up just to get your way. WikiWebbie (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if not already, this page will be valid in 17 days time. What is the point in deleting it before then? Also, if there is a hung parliament, this election is likely to take place in a few months time. Hera1187 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little silly to have this in mainspace, I think. Move it to a draft page (a subpage of the relevant project?) for now and drop it back into mainspace on May 7 as Next United Kingdom general election - we had a long argument last time about the best title and the logic should still hold, I think. Either way, "55th ..." is probably undesirable. Shimgray | talk | 21:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - CRYSTAL. The article will need to exist eventually, but will in the interim be called Next United Kingdom general election, a title taken at present by a redirect. Wereon (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the United States can have articles about the 2016 Senate elections, why is this even being considered for deletion? If a "Delete" consensus emerges, then just copy the article into a subpage until such a time as the article is needed. ~BLM (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm not too bothered about the outcome of this one as there will be a page to this effect in three weeks two days no matter what. However, this page doesn't really say anything about the election that isn't either generalised information that applies to all elections, or vague speculation. If the page stays, don't be disappointed if the vast majority of content goes. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete the entire article while we wait for the title "Next United Kingdom general election" to become available. Although nations with parliamentary systems have to wait for an election to be called, there is a certainty that the British election would take place no later than five years after the most recently scheduled general election. Mandsford (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious Keep I'm not sure that this article should have been created quite as early as this, and I don't like the title, looks like OR. However something like this is going to be created in another couple of weeks, and there has been a significant amount of work done, so we should let it through on the nod. We may have to consider putting a block on the creation of articles before some people think it is appropriate, as happened with the next US presidential election 2 years ago. When does "Next UK general election apply to this election? When the polls close? PatGallacher (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information which is currently on this page is the same kind of information which was on this page a year or two ago. It's true that that information doesn't extend much beyond what the last possible date is, but the point still stands; it's not very different from what we've had before, and that was allowed to stand. Also, now we have that information about the date, I would say that that is substantial enough for the article to exist. I would say that it is the equivalent of us knowing the venue of a future sports tournament to be held after another edition which hasn't happened yet (for example, the 2014 FIFA World Cup). If we didn't have that information about the date, then I suppose that I would not be so keen on keeping the article. Also, I think that it would very much be a waste of time to delete this article now. If it were to be deleted, then it would be just a matter of days before it was created again. That would mean that the whole article would need to be built up again from scratch, even though there was one in existence just a few days beforehand (hence my point about deleting being a waste of time). What we have now is a start, and after a few days it should be able to be expanded a bit. What's more is that this is inevitably something which people are going to be interested in at this time, and I think that it'd be a bit wrong to deny some curious people some information that they're looking for (even if it's just that date). I think we need some common sense. Redv Blue 02:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes Wikipedia:Verifiability, bit dubious on Wikipedia:Notability guideline but there seems little doubt that if it is deleted then it will simply have to be recreated again in a couple of weeks. Jll (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily Move to Sandbox: The article will be useful on May 7th (especially in the event of a hung parliament), however it is not necessary until then.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Once this election is called, we can create an aritcle on it. Thus far it can only say that there will be another election between in the next five years, which simply restating the rules of election. Furthermore, the numbering is pretty much arbitrary. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'It's completely ridiculous to not create the article until it is called. Otherwise the current election's page would not have been created until three weeks ago. This page contains information that is useful to people and since Wikipedia is designed to further knowledge it should stay. WikiWebbie (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nothing can be said about this election other than that it will happen in a certain period of time. See WP:CRYSTAL. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we do delete this article, it is now 8 days and a few hours until we are likely to re-create it, so I think we can let it through on the nod. PatGallacher (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy until, as people claim above, in ~8 days it will be possible to say something encyclopedic about this topic. Userfying should satisfy all participants in this AfD. Abductive (reasoning) 22:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although the article may need improvements, rough consensus is that the subject is of a notable nature. Further content discussions may be held on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kharsag[edit]

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

This is, in essence, recreation of material from a deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics) which was then redirected to Christian O'Brien, where there has been a continuing conflict over the same material. This article was created by taking the article on O'Brien and editing away the biography; given the outcome of the previous AFD discussion, I redirected this back to O'Brien. There has been conflict over this ever since, including a deletion review declined as being out of scope. Fundamentally the problem hasn't changed: O'Brien's fringey theory is being presented by the same editor in all three articles in a veritable flood of original research. Numerous peopole have tried to remonstrate with him about this, to no effect whatsoever. Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly original research. The article's creator, who has a web site promoting this concept, has not brought any sources saying that all these words that he cites are about the same location, person, whatever, but has said said about his claims that one group of scholars " clearly understand to be the same place, as I would argue does the great sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer when his use of the word hursag is put in context" and " I have gone outside Barton to research this and firmly believe that in the time that these great scholars lived, Kharsag as the Sumerian Olympus was well noted and well deserves mention in Wikipedia as due note to their accomplishments in this field. " He has also said "It might help to explain that the actual ancient cuneiform these words are translated from is more like picture language than ours. The picture-sign translated as "khar" or "gar" (or for Kramer "hur") in many of these books is that of a garden or enclosure and that of "sag" is a picture sign of a head. Hence mountain in basic translations, but undeniably used in the context of the home or birthplace of the first Gods (Enlil, NinKharsag, etc.) by all these authors and professors as a singular location." He has no reliable sources confirming what he understands, believes, argues, etc.. We have here a list of words with no sources tying them to each other, only the editor's belief. The word 'Kharsag' is only to be found in a translation of Sumerian texts by one writer, George Aaron Barton. I don't see how we can base an article on this. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An obvious attempt to evade the previous merger closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics with a healthy dose of WP:COI and WP:SYN thrown in. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wonder at how the difference between topics cannot be clearly seen. This article now bears almost no resemblance to the deleted page. Kharsag is obviously a completely different word from the fringe naming of a group of texts and Barton may be the only one to mention it as a singular word, but is still a notable source, which is all Wikipedia requires. None of this is original research, this is what the textbooks say, please read the cites! It is a singular location, a sacred mountain in NE mythology that is always described in similar terms to the Mount Olympus in Greek Mythology - the birthplace and home of the original Sumerian pantheon. I have been working to separate this from the fringe theories surrounding it by providing a veritable torrent of notable sources describing this word or part of a phrase referring to the same location. I therefore suggest it requires it's own page, concentrating on the scholarly work of the noteable, verifiable, non-fringe eminent scholars. I have expanded and grouped the sources of information to make it easier to understand the importance of this location as fundamental to human origins. I do not understand how all these notable scholars research is anything original. It's all been well noted since at least 1918 and to delete this page undermines the work of most of the notable sources in the field. I trust my explanations of the subject will provide editors assistance in making informed decisions. Apologies if my tone is somewhat argumentative, but that's not OR. Paul Bedson (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At least this article, unlike the last one, seems to be about the Sumerian word and how it was translated by a plethora of sources, not just Barton. That should be a valid topic. I don't know about the topic at all to know if anything is incorrect, but if so, just correct it. Is any specific statement there incorrect? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no Sumerian word "Kharsag". It's a merger of the words "Khar" (or "Gur" or "Kur") (meaning either mountain(s), foreign land, or underworld), and the word "Sag" (meaning "head", while some also claim it means "sacred" or "glorious"). But no scholar claims there was a word Kharsag. It's an portmanteau, conviniently used by O'Brien for his book. Patrick1982 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am going to AGF, but I have the personal belief that the users voting Delete did not even look at the sources. Obviously, from just a visual, article-based standpoint, it is a completely different article that has little of the information from the previous version, Kharsag Epics. I have been watching Paul work on this article and he has been doing an admirable job at keeping his WP:COI out of the picture and also addressing the points raised in the other AfD. If you would look at the sources, which I just went through, I only saw two links that were the same as the previous version. And those links are being used to reference the small amount of material that is similar to the previous version, so I see no problems there. I am not seeing any WP:OR or WP:SYNTH at all in this article. All Paul has done is put in the quoted sections from the cylinders that are about Kharsag. That is far from performing original research on them. No, this article is completely different from the previous version and uses much more reliable sources than the last version did and presents them in a clear, NPOV manner, with little to do with Christian O'Brien besides the singular sentence, which also shows the differences from the previous version (which had a considerable amount to do with Christian O'Brien). For these reasons, I am strongly given to vote Keep for this article, as a worthy, now notable rewritten and edited version. Paul did good work on this. Silver seren^C 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Different articles. Google book search shows over five hundred results for the word "Kharsag". This isn't about the text, but the Kharsag itself. Dream Focus 20:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think you get the point. Ofcourse one gets 500 results on Google Books, but does that mean those 500 sources are reliable? No. "The Atlantis blueprint" ? "secret of the Freemasons"? Come on, give me a break... Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Secondary, Nin-hursag, also spelled Nin-khursag or Nin-kharsag, is the name for a Sumerian goddess. So actually most of your search results are not actually referring to the Kharsag in this article at all! Your arguement is therefore void. You might wanna read WP:SET#policies: "Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles". Patrick1982 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's difficult to tell what the article is even about. Is it about a Sumerian word? Well, Wikipedia is not a Sumerian dictionary. This article would be a terrible dictionary entry anyway, because the word "Kharsag" is, apparently, the Sumerian common noun meaning "mountain".

If this article is about a concept or mythological locale ("the mountain home of the earliest mythological hero-gods and goddesses") then it needs to be entirely rewritten, because the name of this locale is not "Kharsag". That's like writing about Mount Olympus and calling the article "Mount". Again, "Kharsag" just means "mountain". Furthermore, the cosmic mountain home of the gods is not uniquely Sumerian—it's a concept spread throughout Near Eastern mythology, and shows up in Canaanite texts and possibly the Old Testament. In its current form the article is just a platform for O'Brien's strange ideas—please note that the article text is virtually identical (including infoboxes) to material I removed from Christian O'Brien in this edit. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to ancient texts, Kharsag is the name of the mountain. Regardless of the fact that Kharsag is also the word for "mountain". It's the only name we have for it, that's what ancient texts translate it as. And there are different articles on different mountains of the Gods, because they are different places in different religions. That's why we have articles on Mount Olympus and articles on Biblical Mount Sinai. This article is about the mountain for the Sumerian peoples. It is a valid article topic. Silver seren^C 02:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this goes to the heart of the AfD... is "Kharsag" the name of a specific mountain? According to O'Brien it is... but most of the other sources seem to be either merely translating the word as "mountain", or using it as a name for different mountains. That is where the WP:SYN come in. The article ties all these different usages of the word/name Kharsag together in an inappropriate way. Blueboar (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looks again* Hmm, I should have read the article more closely the first time, then I would have already been able to raise the point about why you are incorrect. Kharsag, as long as it is described in texts as relating to the home of the Gods, is relating to the same place. The article even says "It (Kharsag) later used to describe temples or houses dedicated to this location. It is suggested to represent the location of a Sumerian creation story." The word "Kharsag" itself is not just a word, but a phrase, as is noted in the article, and that phrase is always used in conjunction with the home of the gods and the place of the gods. So, Kharsag is relating to a specific mountain, the home of the gods. Is it a real mountain that exists somewhere? Possibly, but just like with Biblical Mount Sinai, who the heck knows where? That's the point of researching. I do not see any WP:SYNTH in this article at all. It is merely stating the translations of various ancient texts in reference to the home of the gods. Silver seren^C 02:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SYNTH is exactly the problem. It's as if I said that mountain, Mount Washington, Mount Airy, and Mount Sinai were all the same place, and the Sermon on the Mount happened there. Without a source, we can't make that claim; and since any source that did make that claim would be in a distinct minority, to put it politely, that view would have to be attributed to that source and that source only. Now, Silver, what exactly is the source that supports the text you quoted? There is none. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see two. :P (I just added them, but still.) Silver seren^C 03:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those references do not support the article text, so I removed them. See the discussion at Talk:Kharsag for details. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I claim no particular expertise here, but if the epics are built around a location, an article on the location is clearly justified. The content of the article is for discussion elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What location are we talking about? And what's the name of that location? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kharsag. See above comment. Silver seren^C 02:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus, the sources mentioning Kharsag as the home or birthplace of gods and goddesses are grouped at the top of the article. Jastrow's perhaps carries the most weight. What you have ignored and failed to provide is the use of Kharsag as the common noun you are protesting against. I have yet to find a source where it is used in context simply as mountain. Please provide one. I have over 10 as a specific, singular, mythological/cosmological mountain including the temples dedicated and named after Kharsag. Paul Bedson (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's gonna be hard, considering that it is "Kur" that means mountain, not Kharsag. :P And, strangely, "Ekur" can mean "House that is like a mountain" or "House mountain" (Great Mountain). Sumerian is weeeeeird. Silver seren^C 08:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Blueboar is right in as much as the common noun/specific location question is the heart of the AfD. This should be fairly obvious now though. To try and help, I added Asgard and Valhalla to the 'See also' links last night which in my opinion matches the relationship between Kharsag and Ekur very well. The problem here is perhaps with the understanding of the subject where little research has been published for a while. Whilst the sources convince me, more work on the content may need to be done to clarify perhaps, glad to see people seem to agree it's no reason for AfD. Thanks. Paul Bedson (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it all boil down to the apparent fact that there are no reliable sources discussing this location? If this was a notable location it's odd that none of the academic sources make and discuss the link. All the sources do is using varying words to mean varying things, it is only the article (and O'Brien) where we can find the link. This looks like a textbook example of original research to me, yet people still seem to be thinking its acceptable. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources are discussing the location. This article is about the mountain where the gods lived. Whichever name each source decides to use, they are all directly referring to this mountain, so they are all about the same subject. There are currently multiple sources that are describing the mountain and it's formation by the gods in a considerable amount of detail. There is not any original research in the article. The only problem with the article is the confusion over the correct name (which is why they are all shown in the first sentence), but confusion over the name has nothing to do with notability. The sources establish notability for the subject. The subject is the mountain. Silver seren^C 08:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed please read the sources more carefully or even provide an alternative usage of the word. Jastrow's discussion should be the most immediately obvious as per my previous comment. Also note the presence within the discussions and translations of the 4 original Gods, most notably Enlil and Ninhursag linking the location specifically. They clearly didn't move their home onto a different mountain every story. Paul Bedson (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading the sources provided in the article, Paul. What I see is that no source says that "kharsag" is a specific place, nor do I see any indication that all of the phrases listed in the first line refer to the same place. Where, for instance, is a source that says "Kharsag" means the same thing as "E-kharsag"? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above Keep arguments. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which arguments? We really like specific policy and guideline based reasons for !votes. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, we have read the above arguments on both sides and we find the Keep arguments to be more convincing than the Delete arguments, but we do not feel the need to write a wall of text here. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Perhaps you should read WP:Guide to deletion#Discussion, especially the last sentence: "Always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows administrators to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin." Patrick1982 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is a essentialy recreation of an earlier page (Kharsag Epics‎) that was merged per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics >> "User:Black Kite: Closing debate, result was merge to Christian O'Brien"
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: the page creator User:Paul_Bedson apprears to have a obsession getting his own views on Wikipedia, as this is his only 'contribution' on Wikipedia:Special:Contributions/Paul Bedson. Together with User:Silver seren they're fixed on their view that there is one physical "Kur" place/house. Think of Kharsag as a geonym, i.e.: "The Hill" can be just a hill, a neighborhood in Washington DC, the physical location of the United States Congress, or even figurly the legislative branch of the US Federal Government.
Before, this article just redirected to Christian O'Brien, and it was just fine to leave it that way. Why was this changed again??
Most of the arguements raised on the article's talkpage are assumptions based on what was found on Google. This is wrong. To rephrase: Wikipedians are currently interpreting works on their own. Basically they can be summerized by: "I've read...", "I think..." "..it looks like...". So, Weasel words all over the place, This is plain WP:OR. What should be done is to use secondary sources (i.e. research papers, commentaries by archeologic/linguistic specialists, and books written by scholars, a translation is just an interpretation from a primary source (exept for the annotations). These cannot be used unless accompanied by reliable secondary sources, which is NOT the case with Kharsag, since there exists no (reliable) secondary sources, only pseudoscience. But the dilemma is that unless the University of Pennsylvania, which owns the ancient tablets, publishes a new work, there is not much that we can do or add to this article.
Furthermore, there is not even an accepted/standardized spelling in the scientific community for "Kharsag": why Kharsag and not khursag or Garsag? It makes no sense. Perhaps some users (see above) prefer this spelling since O'Brien uses this version?
In fact, kharsag isn't even a single word but an portmanteau! So what's the point creating a Wiki page for a obscure/archaic polysemic term? Kur (Khar) can mean mountain(s), foreign land, but also underworld! >> WP:SYNTH
No further need for rescue, there is actually only one line that needs saving (merging) in Kur: "Mountains play a central role in archaic Sumerian mythology, associated with deities such as Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursag".
After 2 months discussing, it's time to unloose this Gordian knot we're creating. Patrick1982 (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And merge it with "Kur", which Kramer makes clear is a different place from his Hursag? This seems as ill-informed as your previous claim in the Epics deletion discussion that a text didn't contain a word later found to be mentioned phonetically as "gar-sag-da" translated "netherworld mountain" Sumerian and Semitic religious and historical texts. Oxford editions of cuneiform inscriptions, v. 1. London: Oxford University Press. 1923., P.50-57]. I have however re-worded the article considering your comments. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you've misread me. I'm not saying this article must be merged with Kur, onle 1 line (see above) needs to be lifted into that article, since it's the only that actually makes sense. Everything else you can use in Christian O'Brien#Kharsag. Patrick1982 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Comment. The article currently begins by asserting that "Kharsag; (ḪURSAG 𒉺𒂅) also Khar-sag, Imkharsag, E-kharsag, E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra, E-kharsag-kurkurra, Kharsag-kzurcktra, E-kharsag-kalama, Hur-Sag, Gar-Sag or Gar-Sag-da is a Sumerian word or part of a Sumerian phrase noted as the mountain home of the earliest mythological hero-gods and goddesses..." This is not supported by the sources given in the article—none of them say that all of these words/phrases are the gods' mountain home.

There is a basic problem with the way the article is rendering these words, also. As far as I can tell, kharsag and hursag are the same word, transliterated differently; if one searches for "kharsag", one finds scholarship that's a century old and modern fringe authors. If you search for hursag, you get more recent scholarship.

Furthermore, if one consults a resource such as J. A. Holloran's Sumerian Lexicon: a dictionary guide to the ancient Sumerian language, it becomes obvious that these words mean different things. I consulted the print version, but an online version can be found here: [29]. On p. 116, Halloran glosses hur-sag as "hill country; mountainous region". For HUR-SAG, on the other hand, we're referred to the entry for "azugna, azukna, azubir", and on p. 25 it turns out these words mean "saffron". No mention of a home of the gods here!

If one consults the University of Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary online for hursaĝ, one gets a nice definition, "mountain, foothills", along with a list of occurrences, nicely linked to The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian literature, where we can find Sumerian texts with English translations online. There's a nice page of proper nouns: [30]. "Hursag" and "Kharsag" do not appear, because they're not proper nouns. "Hursag" just means "mountain", remember. "Hursag-galama" and "hursag-kalama" appear, as names of temples, not as the mountain home of the gods. "E-hursag" appears, as the name of a temple, not as the home of the gods. The other phrases listed in our article don't appear in this list of proper nouns, which is mighty strange if they're supposed to be the name of a place.

To be more precise about Hursagkalamma, it is a temple complex in Kish, dedicated to the goddess Ishtar. Basic definition here, excavation report here (see especially the map on p. 114). That's S. Langdon and D. B. Harden, "Excavations at Kish and Barghuthiat 1933," Iraq, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1934), pp. 113-136 for those of you without JSTOR access. This translation renders the name of the temple as Hursaj-kalama, but it's the same place—and none of these sources make it the mountain home of the gods, they make it a temple in a particuar city (which is a normal residence for Mesopotamian gods).

As for E-hursag-gal-kurkura, one of the sources cited in the article says that this was the name of a temple complex in Nippur: [31], search in that text for "kurkurra", and on p. 45, you find: 'Hence, Sargon II, king of Assyria, who was of an antiquarian turn, speaks of "The Great Mountain, Enlil, the lord of the lands, dwelling in E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra," i.e. "The House of the Great Mountain of the Lands," the name given to the temple at Nippur.' This article says E-hursag-gal-kurkura was a temple complex in Assur on p. 1069: "On this site lies the great temple E-hursag-gal-kurkura, said to have been founded by Erisu, viceroy of Assur, about 1920 B.C."

The sources cited in the article do not show that all of these words/phrases refer to the same place, but illustrate that they refer to different things; and this is confirmed by the other sources I've found. There's no reason for the article to combine all these ideas; to do so is original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can remove some of the names, sheesh. It's not like that's a big deal. And, by the way, "Hursag-kalamma" means "Mountainhead for all the Lands". That's what the word itself means. If they also named a temple after it, good for them, that doesn't change the fact that the sources are talking about the mountain of the gods, for whichever name they use. There's also the fact that "Kharsag" itself doesn't translate, because it doesn't mean mountain or anything like that, it's a name. But, like i've said before, naming is not important for this discussion. The sources all talk about the mountain of the gods, whichever word they use to describe that, and that mountain is what this article is about. Are the sources notable? If so, then the article is notable and we're good. It feels like you're purposefully trying to drag this into a discussion about the proper name, when that's something that should be discussed elsewhere, not here, as it has nothing to do with notability. Silver seren^C 18:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren, please read what I wrote again, more carefully. I said, quite clearly, that Sumerian dictionaries define "Hursag" as meaning "mountain". I cited two different dictionaries on this point. The dictionaries don't contain "Kharsag", because that is a different way of transliterating "Kharsag". If you have some evidence that hursag means something else, please provide it in this discussion. If you have a source that says that any of these words refer to the "mountain of the gods", please provide it, with a direct quote, right here in this discussion. Because your idea that these sources are talking about the mountain of the gods is exactly what I'm disputing—none of the sources cited so far establish that. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) User:Akhilleus has been actively removing all of the sources that I put into the article, stating that they do not represent the information they are being paired with. These sources are:

"Journal of the American Oriental Society" - Google Books

A super-Tunguska event circa 1447 BC: a scenario for the Phaethon explosion, the Indo-Aryan migration and the Exodus events"

"Temples of the Orient and Their Message" - Google Books

"In and Around the Book of Daniel" - Internet Archive

It can clearly be seen that they are discussing the mountain in the text and, now, I will go about explaining why they are relevant to the sections I added them to.

The first source, the JAOS one, states "They were agreed that this form was intended to represent in a symbolic miniature the vast mountain, Kharsag-kurkura, on which mean and the gods most closely related to men were believed to have been created." The "form" is the fundamental form of temples they built to represent the mountain. I admit I put this in the wrong place, this should be with the mountain home of the gods section.

The second source, about the Tunguska event, states "The Turanians were the people living north of the Amu river, a large river, always full of water, not easily crossable, whose sources are found in a very special land, by us identified with the Biblical Eden and the Sumerian Kharsag, It is very likely that they are the people known in the Egyptian documents as the Amu and in Exodus and other Biblical passages as Amalek (to be interpreted as people of Amu /Amol, Amol being a very ancient town quoted in the Shahnama, near the Amu River, whose name has been changed only recently." This just explains about the original god-like people, the Anunnaki. Thus, this source was on the section about the Anunnaki.

The Orient source has multiple sections, five of them, where it discusses Kharsag and the fact that it is the mountain of the gods, their "Great Home".

As for the David source, Akhilleus misquoted it above. I will AGF and believe it wasn't purposeful. What he quoted was "The Great Mountain, Enlil, the lord of the lands, dwelling in E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra," 1 i.e. " The House of the Great Mountain of the Lands," the name given to the temple at Nippur." This makes it seem like the mountain is the temple, but it is not. The temple was modeled after the mountain and given its name, as a miniature. Look up to see what I said about the first source. The next sentence after this says "In Babylonian mythology the gods were supposed to dwell in the sacred mountain called " the Mountain of the Lands," and, according to Jastrow, Enlil, as being the chief of the gods, was more particularly associated with this mountain, and from being regarded as the inhabitant of the mountain became identified with the mountain itself." As you can guess, the fact that Enlil can also be referred to as Kharsag from this makes for a very confusing time. The Sumerians don't make things easy for us.

But, either way, all of the sources in the lede, at the very least, were discussing the mountain of the gods. Akhilleus has removed these sources, saying they were not relevant to what they were citing. But I believe I have explained all of that away here and I believe they should be reinserted. Silver seren^C 19:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be reinserted. Especially not the fringy source about the Tunguska impact; what could this have to do with Babylonian cosmology in a rational world? Do you really want Wikipedia to say that a people in Siberia are named as Mesopotamian gods?

The other sources do not support the article's text. Remember, the first sentence asserts that Kharsag, (ḪURSAG 𒉺𒂅), Khar-sag, Imkharsag, E-kharsag, E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra, E-kharsag-kurkurra, Kharsag-kzurcktra, E-kharsag-kalama, Hur-Sag, Gar-Sag or Gar-Sag-da are all names for the mountain home of the gods. This, according to the sources that Silver seren has just cited, is not so. E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra is "the name given to the temple at Nippur." Yes, the temple is modeled after the cosmic mountain, but that's not the same thing as being the mountain. E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra is not the name of a mountain, it's the name of a temple; just as Mount Sinai Hospital is not the name of a mountain—it's the name of a hospital. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There, I have fixed the naming problem. Are we good now? Your only problem seems to be with the names, which has nothing to do with notability. But it's fixed now, so let's move on. Silver seren^C 19:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Oriental' source is over a century old by someone now remembered mainly as a very good University president and as someone who believed in Eden at the North Pole, but not for his works on Babylonian cosmology. The 2nd source is fringe, not published. The third souce is from "Temples of the Orient and their message in the light of Holy Scriptures, Dante's vision, and Bunyan's allegory" by Mrs Gordon, E. A., again over a century old and by a virtual unknown, a British author but not in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The fourth source, Jastrow, mentions a Babylonian 'Mountain of the Lands'. I've also seen discussed in the context of this article 'mountain of heaven and earth' with the belief that it was a location rather than a description of the universe before Enlil separated the heaven and earth."mountain+of+heaven+and+earth"&source=bl&ots=9sIXLVr-8d&sig=S4Kdt520Ev7FUceiwtoyXNFkhcs&hl=en&ei=PGTQS9iGOYWCmwPalqlB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22mountain%20of%20heaven%20and%20earth%22&f=false It isn't clear how Jastrow's mountain fits with any of the other names. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have lots of interesting scholarship. Right now the presentation isnt the best, but this can likely be readilly resolved by knowledgeable editors such as Paul Bedson, Silver seren and / or others, once folk are no longer contesting the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Akhilleus, your grasp of the subject is impressive and informative, even if your understanding of the wikipedia rules, chronology and temple dedication seems somewhat lacking. Kharsag, as a proper noun, mentioned by the only required verifiable, non-OR, non-SYNTH, non-fringe source, George Aaron Barton quite obviously cites the primary name of the article as the same location in several texts. I am surprised you question this or have simply ignored it, as I am suprised have the dictionaries and lexicons you've mentioned. It's also very important to note that Barton's translations are from a foundation cylinder from Nippur's temple (i.e. written before it was built), which he cites as possibly the oldest religious text in existence, pre-dating the Pyramid texts. This could go back as far as 2700BC, perhaps markedly further. It's the oldest text of the bunch in any case and possibly why Kharsag doesn't appear singularly elsewhere. In judging sources weight by time and quoting 'old scholarship' r.e. hursag/kharsag you are again trying to judge notability as time-dependent, when Wikipedia rules clearly state not so. We've been through this already in previous discussions.

Your investigation of the temples is interesting, and possibly parts of it need adding to the article for clarification. I have added the use of the word when describing temples dedicated to kharsag to clarify the article, yet you seem to be confusing a very simple concept here. Even when you cite it as a temple complex, it's also cited as 'Mountain of the World', which is again veriying this word as a specific location that the temples are dedicated to Kharsag and it's Gods. Like the Greeks no doubt dedicated temples to Olympus and the Greek Gods, Norse dedicated temples to Asgard and the Norse Gods, etc. This is not strange at all.

As for the 'normal residence of Mesopotamian Gods' being in the temple, please quote me a source for that statement. That seems like a good example of either OR or completely fictiional speculation. To my knowledge there is no evidence for this in Mesopotamian or any other similar culture. Greco-Roman temples for instance are always dedicated to Gods, who usually live on a sacred mountain.

Lastly, you seem to have totally ignored the cites showing use in Sumerian cosmology and their view of the world revolving around a great, sacred mountain, which I have included again for clarification because it essentially means the same concept.

Basically, this word was used over a period of thousands of years, so inevitably it's usage changed during that period and had meant different things. Why we are even discussing this at all when Barton has 3-4 seperate texts referring to Kharsag as the mountain home of the Gods, I wonder? All the other texts reference 'Mountain of the World', 'Netherworld Mountain', 'Mount of the Nations', etc., which should make it blindingly obvious that the word is referring to the same place. If not, simply consider the name Ninkharsag/Ninhursag - was she the "Lady of Mountain", "Lady or all Mountains" or "Lady or one specific mountain - her home", even cursory examination of the texts should clearly reveal it to be the latter.

By your judgement calls here, you would also have to argue for deletion of Asgard if a temple or house was ever dedicated to it and this clearly makes no sense. Paul Bedson (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of a temple as a Mesopotamian god's dwelling place is a perfectly normal notion. What's not normal is taking a common noun, Hursag, and turning it into a proper name, and claiming that temples are dedicated to it. It's also not normal to take a bunch of different words and phrases and claim that they're all the same word. I've fixed this, with reference to basic resources like dictionaries. Can you please provide some clear evidence that 1) Kharsag is a proper noun that refers to the gods' mountain home? 2) all of these different words/phrases refer to the same place, especially since you acknowledge that some of these phrases refer to specific temples?

Where? You think people used to believe their Gods lived inside a physical temple? Again, please show sources for this concept I have never heard of. Paul Bedson (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for Asgard, no one would argue for deleting that article, since we actually have sources that tell us that Asgard is a proper noun, and the word refers to the home of the Norse gods. Can you give us something similar for Kharsag? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unsurprisingly, I got reverted. Never mind that we have no evidence that Kharsag/Hursag means anything but "mountain"... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: Walter Burkert, Greek Religion (Harvard 1985), p. 88: "The temple is the dwelling place, naos, of the deity..." --Akhilleus (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained and quoted the sources for you above, you seem to be ignoring them. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article is not about the word Kharsag as a definition for mountain. This article is about the mountain of the gods. And, as the sources I quoted earlier show, that is (one of) the name for it. You seem to be blatantly overlooking the sources at hand. Silver seren^C 19:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring them, I don't think the prove what you're saying. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, which is why there should not be an article on kharsag—all it can be is an article about a word. If this article is about the mountain of the gods, it needs a different name.

Let's try this again. Please give me a direct quote illustrating that "kharsag" is a proper name that refers to the mountain of the gods. Not any of the other words/phrases, just "kharsag". --Akhilleus (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Turanians were the people living north of the Amu river, a large river, always full of water, not easily crossable, whose sources are found in a very special land, by us identified with the Biblical Eden and the Sumerian Kharsag, It is very likely that they are the people known in the Egyptian documents as the Amu and in Exodus and other Biblical passages as Amalek (to be interpreted as people of Amu /Amol, Amol being a very ancient town quoted in the Shahnama, near the Amu River, whose name has been changed only recently." Silver seren^C 19:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you *do* want the article to say that a tribe from Siberia were the Mesopotamian gods! Seriously, Silver seren, do you think this meets Wikipedia's guidelines for a reliable source? We might as well change this to Velikovskyopedia, then. Or perhaps we should stick to actual scholarly literature. Can you produce any? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think the name should be then? Silver seren^C 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silver may have gotten ahead of me there, but I'm at a loss to answer 1) and 2) as none of the cites make any sense whatsoever using the common noun. Mountains don't generally go around getting established, building furnaces and having gardens of the gods that are green, having temples dedicated to a common noun mountain, having the centre of the universe as a common noun mountain, etc. I could go on but have mentioned Barton and Jastrow as the primary cites for 1) and refer you to my previous answer about the word being used for different places through a long period of time already for 2). Paul Bedson (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'

Incidentally, if we are answering questions in a sensible manner, please can you provide me with a cite of kharsag, hursag or garsag in context as the common noun? Thanks. You didn't get back to me on that one , despite the impressive dictionaries. Paul Bedson (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention also, that Ninhursag was later translated into Akkadian as Inanna and later still into Babylonian as Ishtar. Plenty of cites should show this if you want to investigate and it should clarify the temple issues being dedicated to equivalent goddesses at later times. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy issues Once again I need to point out that this is original research so far as I can see. Most of the argument is based on primary sources, and WP:RS says "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." It also says that primary sources "are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." We have zero primary sources being used that discuss the subject. And the 'Keep' !votes don't seem to be facing this issue, or perhaps aren't even worried about it. Sorry guys, but that's the way I see it. It's one of the strengths of Wikipedia in my opinion that we don't allow original research, and if it creeps in here it will be to our loss. Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read anything at all that I said about the sources? Anything? The sources I have added and the other sources regardless are talking about the Mountain of the Gods. They are not primary sources, they are secondary sources with historical information. And you have yet to state exactly what in the article is original research. You seem to be completely ignoring everything that has been said in this discussion. Silver seren^C 21:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Along with Barton's undiscussed translation, the word is a notable part of a phrase. Leading as such, there's plenty of discussion in primary sources of this. Hence no OR in my opinion. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The persistent problem here appears to be that none of the sources says that "Kharsag" means specifically "Mountain of the Gods". The best that seems to be shown is that the word is (sort of) an element of several other words which may denote the Sumerian equivalent of Asgard, but by itself it doesn't mean this. The claim that it does have that meaning is an argument being constructed in this article, and it doesn't come from the cited sources. That's exactly original research. Mangoe (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources specifically talk about the mountain. I quoted the sections from the sources above that said so. Regardless of the name, this article is about that mountain, the sources talk about that mountain, the sources are reliable sources, thus the article subject is notable. Silver seren^C 22:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "part of a phrase" despecifies it, which I argue is obviously required in this field. Nevertheless, Barton presents us with 3 or 4 stories about all the same Gods, all in Kharsag with cattle, sheep, furnaces, pi-pi plants and a garden in it and other features. The location the stories take place is clearly called "Kharsag" by it's primary translator. Again I do not agree this is original research. You're welcome to change it to "home of the Gods" or even "garden of the Gods" if you feel that is better supported. It will not blend as well with Wikipedia's current articles on Ninhursag however. Paul Bedson (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem here is that while the sources use the word "Kharsag" or some plausible equivalent (in passing and with apparently differing meaning), they don't actually discuss the concept of "Kharsag" and how it is notable. That is where the OR comes in. Without reliable sources that discuss the topic of Kharsag, all we have is a Babyloninan-English dictionary entry. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. AfD is not the place to deal with problem editors. This is just the Sumerian term for "mountain". Mountains play a certain role in Sumerian mythology. Wikipedia needs an article discussing mountains in Sumerian mythology, so let this be it (but move it to Hursag). Of course it needs to lose the UFOlogy/fringecruft material. --dab (𒁳) 09:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it transpires that all this article needs are a few eyes of editors who actually know something about the topic, so the nonsense can be kept out and the coverage put on its feet. This is just a case of WP:FRINGE pov-pushing, let WP:FTN handle it. No need for deletion. So far the article clearly hasn't been touched by anyone with Sumerological background knowledge, seeing as it consists merely of a handful of soundbites collected on Google Books. This is the raw material for an article, but it is not itself an article. I would be interested in writing this article if the revert-warriors can be kept out of my hair. --dab (𒁳) 09:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great news! I'm grateful for your help and have no interest in reverting sensible edits. I do need to clarify that we still lack evidence of kharsag, hursag or garsag's use in archaic Sumerian as the common noun "mountain", it is originally used as the proper noun "head mountain" in these texts and the article should reflect that. Arkilleus's Akkadian text with different Gods, and one liner about Enlil having sex with the Hursag is insfficient in my opinion. I have distinguished this in the article from the later Akkadian sources where it is used as the common noun and feel this is important not to be misleading about it's usage in archaic Sumerian cuneiform. This is why I also feel kharsag is a better term than hursag which could be an article, but it's Akkadian verses Sumerian usage must be distinguished. I trust as a scholar, you will agree this is a sensible argument that considers the chronology of the texts and the differences between archaic and Akkadian cuneiform. I look forward to further improving this article with your help. Kind Regards, Paul Bedson (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Dab. Mountains do play a role in the mythology of much of the mid-eastern ancient religions. Further concur about that the fringe material doesn't belong, so the ultimate article is unlikely to look much like the original. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I also lack expertise on this subject. However, if there was a home for the gods in Sumerian mythology, we clearly need an article on it. What it should be called is a differnet matter, which needs to be determined according to how most scholars (prefereably recent ones) transliterate the text. However, if there are rival transliterations, the less authentic ones should survive as redirects. What I do know is that the Sumerians and the Akkadians were different peoples at different the latter being dominant later. It thus seems to me that Akkadian documents are not necessarily a proper source for saying what the people of Sumer did (or did not) believe. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very fair comment Peter. The problem with this whole subject area is the length of time we're covering in the development of writing and religion, you've hit the nail on the head there. Wikipedia and the entire subject area requires clear explanation of the different time periods and deities worshipped, when and named what. We're going back to the start here and the differences between myths in Ur III, Lagash, Archaic and later Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian cuneiform. I've repaired that article after it's been a bit hacked apart lately and expanded the definition to mention the differentiation needed due to chronology, putting back the notable cites without quote farming if that is what is preferred. Personally, I found the quotes highly informative in their own right. Paul Bedson (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

another break[edit]

Redirect to Hursag. I am now of the opinion that it shouldn't simply redirect to Christian O'Brien. Hursag is the most common transliteration of the relevant Sumerian. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this as the article is not about the later Akkadian use of the word hursag as a common noun, which would prove misleading. It's about Barton's Kharsag or derivations therof in archaic Sumerian. Paul Bedson (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barton's transliteration is not the most used transliteration of the term. It is clear from the sources I've read on the subject that Barton's transliteration to Kharsag is what most modern scholars transliterate to Hursag. It is by no means established that this words was ever intended to be used as a proper noun and most modern Sumerian scholars would not accept this. Even some of the sources which use "kharsag" don't accept that it is a proper noun, so Wikipedia should relegate that approach to WP:FRINGE idealizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 17:57, 22 April 2010

Please, then for the 4th time, please provide a citation showing it to be used as a common noun in archaic Sumerian when dealing with the ORIGINAL pantheon. Without this, I cannot accept that argument as valid. Plus I would argue that the number and notability of the sources using kharsag outweighs the number using hursag, regardless of age. The tablets these myths were written on (the oldest in the world) were only studied for a brief period of time at the beginning of the last century. This is why all the research about the subject is old and we have few recent (non-fringe) sources about this particular subject in these particular myths. I think it would be good if we could find someone's translation of 'gar' or 'khar' discussed somewhere, but without this, I have reverted the 'akin to'. Paul Bedson (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only ONE source, Barton, uses the word Kharsag. It doesn't matter if Kharsag is part of the name for temples, etc. The word is only used by Barton. All this argument about a word suggests that we are discussing a dictionary definition. If there should be an article including the word, the article should focus on Mountains play a central role in archaic Sumerian mythology, associated with deities such as Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursag. That could include the 'cosmic mountain, the 'mountain of heaven and earth', that is part of the Sumerican creation myth and means the universe. It could include Jastrow's statement that "Kharsag-Kurkur" does not refer to a mountain but is " a designation for the earth, though at a later period some particular part of the earth, some mountain peak, may have been pictured as the birthplace of the gods". Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one source is all that is required, and it's discussing the earliest religious statement of the human race and a notable unique word within it. It is also 'eminently notable' due to the nature and age of the original Sumerian sources. As part of a phrase it has many, many sources from almost all the scholars working in the field at the time the tablets were translated. I agree we should include "cosmic mountain" and "mountain of heaven and earth" statements. Jastrow makes his views clearer in that text and directly claims it is the birthplace of the Gods as I have cited in the article. Boutiflower also describes it as their home and it's close association with Enlil in later temple culture. That quote is evasive. Also , please note there are no contrary quotes about this word being used as a common noun mountain or mountain range. Doug has claimed to have quoted page 75 of "Sumerian Mythology" as a reference containing it's use as 'mountain ranges' as a common noun in connection with this pantheon, which I have questioned as seemingly erroneous and non-existant and had no reply on this yet. Paul Bedson (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you and I agree that even the one source does not use the word Kharsag to refer to a mountain. Also, Barton dated this incorrectly, he thought the Akkadian empire was 2800BC to 2600BC, whereas as almost a century later modern scholarship dates it to 2350-2150, and the Pyramid Texts are older. As for page 75, I'm sorry I didn't respond and sorrier that I've lost the reference, it was a messenger crossing several mountain ranges, almost certainly the messenger to Aratta, but there are plenty of references to Hursag meaning mountain range, eg [32] [33], Kramer "it+often+refers+to+the+mountains+just+east+of+Sumer"&dq=kramer+"it+often+refers+to+the+mountains+just+east+of+Sumer"&hl=en&ei=jQPSS6XBDqOJOL6t0d0N&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA ""Hursag may mean 'mountain', 'mountain range', it often refers to the mountains just east of Sumer." (p. 216. footnote 10. Kramer)" etc. I didn't mention common noun or pantheon, all I wrote was "And Hursag simply means mountain. Look at page 75 of this where it is used repetitively while describing a messenger crossing a number of mountain ranges (so here it means mountain range, not just a mountain)" Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed hursag/Hursag re-added the 'and variations' and revised in line with your suggestions. Thanks. Still, you will have to agree with me about the 'Notability not being temporary' rule. The citations provided so far to the contrary (which have been fascinating incidentally) are from such as a business document dating to the Ur III dynasty, mentioning hursag, which is used as a proper and common noun in later Ur III cuneiform, dating later than ca. 2047BC. The Archaic cuniform proper noun Kharsag or phonetically gar-sag used on it's own or in variations that the article is about, NEVER uses this word as a common noun and is estimated to date from the reign of Naram-Suen ca. 2254–2218 BC or before. All using short chronology, which is highly debatable. It is also only ever referenced to the original pantheon of Gods, to my knowledge. I was wondering if you could prove me wrong, but not yet it seems. To understand the differences between the 3 main different versions of cuneiform (Archaic, Ur III and Standard Assyrian) I'd suggest looking at the chart halfway down this page [34] which shows the differences in form, or within wikipedia[35]. Imkharsag, Kharsag-kurkura and E-khar-sag-kurkura and gar-sag-da clearly are variations the same word amongst others. We need to concentrate on what was notable at the time of Barton, Jastrow, Langdon and Hilprecht, as well as in ancient Sumer, where they all clearly understood the same word or central part of a word as the same concept. Please read about Notabiliy not being temporary WP:NOTE for further explanation. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Paul Bedson (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imkharsag, Kharsag-kurkura and E-khar-sag-kurkura and gar-sag-da are clearly different words. Unless you think compliment, complement, complimenting, and complementary infinitive are all "variations", and therefore the same word... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Different spellings but clearly same concept, which many of your examples are not. It's very clear if you bother to read the translations. Paul Bedson (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, please stop saying that I haven't read the translations. I've read everything you've brought up—it just doesn't demonstrate what you think it does. And I'm surprised to see that you think compliment and complement are different spellings of the same concept, and that complementary infinitive is...what? another alternate spelling? Are you now going to claim that imkharsag and kharsag-kurkurra are different spellings of the same word? Can you back that up with a citation? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will, however, complain that you haven't bothered to read material that I've brought up. Just above, you incorrectly state that "The citations provided so far to the contrary ... are from such as a business document dating to the Ur III dynasty," when the Jeremy Black article I've mentioned deals with literary texts including the Barton Cylinder, so the scope of the article isn't limited to Ur III. The article says nothing about the meaning of hursag as "hill" being limited to the Ur III period; it uses documents of this time to show what hursag means in the Debate between Sheep and Grain and How Grain Came to Sumer. The argument that Black's argument only applies to Ur III is yours, not Black's.

Also, you appear not to have read this dictionary entry for hursag in the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary, at least not carefully. Start with the first line, "hursaĝ [MOUNTAIN] (598x: ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. hur-saĝ..." That information in parentheses says that the word occurs 598 times in the corpus used by the dictionary, starting with the ED IIIb period through the Old Babylonian period. The reign of Naram-Suen falls within that period, yes? What's more, the dictionary entry has a timeline of the word's occurrences; if I'm reading it right, it says the word occurs 284 times between 2500-2000, and Naram-Suen is right in the middle of that range. So the Barton Cylinder is written in a period where we have ample documentation of its use as a common noun meaning "mountain." All that information is in a dictionary entry I linked to on April 21.

I'm also going to guess that you didn't read [36], the transcription of the Barton Cylinder at the CDLI. I wouldn't blame you for not reading this, since the site seems to be inaccessible at times. At the moment the site is working for me. Its transcription is based on Alster and Westenholz's edition of 1994, which I have been unable to access. But from the webpage we can see that the lines transcribed by Barton (p. 5) as:

gat azag en-lil

gar-sag mu-gub

are transcribed by Alster and Westenholz as

4. gidri-ku3# {d}en-lil2

5. hur-sag#? mu-DU

In other words, the same word gets transcribed as gar-sag by Barton and hur-sag by Alster/Westenholz. The hur-sag transcription is also used in the Pennsylvania Dictionary's version of the Barton Cylinder. Your assertion that the "Archaic cuniform proper noun Kharsag" was different than hursag was OR to begin with. Now that we can see that the same sign in the same text is transcribed either as gar-sag or hur-sag, your assertion is falsified by secondary sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. This is the sort of help we need. Thanks for the cites. They were worth the wait. It is a shame this source has come along and muddled Kramer's hursag with this text 10 years after O'Brien's translation. He appears not to have read it and caused a big problem here. The question looms whether the notability is still temporary for this period between 1918 and 1994. I'd also appeal for anyone who can access Alster and Westenholz's commentary on the Barton cylinder to see what they say about this subject and hope no-one closes this discussion before that is examined fairly. I'll have a got at getting it once I finish my work rotation. Paul Bedson (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

I have noticed that the article's creator, Paul Bedson (talk · contribs), notified a number of people on April 20th about this AfD, in one case (only) suggesting what the editor should do. These were editors who had either !voted Keep or commented favorably at the earlier AfD of a similar article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics, and those who had commented or !voted otherwise were not so notified. I am going to WP:AGF and assume that this new user didn't know of our guidelines on this but I have now notified the other editors of this AfD. As this discovery and notification has occurred so late the in AfD's process, I think that's a problem which may be skewing the discussion. I ask whoever considers closing this to keep this in mind.

I also believe that all those involved have been under the impression that the unadorned word Kharsag, only used by Barton, was used in conjunction with a mythological mountain, thus giving us the lead which starts "Kharsag; (also transcribed as Khar-sag & Gar-sag) or variations is an archaic Sumerian term used to denote a mythological location, meaning "head mountain", "sacred mountain" or "glorious mountain" ". Paul Bedson now agrees "that Barton doesn't refer to this as mountain" (his words) and says that other variations do, such as that used by Jastrow (although he doesn't deny that the edit is correct that says " Morris Jastrow, Jr. mentions a E-khar-sag-kurkura as "The sacred mountain on which the gods are born". He also mentions Kharsag-Kurkura in Babylonian mythology, pointing out that "The popular early theology conceived the gods as sprung from the earth. The are born in Kharsag-Kurkura, 'The Mountain of all the Lands', which is again naught but a designation for the earth, though at a later period some particular part of the earth, some mountain peak, may have been pictured as the birthplace of the gods." In other words, Jastrow says that this 'variation' does not mean a mythological mountain. This dissonance between what the lead says (and the article's title) and the actually usage of the unadorned word without 'variations' may or may not have affected the comments by other editors. I don't see how we can have an article based on a demonstrably false statement. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to notify the participants about what I think is a major problem that they would not have taken into account. What I do think we can have is an article called something like Mountain symbolism in Ancient Near East mythology or just Mountains in Ancient Near East mythology as Dab has suggested above, but this title and this lead do not belong on Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that Paul Bedson's notifications are more than balanced by the campaigning at WP:FTN, which includes the following call-to-arms from Akhilleus: "note the existence of Kharsag, which looks like an attempt to sneak the material of Kharsag epics into a different article. Comments welcome at Talk:Kharsag and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag". Gandalf61 (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make this Mesopotamian mythology#World mountain or World mountain#Ancient Near East at first. I cannot understand why people always insist on creating crappy stubs and then spend time defending them when they could just sit down and help the project by compiling a clean paragraph in an existing article.

Editorial incompetence is hardly a new phenomenon in our Ancient Near East topics, and of course we need to work with what we can get, but there should be some efficient means of pooling contributions and avoiding unproductive debacles such as this. --dab (𒁳) 09:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify about the title, not only do I think that the article should not be about a word/words but the concept that the cuneiform signs were meant to embody, but as the unadorned word 'Kharsag' is used by only one article to denote a mythological location, it fails WP:Title as the 'variations' are more commonly used by scholars. I wouldn't want 'hursag' or 'hur.sag' etc s the title either. Dab's suggestion that it be a redirect to a section of an article is a good one. If it is to be restricted to Sumerian mythology, our article on Sumerian religion (why do we have 'Sumerian religion' but 'Greek mythology'? which is sorely lacking anything on mountains, and mountains played a vital part in their religion. Dougweller (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still trying to find out what the Alster & Westenholz 1994 translation calls Kharsag in transliteration and if there is any commentary on that. This seems like a big hole in the argument until it's been checked. It's a very exciting discovery that an updated non-fringe transcription and transliteration has been made after O'Brien's. The direct translation cited has many of the extra lines not in the original Barton document and only in O'Briens'. These lines include the proliferal use of the Sumerian word "EDIN", a 'variation' of which is where I suggest the merge will end shortly after the press coverage finishes of the U.K. elections in May. I would comment that this discussion needs to be closed by revealing what the additional source we have for the subject of this article says, which I would argue is primarily about the use of this word in the oldest cuneiform myth ever found.

Doug and Professor Bachman raise some good questions too and I feel honoured to receive the advice and opportunity to contribute better to the wider subject. The question regarding Sumerian Mythology is well raised. I would still argue that I am not here to promote this topic on Wikipedia, I am here to prepare Wikipedia for this article by attracting leading expert editors such as dab. I intend to follow his advice, read his sources and do some cognitive thinking rather than debating this any more or making any great changes to his proposed form. Rachaya El-Wadi hasn't even got a Wiki article! So there are better things for me to be getting on with. I would only appeal for him to help access Alster & Westenholz and reveal what the latest evidence transliterates and discusses about the direct topic of this article before final deliberation. Thanks again for all your efforts, I look forward to working productively with you in future. Paul Bedson (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Rachaya El-Wadi did have an article, just not a redirect to Rashaya - I've created two, one with the sh spelling. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article Doug, glad it features the independence citadel. I've ordered a copy of Acta Sumerologica Volume 16 (1994), from Maruzen's Polish distributor featuring the Alster & Westenholz article published by The Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan, ISSN: 0387-8082. Should make interesting reading. Paul Bedson (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Alster/Westenholz article. It has a transliteration and translation of the text. The lines most relevant to this discussion are translated:

The [pure] Tigris and the [pure] Euphrates

Enlil's pure scepter
... the mountain(?).
Let its roots...
[Let] its top...
On its side [let]...

[Let] eggs [be laid] on the ground.

No sign that hursag is translated as a proper noun or that it's a particular place in these lines. Near the beginning of their article, Alster and Westenholz write "We are painfully aware that our understanding of the text is often tentative and incomplete." (p. 17) So we shouldn't be making grand interpretations based on a text that's so uncertain... --Akhilleus (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is that question mark next to mountain. That's kinda a sign. Unfortunately, this seems like complete gobbledeegook - eggs laid on the ground? This is one confused translation. Bah. I'll just have to study cuneiform and do it myself. *runs off to apply to Oxford's M.Phil. Cuneiform Studies* Paul Bedson (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question mark is surely a sign that they aren't sure the word means mountain?

I still don't see having an article on the use of the word in one myth, even if it is the oldest ever found. That's what dictionaries are for. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created Barton Cylinder for this text. Material on mountains in ANE myth should be covered according to dab's suggestions above; I'm not sure we need to retain Kharsag even as a redirect.

Oh yeah, the question mark means they're not entirely sure that the sign is sag; they are reasonably certain (otherwise they'd just print an ellipsis instead), but there's room for doubt. So hursag was probably on that line, but it's possible that something else was... --Akhilleus (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was a good idea. I think anything else should go in our article on Sumerian religion, which needs amplifying and certainly needs mention of mountains. I think that would be a better idea (sorry Dab) although it's in the same spirit. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An excerpt from Alster and Westenholz's 1994 article is here: [37]. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So where are we? This AfD has real problems in that not only are most of the Keep !votes from people who were selectively canvassed, we have an article whose title is not in line with WP:Title and concerns what is now shown to be at best a dubious transliteration of the text and at worst a clear mistake. Maybe it says hursag (not Kharsag), maybe it doesn't. The good thing is that with agreement the content of the article has changed drastically. I think we can salvage most if not all of the current content and place it elsewhere, but there should be no redirect. That would be in line with I believe both the spirit and the letter of the relevant policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I simply want to thank everyone who has worked on this and topics around it. I think Wiki still has lots of work to do regarding this subject and still argue a question mark hangs over this word. I have just been reading Langdon [38] (page 263) and found another mention of gar-sag as 'Mountain(?)' which seems not to be soley due to A & W's missing the complete 'sag'. Some of Bartons other documents mentioning Kharsag appear to be the latest translations and that still warrants investigation (when Penn Uni's website mysteriously comes back online). Particular thanks to Arkilleus for mailing me the A & W article. One thing I gleaned from it is their dating pushes it back further than Naram-Suen to Early Dynastic or Sargonic times. I think valid points are raised about the difference between this word and Kur. I suspect time would be better spent developing a page for Kêš. Also distinguishing Ki, which apparently means 'Earth' from Ninhursag. There are lots of things to move on with here, whatever the outcome of the discussion and I presume it still only takes one big press story to re-open the debate. Paul Bedson (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christianised rituals[edit]

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

This article tries to prove that rituals in Christianity come from other sources, and presents alternate histories to the eucharist, baptism, and even the sign of the cross. Entire article is an essay, original research, and blatant POV. Sources are poor or non-existent in some cases, and in other cases are so badly twisted as to be unrecognizable. Brad 14:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete due to lack of references years after statements were tagged as unreferenced. The article lacks references, but is not original research. I've heard Methodist and Lutheran ministers, and students of comparative religion express views similar to the contents of this article, that Christian symbols and rituals in the early church often derived from or were related to those of Mithraism and Judaism, and to Egyptian religions. Such views may be shocking to fundamentalists, but not to scholars of other mainstream branches of Christianity. I have not read the texts they studied in seminary to arrive at these views. Clearly these views on the origins of the cross symbol, baptism, or the locations of Christian churches on old pagan holy sites do not originate with the author of this article. But the article is full of "some scholars say" and "authorities say" but long since tagged as lacking the needed specific inline references. Having a list of books at the bottom of the article as references is not a satisfactory answer. The basic content and arguments of the article belong somewhere in Wikipedia, perhaps in articles on the history of Christianity or comparative religion. Is there presently such coverage? This remains an unreferenced essay. Perhaps this could be redirected to Jesus Christ in comparative mythology Another ill referenced or unreferenced similar article is Hellenistic philosophy and Christianity. See Osiris for scholarly comparison of the Christ story and the stories about that god. Edison (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all the name of the article is something of a problem in that it's not really the name of something; it's more of an essay title. Second, this article is essentially an accidental fork of Christianization, which appears to have originated as an essay claiming that much of the ritual etc. content of Christianity was appropriated from pagan sources. The main article got cleaned up, but this article remained as a backwater. The notion of such appropriation is notable, and presumably is dealt with somewhere (but it's also something of a fringe theory-- the current Christianization article is much more in line with mainstream thought). The notion that Christian ritual comes from pagan sources is resolutely fringe. There's a place to put such a discussion, but not under this article name. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The idea that Christianity adapted some of its rituals from Pre-Christian (either Jewish or Pagan) antecedents is fairly well established and accepted. But that is not really what this article is about. The article has enough "long-term uncited" material and OR that it should be cleaned up to a stub and reworked. However, I agree with Mangoe that this is better done under a clearer title. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per long-standing WP:OR and unreferenced material. The content here is flawed, while the topic should be covered in Eucharist and Baptism. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and repoint to Christianisation. The article is unsourced and non-notable in its current form, so largely fails wp:or and wp:n. There are many fringe theories put forward by numerous authors with regards the origin of various christian rituals, but no need to gather them into one topic, nor any particular reason to put these ideas in Baptism or Eucharist unless due weight can be found to support their inclusion. The best place would be to add these ideas to their proponents articles. Davémon (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
valid topic. It is true that the current version is an essay, but we usually don't delete articles on valid topics just because they need to be cleaned up or referenced. If we do delete in this case, this should in no way be considered a judgement on the validity of the topic, just a decision to WP:TNT. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, aren't the valid points in this topic already covered in the Christianization article? Or is there something I am not seeing? Blueboar (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced and original research.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
valid topic. The article certainly needs to be properly re-written and referenced, but if its simply merged into Christianisation then crusaders will suppress the material using WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. I agree that a better title is needed - I propose that the article be retained (with all its warning notices) until a more-encyclopediac title is identified, then the valid and referenced material be carried over, and that only then should this article be deleted. Any offers on a better title? Wdford (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try going into eucharist, baptism, etc. and try to advance these ideas there-- with sources? Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social Networking For Business[edit]

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

WP:NOTSOAP: judging by its creator's username, the article's principal purpose appears to be to include a link to http://mybizfriends.net/ . The topic is already covered spamlessly in Social networking#Business applications and nothing of value is added here. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An essay of original research (the independent source is not really about the article's subject) and coatrack advertising: With the advent of the Internet businesses have the oppertunity to Network with a much broader scope. Social networking sites have been created to bring people of simaliar interests, economic levels, age, or other factors together on a platform that creats an social interaction. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --GRuban (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the editor who originally PRODded the article. In addition to the nominator's reasoning, there is also an existing article on Business networking, which already covers anything else that may be notable about this topic. --Darkwind (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect an uncapitalized form to Business networking. --Absenteeist Ⓣ Ⓒ 20:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Corsillo[edit]

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

Non-notable biography (likely WP:AUTO by User:DannyG9791) that has no references. bender235 (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as things stand, but would consider changing to keep per WP:HEY. The artist's web site[39](click "Press") lists some reviews, including Artforum: this checks out on Highbeam.[40] Boston Globe coverage can be validated also.[41] There's some material from Boston University.[42][43] He is quite possibly the same Emil Corsillo in The New York Times.[44][45] Ty 02:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as is now, no notability even claimed, no sources. Would change mind if I saw numerous rs. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Jesus (Hegel)[edit]

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

I think this page should be removed or merged into a larger article about Hegel's works or about Hegel in general, because it does not seem to warrant a separate article just to write two lines about it. Wwmargera (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this important early work by one of the central figures of modern philosophy. The above Google links do not bring up all of the relevant hits. This, on the other hand, may contain some false positives. User:Wwmargera's feelings about Hegel are available at this edit summary.
Delete (weak) better, redirect and merge. This article has been up since September of last year, and contains nothing that couldn't be in the main article. Certainly, I suspect that a worthwhile article COULD be written about this book, but this article isn't it. I suspect the topic itself is notable - that's not the question here. And discussing other commenters personal opinions (which are largely irrelevant, and smell of ad hominem) is likely to lose you sympathy, rather than gain it. David V Houston (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A neglected article whose topic nevertheless meets WP:N. Ample coverage in scholarly secondary sources -- but, alas, probably needs the aid of an expert, which may be why it's still a stub. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't delete stubs just because they are stubs. Works by major philosophers pass criteria 1 and 5 on WP:BK. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Seriously? A work by Hegel at AfD? Passes WP:N with analysis in Joshua D. Goldstein's Hegel's Idea of the Good Life, Stephen Crites' Dialectic and Gospel in the Development of Hegel's Thinking, Michael N. Forster's Hegel's Idea of a Phenomenology of Spirit and perhaps countless other works on Hegel. Them From Space 00:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Knight (politician)[edit]

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

A town councillor for Barnstaple; does not meet WP:POLITICIAN guideline. Some ghits, but I can't see any significant coverage in relible sources to demonstrate notability. I would be happy to be proved wrong, but I don't think he meets our guidelines for inclusion at this time. Beloved Freak 13:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Probably could have been speedied, as article does not assert notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As well as town councillor, was "the Green Party's lead candidate for the South West region in the 2009 European Election." - this was removed by the author in a good faith attempt to remove a copyright violation, so I thought it fairer to bring to discussion.--Beloved Freak 13:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - agree with nom and Starblind Codf1977 (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~comment~~deleteThere does seem to be a rather limited (o the extent of non-exisatance) any sources, RS or other wise, supporting this persons notability. I would like to wait a few days but if not sources are found in that time i would say delete. changed to delete as no sources have been forthcommingSlatersteven (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not quite a speedy because notability can at least be asserted through these political positions. However, neither councillors nor candidates for the European Parliament count as notable without coverage elsewhere. Potentially as the lead candidate of the Green party in the European elections he could be a prominent figure in the Green Party, but I can't find anything in GNews to back this up. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have declined the CSD as there is assertion of significance, as is indicated by Chris above. Let's see what sort of consensus emerges. CSD#A7 reads, "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. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." Dloh cierekim 00:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as a town councillor, nor as an unsuccessful candidate in the European election (even a lead candidate who came close to election). Does not appear to hold any notable position in the Green Party. Essentially no reliable sources, other than a few cursory mentions of his candidacy; only the Green Party website has any detail. Warofdreams talk 15:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm not clear on British political races, but if there's an article for the race in which he's running redirecting to that will preserve information and provide readers with a useful search term. Dloh cierekim 15:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's running though. Green Party bio here (which is presumably out of date) says he's a prospective candidate for North Devon, but the North Devon website lists the 2010 parlimentary candidates here and the Green Party one is L'Anne Knight. Ricky Knight's not mentioned.--Beloved Freak 16:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EEEwww. maybe that's why I was so unclear on what he's doing. Not even enough for a redirect then. Dloh cierekim 17:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A whiles back there was a discusion about a PPC being notable becasue he is a PPC, I think this demonstrates why this should not be the case.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality in women's sports[edit]

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

Seems of no value when we have List_of_lesbian,_gay,_bisexual,_and_transgender_sportspeople , list is also unwatched with uncited claims regarding living people. Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 13:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree (Merge/Redirect) - it is pretty much a list, which is sourced to articles rather than sources. Should copy the list to other article, and check that each has a source in keeping with WP:BLP. Mish (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article noted by Off2riorob is superior, accomplishes the same goal but with better referencing. SPhilbrick T 13:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - however, I'm not sure to which direction. I think there is value by splitting the LGBT list into, well, L, G, B, and T. They could be different articles or subsections in the same article. --GRuban (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is an theme article and this one is a list: List_of_lesbian,_gay,_bisexual,_and_transgender_sportspeople —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.252.121.170 (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this one might BECOME an article, but it currently is a list. David V Houston (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, per above comments. David V Houston (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so i gave article now sources and reffixes. One article is a topic theme and the other article is a list. That are different kind of articles. And i think lesbian sport should have its own article. So still keep. 92.252.121.170 (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that information has now been added which would, in my view, make this article encyclopedic. However, other than the entries on the pre-existing list, almost none of it is cited. I will, for now, refrain from voting, but if this information remains uncited in a few days, I feel that I will have to vote to delete. Kansan (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the history of the article shows how over a long time some users killed the whole article. They deleted the text in still times and at the end they say, the article is still only a list. That's wrong. This article is a topic theme article over lesbian in sports. I repaired the old text and gave references and sources for lesbian athletes in article. 92.252.121.170 (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the list section, I only see one citation, but I see several "citation needed" type templates. One citation is not enough. Kansan (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentatively, I will vote delete for a lack of verifiability outside of the lists, though I reserve the right to change this later. Kansan (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources presented and it reads like a personal commentary. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random intersection of categories. Plus, the less people care about other people's sexuality the happier we will all be. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When this discussion started, article was basically a list [46]. It now has some semblence of being an actual article [47] (apparently from earlier versions deleted for lacking references and reading like an essay) but still lacks any references for the article part Nil Einne (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is better. Presently it is now a cited list with some uncited opinion type commentary. I looked at five names and they are already on the other list and I think a lot of the names are duplicated here and on the list List_of_lesbian,_gay,_bisexual,_and_transgender_sportspeople ? Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This is simply a list with some decoration added to avoid having the word "List" in the title. However, there is no danger that I see of a deletion of the existing List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople, which covers the same topic. Mandsford (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mandsford. Sorafune +1 18:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally unsourced and already covered by a list. - Schrandit (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy, random intersection. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Carrington[edit]

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

Not notable model who played volleyball at high school. Playboy playmate is no longer a notability qualifier and has been removed from WP:PORNBIO Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't like to disagree with Off2riorob but this just feels wrong - I am sure the reasons behind changing WP:PORNBIO are sound and this is not a reflection on Off2riorob he is right to ask the question. It just feels like we have changed the rules lets boot her out Codf1977 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 14:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG for me. Dismas|^(talk) 14:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well she is not notable and does not pass GNG, there is no coverage at all. She has done nothing apart from once be in Playboy so there can not be coverage, if we are to simply say we like the article so lets keep it then it is pointless in having any guidelines at all. Yes porn bio has changed and this AFD reflects that. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to see a rebuttal from you for every keep vote. You asked on the talk page if anyone thought this article should go through another AFD and then waited just 14 minutes before going forward with it. You made your point clear at the outset that you would like this deleted. We got the point. You can let it go now. Dismas|^(talk) 15:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pornbio is depreciated, and just being in playboy and having some local interest stories does not pass GNG. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies GNG with at least 3 different reliable sources that are intellectually independent of each other. How often does Sports Illustrated write a feature about a playmate? Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repaired the dead link. There are three independent citations all from from September 2008 all about the fact that she was in playboy and with a little report about her life, this does not pass GNG. There is also no continued coverage at all, please consider that by suggesting that this passes GNG degrades the whole guideline. http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/sep/09/martin-county-grad-playboys-miss-october and http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/sioncampus/09/17/carrington/index.html http://www.gainesville.com/article/20080909/NEWS/809090158?p=1&tc=pg Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary Codf1977 (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These three reports all about the same thing (that she was in playboy) and all written in the same week don't assert any notability. Think about it with an open mind..Is she notable? No she is not.She looks nice but her life and her achievements are not notable. She belongs in a list. She is no more notable than this person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassie_Lyn_Logsdon Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They establish to me that she is notable as a playmate playmate and misleading cover model for another issue. That is the claim of her notability. Nowhere is there a requirement that coverage is extensive on her personal life to flesh out a bio. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes GNG with three sources which are not only independent reliable, but which don't regularly cover the subject's area of notability. Just another "I don't like it" AfD after re-writing the rules based on the personal biases of a few editors... "Zapping PORNBIO didn't do it, let's see if we can tweak GNG so that it excludes subjects we don't like..." Don't be surprised when that happens. Dekkappai (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but a few users that are interested in porno doesn't make policy, she does not pass the GNG guideline at all, if she does then it is a worthless guideline, some editors may like it and want to keep it but she passes nothing apart from the inclusion in a list award. Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hi, Rob. Just call me "Off to Tokyo/Seoul Dekk". Though it's been a few years. Really want to go back, but with this Bush economy hanging on it's hard to get the funds together... And I had a lot of fun in the smaller Japanese cities like Fukuoka, and small Korean cities in the countryside like Buyeo and Gongju are really nice-- like taking a step back in history. And the people are extremely friendly. Good food too! Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)In your opinion she does not meet it - I am on the fence for the moment, I can see your point - however it is not black and white the guidelines are just that I think tt all boils down to what is significant in relation to what her claim to notability. Codf1977 (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Codf. RioRob doesn't appear to be listening to any statement from the "other" side, hence my attempt to change the subject... could have talked about volleyball, I guess, but I've got more interest in travel. Gee, I hope nobody starts claiming charming little towns in Japan and Korea are not notable... Nothing to stop someone from doing so, of course, as absurd AfDs like this one continuously prove... Dekkappai (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dismas & Morbidthoughts. Tabercil (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination by Off2riorob, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them. I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of 2010 playmates). In addition, In this case, though, it looks like additional sourcing to show notability is already present in the article.----Milowent (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage to pass GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Sheaffer[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Deletion reason: "This "professional athlete" (in the Lingerie Football League) hasn't received any significant attention in reliable, independent sources and fails WP:BIO. No Google News hits." Fram (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable model; lack of coverage clearly fails WP:BIO, WP:ENT. Glenfarclas (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. Heck for a model/player in the "lingere football league" or whatever it is, there should at least be a picture! But it's not notable for our content here. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nononono (manga)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete No evidence of notability. No sources cited. Previously discussed at an AfD, where it was suggested that the article should be userfied "for future use if sources arrive". The article was duly userfied, and has been substantially rewritten, but it still has no sources cited, which means that the purpose of userfication has not been fulfilled. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP: CSD G4. This is a copy someone made, the real one is still being worked on by Kreb and has references. User:KrebMarkt/Nononono (manga) I also noticed that both the prod and speedy delete recommend was removed by the same IP. - 205.172.21.157 (talk) (Knowledgekid87) 12:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Userfied version is slightly better than the first version deleted, but no reliable sources and notability has been found. Random editor recreated anyway, not the one who has it userfied. This manga still fails WP:N and WP:BK as it still has no significant coverage in any reliable sources. This bad rip off of the userfied version should be deleted, again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also noticed the same IP address removed both the prod nom and the speedy delete recommend. - 205.172.21.157 (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Nothing has changed since the last AfD as far as the inclusion guidelines are concerned. —Farix (t | c) 19:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, i picked from this version on Nononono what could be useful to my userfied version of Nononono not the contrary. I apologize for the confusion. By the current standard this one won't hit the Speedy G4. However the subject notability issue has not progressed an inch in the right direction in contrary as the sole evidence that this series received coverage in Japan is now a dead link thanks to the NHK which nuked the whole TV show website that covered this series. Until things evolve for the better Delete + Salt per Fail to meet both WP:BK and the GNG. Salting is required as the series is currently scanlated with around 2 chapters done per week thus there is a real concern to have this article recreated again and again. --KrebMarkt 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete This manga is real. All you need to do is get some of the people who read this manga on [REMOVE NAME OF SCANSLATORS], and they can verify pretty much everything that is written in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.89.178 (talk • contribs) 17:21, April 26, 2010
And? Being real does not make it notable, and do not try to point people to illegal content here please, thank you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Existence is not a bases for inclusion. See also WP:IINFO. —Farix (t | c) 00:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Existence isn't the issue, what is whatever Nononono meets any of our inclusion guidelines which is either General notability guideline or Books notability guideline in this case. Unfortunately Nononono doesn't. --KrebMarkt 06:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of military aircraft by era[edit]

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

wikipedia is not a random collection of lists, encyclopedic value of list is not clear and aircraft by era is covered by the categorisation system and individual lists by country. Also most major conflicts are covered by categories or list article also run into npov problems with era naming (most of the world did not fight in Korea or Vietnam) Could end up being a long and rambling list with little value. Contested prod. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with your assessment. The number of military aircraft in use by major nations for any of the conflicts in this list will make for a very long list. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If completed this list would be enormously long and of little use to any reader. It is a far too indiscriminate a classification to be of use. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above, noting the overuse of flags Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What point does this serve?Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I like the flags, personally, however I agree that a subject so broad isn't good material for a list. Categories, and the lists by country/service, that we have, are sufficent. - The Bushranger (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is redundant to other Lists of Aircraft and the existing categorisation system.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What, no American Civil War? Seriously, I agree that this is a poorly organized list with almost no information beyond a list of blue links and flags. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fantasy Island: the Civil War Edition - "Da balloon, boss! Da balloon!" Clarityfiend (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invasio Barbarorvm[edit]

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

Article was proposed for deletion, and I then deleted it after the period was ended. The author contacted me afterwards to contest the deletion, so I have undeleted the article and placed it on AfD as a routine process. No vote from me. JIP | Talk 20:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll echo my reasons given in the prod: Non-notable game per WP:GNG: absolutely no reliable sources to establish notability. Sample search. Existence does not imply notability. tedder (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, I forgot that. Sorry. JIP | Talk 14:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and comment You were right to do what you did. The rules state that if nobody says anything and only the AfD nominator is left, then it will be deleted. If the author wanted to contest deletion, he should have want through deletion review. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Game mod that has no coverage in reliable sources. My searches found the typical forum posts only. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naroin[edit]

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

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

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

No real evidence of notability, possibly even a hoax. Very few Google hits, no news mentions that I could find. I'm not convinced this is a real religion. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm thinking this is a hoax. The single reference has 'Ann Coulter's little princess' as the title?? Clubmarx (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, yeah, I had to giggle at that ~~a little~~ a lot. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—I can't say whereas I have any doubt its fan fiction after reading the entire self-published page it was created in reference to: [48] and the author's home page at [49]. She does a lot of fan fiction and goes out her way to make a point of Nintendo's IP, The Legend of Zelda. I don't think she intended the piece to be a hoax, it reads like fanfic. The Ann Coulter thing might be an attempt at irony, she sometimes goes by "Princess Zelda". Her YouTube channel [50] speaks volumes about where she's coming from… in the "Gerudo" language of Hylia. However, I did add WP:HOAX to Naroin, Trigoddess, and Solissey and nominated the later two for deletion because they've found their way into: Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path, List of Neopagan movements, Conceptions of God, Religious symbolism, Triple deity, Category:Triune gods, Category:Neopagan festivals, Category:Neopagan holidays, Template:Neopaganism, Template:Neopaganism2 and Category:Wikipedians by religion via Category:Naroinic Wikipedians.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this an all Fan Fic that isn't published by a non-vanity press (e.g. Splinter of the Mind's Eye) Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to go beyond being self-published fanfic. No evidence of being talked up or reviewed by significant second parties. Herostratus (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but everyone, please also consider the nature of the article prior to my edit. Thanks.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is considered, but there still is no real evidence of notability here. The only sources are another wiki and a fanfic page. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I want it to be perfectly clear I did not change an article about a religion into an article about a work of fan fiction in order to get it deleted.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are primary, that "Television Tropes & Idioms" doesn't even have "Narion" in it's text. I don't see any hope for WP:N on this. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Below, I have merged the info from the Trigoddess and Sollisey pages. I have turned those AfDs into redirects to this debate. —Ost (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from Trigoddess AfD

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 3 - non-notable fan fiction. The only references are the site publishing the work and a wiki page with blurb referring to Nintendo. A Google search didn't produce any reliable sources. —Ost (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable elements of video-game fanfic. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, and TVTropes has no notability policy and is not a valid source. --Absenteeist Ⓣ Ⓒ 20:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I added the TVTropes reference to Naroin because the article is sure to be deleted and editors might permissibly consider, in that light, the claims made about Nintendo, prior to my edit, in regard to religious content. The article's talk page would normally have been better but the hoax is consuming enough time and bandwidth already.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tridelete all, per WP:Verification. Marasmusine (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure if it's just related to the above work, but the The Legend of Zelda has no mention of this, so it most definitely fails WP:N. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from Solissey AfD

Delete all - The main underlying article is not notable and has no reliable sources. Clubmarx (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad DumbBOT. I didn't use that template but I did put a notice on the editor's page. If someone could merge this and WP:Articles for deletion/Trigoddess into a group nomination for WP:Articles for deletion/Naroin, that would be good.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, highly non-notable holiday in a video game. ~~As to the above comment ("Delete all"), I'm pretty sure this isn't a group nomination. We're not about to delete Religious symbolism.~~ Glenfarclas (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Added: Oh never mind, you meant Trigoddess and Naroin. Yes, delete those too; no evidence of encyclopedic notability.[reply]
Strong delete. Non-notable trivia from non-notable work. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical hapkido[edit]

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

There is a lack of independent information regarding this subject and there is severe conflict of interest issues as the author of this article appears to be affiliated with this organisation. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a non-notable art without third party sources. None of the references in the article deal with the topic--all are about the founder--and all are primary sources. This art doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. If this art is deleted, then Tactical Hapkido Alliance should also be deleted. The two articles are closely related and suffer from the same issues. Papaursa (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Papaursa suggestion and also Barry Rodemaker should be nominated Dwanyewest (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 3: I've given this article all the benefit of the doubt I can. I simply can't find enough reliable third party sources to establish notability. All three articles rely heavily on their own sites as sources. There is a clear COI issue (which isn't a reason to delete, but it illustrates the promotional nature of the articles). Puffed up claims and an overall promotional tone. Simply fails WP:N and WP:MANOTE in my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 3 All 3 fail WP:MANOTE. Couldn't find good independent sources on any of them. Astudent0 (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naroin[edit]

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

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

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

No real evidence of notability, possibly even a hoax. Very few Google hits, no news mentions that I could find. I'm not convinced this is a real religion. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm thinking this is a hoax. The single reference has 'Ann Coulter's little princess' as the title?? Clubmarx (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, yeah, I had to giggle at that ~~a little~~ a lot. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—I can't say whereas I have any doubt its fan fiction after reading the entire self-published page it was created in reference to: [51] and the author's home page at [52]. She does a lot of fan fiction and goes out her way to make a point of Nintendo's IP, The Legend of Zelda. I don't think she intended the piece to be a hoax, it reads like fanfic. The Ann Coulter thing might be an attempt at irony, she sometimes goes by "Princess Zelda". Her YouTube channel [53] speaks volumes about where she's coming from… in the "Gerudo" language of Hylia. However, I did add WP:HOAX to Naroin, Trigoddess, and Solissey and nominated the later two for deletion because they've found their way into: Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path, List of Neopagan movements, Conceptions of God, Religious symbolism, Triple deity, Category:Triune gods, Category:Neopagan festivals, Category:Neopagan holidays, Template:Neopaganism, Template:Neopaganism2 and Category:Wikipedians by religion via Category:Naroinic Wikipedians.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this an all Fan Fic that isn't published by a non-vanity press (e.g. Splinter of the Mind's Eye) Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to go beyond being self-published fanfic. No evidence of being talked up or reviewed by significant second parties. Herostratus (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but everyone, please also consider the nature of the article prior to my edit. Thanks.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is considered, but there still is no real evidence of notability here. The only sources are another wiki and a fanfic page. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I want it to be perfectly clear I did not change an article about a religion into an article about a work of fan fiction in order to get it deleted.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are primary, that "Television Tropes & Idioms" doesn't even have "Narion" in it's text. I don't see any hope for WP:N on this. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Below, I have merged the info from the Trigoddess and Sollisey pages. I have turned those AfDs into redirects to this debate. —Ost (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from Trigoddess AfD

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 3 - non-notable fan fiction. The only references are the site publishing the work and a wiki page with blurb referring to Nintendo. A Google search didn't produce any reliable sources. —Ost (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable elements of video-game fanfic. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, and TVTropes has no notability policy and is not a valid source. --Absenteeist Ⓣ Ⓒ 20:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I added the TVTropes reference to Naroin because the article is sure to be deleted and editors might permissibly consider, in that light, the claims made about Nintendo, prior to my edit, in regard to religious content. The article's talk page would normally have been better but the hoax is consuming enough time and bandwidth already.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tridelete all, per WP:Verification. Marasmusine (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure if it's just related to the above work, but the The Legend of Zelda has no mention of this, so it most definitely fails WP:N. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from Solissey AfD

Delete all - The main underlying article is not notable and has no reliable sources. Clubmarx (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad DumbBOT. I didn't use that template but I did put a notice on the editor's page. If someone could merge this and WP:Articles for deletion/Trigoddess into a group nomination for WP:Articles for deletion/Naroin, that would be good.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, highly non-notable holiday in a video game. ~~As to the above comment ("Delete all"), I'm pretty sure this isn't a group nomination. We're not about to delete Religious symbolism.~~ Glenfarclas (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Added: Oh never mind, you meant Trigoddess and Naroin. Yes, delete those too; no evidence of encyclopedic notability.[reply]
Strong delete. Non-notable trivia from non-notable work. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 16:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orient Key/Value Server[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Orient Key/Value Server

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

Unremarkable software, search shows not enough independent coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no secondary sources in article, questionable notability (no Google Books results more than a trivial mention), and questionable relevance as "similar to [the lightweight] memcached" (what is described seems quite heavyweight). I doubt that many are relying on it, since it is beta software, which also supports a lack of notability. PleaseStand ^(talk) 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability per User:PleaseStand. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FC Mojo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination of already deleted article. The club is not a part of either 2nd Division East or 2nd Division West, and they are not registered by Zealand Football Association (SBU). It is a vanity article (according to memory the first version of the article talked about a 7-a-side lowest-league team) with a joke facebook group. With FC Mojo, I also nominate related articles Nicolai Helbo, Anita Maskova, and Munkekær Stadium (which is not identical to the "Solrød Idrætscenter" stadium of da:Solrød Fodbold Club). The group of articles is created by Jellies (talk · contribs), who has edited many articles to include FC Mojo, and the probably related 77.233.255.211 (talk · contribs). Poulsen (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The FC MOJO team is, as far as I am aware of, registret under the name Solrød FC (1) link. And the Munkekjær stadium might not be identical to the "Solrød Idrætscenter" stadium, but is a part of "Solrød Idrætcenter"'s football fields. Furthermore I find Poulsen (talk) judgement highly subjective, as to his intrepetation of the facebook page as a joke. Trillo255 (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's four edits to this AfD are their only contributions to Wikipedia. The accounts appears to have been created specifically to comment here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, just because this is the first time i take an active part in the wikipedia community, my opinions are less important than yours? Or what is it exactly that you are implying? I had some information on this particular page, that I felt was worth sharing, and that should be cast aside just because this is the only information i've had so far, that has been worth sharing? Please explain. Trillo255 (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If players of one of Solrød FC's three amateur 7-a-side teams chose to call themselves FC Mojo, then good on you, but it doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article. And if the Facebook group isn't a joke, I look forward to Mojo signing "Man Utd forward" Casper Holmer.. ;-) Poulsen (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not comment on the first part of your comment, as I simply do not have the particuler knowlegde to answer that. However, I didn't dissagree, as to the fact, that some parts of the facebook page uses humor. I disagree that it is "a joke facebook group". Trillo255 (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 - This article is the same as the one deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC Mojo.Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not identical - the original article stated FC Mojo is a semi-professional football club based in Solrød, Denmark which plays in the DBU 7-mands Pulje 5 and is one of the least succesful clubs in the history of Danish football, winning nothing at all.'' Bettia (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Whether or not they are related to Solrod FC or not is pretty irrelevant as they only appear to be a local 7-a-side team - teams such as this are rarely (if ever) notable. A quick Google search gives us the Facebook page, a Firefox theme, and what appears to be a Sunday league team from Finland. There's nothing to suggest this "FC Mojo" are in any way notable. Bettia (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Football Club Mojo Bettia, can you please define local? Every football team is local to the neighbor of it, but other than that I don't see how FC Mojo is in any way more local than Manchester United or fuck knows who you would regard as worthy of your extravagant permission to publishing. Other than that, I have my doubts in whether you, who doesn't even come from Denmark, but probably only heard of it as the capital of Ikea, would know the first thing about what Danish clubs are worthy of mentioning on a 'free' encyclopedia. The very fact that you link to a Finnish rock cafe says it all. You probably couldn't understand "Antichrist" either, but that doesn't mean that it should be deleted from Wikipedia, OR DOES IT? Now, I believe that each and everyone of you stand for the very foundation of what's wrong with the world today. Every time there's something you don't understand, your first go-to-point is Facebook and Google, but guess the fuck what, everything is not on Google. I dare you to find a link where you will understand the meaning of Samarpan and the meaning of life through Buddhism, although a whole lot of homepages claim to do just that. I dare you to find a picture of my toe that was badly injured two weeks ago. Well, that meant a great deal to me and my team and our fans, and you may not care, but I don't care about Ipswich Town FC's wiki-page, and a looot of other pages - Danser med Drenge, Renault and Budweiser to name three. So I guess my point is, that even though you may know who the man on the American 100-dollar bill is, you don't have a clue about when our new orange football-jerseys will come, but does it matter more to you who's on the American 100-dollar bill than it matters to us when it will come? I guess the fuck it doesn't. So excuse me for caring about other things than your beloved Michael Jackson-page or shitload of space-reservating [[user:]]-pages, but perhaps you shouldn't delete every single page that you happen to be unable to google or facebook or what the hell you want to do to disguise what this is all about; your ignorance and your absolute inability to know anything about any matter without asking a god damn pixel-generating, inter-communicating, global warming-accelerating piece of shit you call a PC. Jellies Jellies 20:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are both inappropriate and unnecessary. It is easy to prevent the deletion of this article- simply cite two or three newspaper articles that have been written about it, verifying that the team plays at the highest level of its sport. Most notable sports teams will have dozens, usually hundreds, of articles written about their significance. If this is a notable team, finding sources should be absurdly easy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this team does not play in the highest level of the sport, and has not been written about in a significant way by independent, reliable sources like newspapers and magazines, then it does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I did a Google news search and didn't find anyone writing about this team in a significant way. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still non-notable. Giant Snowman 21:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not a notable club. Besides, I have reservations that the team actually plays in the Danish 2nd Division West currently. -S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge discussion on the article's talk page would be highly encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois[edit]

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

A little boy who died before his third birthday. Not independently notable. No need for an article that goes into excessive detail about his "titles and styles" etc. He can simply be mentioned in his father's and/or mother's article -- in his own section if we want to be very generous. Hans Adler 08:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I have read many other similar articles about such noble boys or girls who died early, even in infancy. As other similar pages are kept, so should this page be.Henry ⅩⅦ of Bavaria (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a valid argument. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. And indeed the "other similar articles about such noble boys or girls" need to be deleted or merged as well. We must start somewhere. Hans Adler 10:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I mean that Wikipedia should have an equivalent attitude towards all such cases, no matter have them all kept or all deleted and merged. Both choices are OK to me. Now I will wait for the authorized decision to give us an answer.Henry ⅩⅦ of Bavaria (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination seems to be arguing for merger which is not achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a widely used (although not universally accepted) practice to approach potentially controversial merges through AfD, so that they cannot be undone. For articles on subjects that are not actually notable that's perfectly proper. Such articles should never be created in the first place. Hans Adler 10:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BEFORE which explains the proper preliminaries before bringing issues here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about his father. There is not that much in this article that is not covered in the article about his father already. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article about the father. Wikipedia does have somewhat of a snobbish distinction between the children of royalty and those of mere mortals, but there's a limit to what one can say about a 3 year old child who, unfortunately, died in childhood. The article has nothing to say, and fills up the space with material along the lines of "Alexandre's father was...." and "his sister was..." and "he might have...". Mandsford (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Naturally I say keep; I dont see why it is necessary to delete it; there are plenty of articles of the same nature within English/British, Spanish, Russian, Austrian royals and various other nobles who died yet have they still have articles. He may not have lived long but surely it would look ridiculous to merge him into his fathers article (or mothers)!? I am more than willing to rewrite it as people seem to be whining for no reason Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want this article to be kept, it's actually very easy: Just point us to the "significant coverage in reliable sources". "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail". ""Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." See WP:GNG.
Or if you prefer trying something else, have a look at WP:Notability (people). This guideline is sometimes a bit more liberal with who it declares to be notable.

If it turns out that this child, who died before he ever got the chance to do something interesting or become influential, or pursue any of the other ways of obtaining notability, was not any more notable than Mark Twain's father, then he is not going to get more articles about himself than Mark Twain's father, i.e. none at all. I am saying this as someone who has read many of the child's mother's letters and loves the unique insights she gave into the French court to which she was displaced from the little German residence town in which I studied. We are writing an encyclopedia, not collecting rare stamps. Hans Adler 16:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start on John Marshall Clemens. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To judge from what you have written I can't see why he should be notable. Notability is not inherited. Hans Adler 00:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is all this about Monsieur Twain!? I have tweeked Alexandre Louis' article Monsieur le Duc LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC

Merge: I know the project has other pages on junior royals, but perhaps the time has now come when we need to draw a line and define what makes a "royal" notable enough to have a page of their own. Such phrases as "Had Alexandre Louis lived, Philippe might have become a cardinal, a traditional destiny for second sons in the French royal family, or he might have married Mademoiselle de Nantes." concern me greatly. He might just as easily have run off with the second footman and joined the circus. Let's stick to fact not probablies because probablies and perhapses can make anyone notable. Giano 00:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment weak keep, I think. Had he been the son of the Dauphin, then I would call this a slam-dunk surefire keep. Being a nephew of the heir, and dying young both rather reduce notability. If we had a clear rule that said 'all grandchildren of reigning monarchs are notable' that would be one thing, but we don't. OTOH, such a rule would be reasonable. I'd keep this article, but I don't have any real objections to it being deleted or rather merged. David V Houston (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Karzen[edit]

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

Contested prod. A young amateur cyclist, talented, but not yet notable according to WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO. Mentioned in 5 Google News results[54], but these are truly passing mentions, no indepth coverage. Fram (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable youth amateur cyclist. Nom is correct that news results are about as passing as they come. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cool name... but your own website can't be a source. No reliable sources, no article. Them's the rules...--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alkaline Trio / Smoking Popes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alkaline Trio / Smoking Popes

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

Single without any apparent independent notability. Notability isn't inherited and this split contains no sources to assert its own. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to find several sources without much difficulty, and have added them to the article as citations. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 08:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 08:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I originally added some other sources as well. There is info on the single and it appears to have notability. Silver seren^C 08:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a notable released by two notable bands. I would recommend clarifying the title by renaming the article to Alkaline Trio / Smoking Popes split 7" or something similar. Amazinglarry (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what the right method would be for titling a split single. It's something that we'll probably have to discuss on the talk page afterwards. Silver seren^C 20:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's titled according to the conventions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Naming: "For split albums of which there is no single official title, use the two artist names separated with two spaces and a forward slash". All articles about split albums and singles are titled in this manner. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [55] MTV has news articles about them, as do other sources. Dream Focus 07:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and close per WP:SNOW. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of stations that air Casey Kasem's American Top 40: The 80's[edit]

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

Nominating at the request of User:147.70.242.54 (I concur with his request). List article appears to be original research that also violates WP:Wikipedia is not a directory. Only sources proffered are direct links to American radio station; talk page offers suggestions on how to convert local time into UTC (which is not offered on any of the station web pages. Lede doesn't even bother to mention the name of the program.

B.Wind (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:NOTDIR--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral As the creator of both articles, I just wanted to say that the only reason I created them was because those lists originally occupied the American Top 40 article, and I just wanted to get rid of the clutter they caused there. They probably should be deleted per the reasons given, but I don't really have an opinion one way or the another. I just fear people putting those lists back on the original AT40 article, but of course that wouldn't be that much of a problem if that should happen. --Highway99 (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both WP:NOTDIR. Stations constantly change which affiliated countdown show they play, so the list would be extremely hard to update. I can't even think of a way to verify it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as the person making the initial request to the nominator. As I mentioned on the talk pages of both articles, this is original research and also violates WP:NOTDIR. The talk pages' instructions on updating the lists are themselves clear evidence of original research as none of the linked primary sources (linkfarm?) actually gives the broadcast schedule in anything other than local time. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE LIST OF STATIONS THAT PLAY AMERICAN TOP 4O THE 70'S AND 80'S. I LOVE THE SHOW AND USE THESE TO FIND THE SHOW WHEN I CAN NOT HEAR IT LOCALY. THEY PROVIDE A GREAT SERVICE TO FIND THE SHOW ANYTIME AND ANYWHERE DURING THE WEEKEND. THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimburlingame (talk • contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC) — Jimburlingame (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for keeping an article that doesn't comply with Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. Your argument would carry more weight if you can cite a official guideline or policy for keeping this. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:NOTDIR at its finest. The information about the 25 or so stations that carry a particular program can be in the article about the program. Though I've always enjoyed listening to Casey Kasem, a simple link to the show's website is all that one needs in order to get a directory of stations that carry the programs that he hosts. Mandsford (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question on compliance If this page were to be updated with information about the countdown( history of it current status) and cited appropriately would it be allowed to stay. And if it stayed would it be allowed to have the links to the stations or would that still not be allowed? I agree that it should be more than just a list od stations even though I find it very valuable ElricofM20010 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If an article topic is considered notable, then the content is up to whoever the most recent editor happens to be. I think it's more likely that an article about the program itself would be kept, rather than a separate list of stations that air the program. For some reason, the show doesn't seem to have its own website (it is mentioned on a list of Premiere Radio Network shows), so there's not the link that's available to show who currently carries the program. As a nationally syndicated radio program, I think it would probably be notable. Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kewal Krishan (anthropologist)[edit]

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

Senior lecturer at Panjab University. Article cites 27 publications, most-cited article gets 28 hits. Dr. Krishan is also editor in chief of The Internet Journal of Biological Anthropology, but this is not "a major well-established journal in their subject area" as required by WP:Notability (academics) criterion #8 (article on the journal is currently prodded and I will take it also to AfD should it get deprodded). None of the other criteria of WP:PROF seem to be fulfilled either. Hence, non-notable. Crusio (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Citability data not impressive, chief editor of a non-notable journal, not much else to indicate notability per WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:PROF. Salih (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His h-index is 9. We've kept articles from less well cited academics in the past. -- 202.124.72.62 (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I can't imagine, unless there were other factors playing. In addition, I get an h of 9 in Scopus only if I combine two Kemal Krishans, one from Kolkata and one from Chandigarh. As the one from Kolkata publishes on nuclear physics and such, it is unlikely that this is the same person. If I limit my search to the one from Chandigarh, I get an h of 6 with 103 citations in total. If I do the same search in Web of Science, combining all "K. Krishan"s that work in the Life Sciences, I get an h of 4 and 46 citations in total. --Crusio (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I get largely the same non-notable returns from WoS using the query "Author=(Krishan K*) Refined by: Institutions=(PANJAB UNIV) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI": 9 papers with citations 4, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0,... (h-index = 2). However, 4 of these are from the 1980s in the area of urology, so it's not clear that these are his. Nevertheless, these stats are nowhere near our usual values for clearing WP:PROF #1. I also note that both his own article and the article for the The Internet Journal of Biological Anthropology were created by him – if you check the links, you find that these basically form a little 2-page WP:WALL. I don't think his editorship of this journal is notable because the journal itself is basically not notable, as others have already noted above. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This gentleman may well become notable, but he isn't there yet. —Aetheling (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. —innotata 17:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy hardcore[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a musical term that is repeated often in the blogosphere and popping up with regularity in CD titles, but I couldn't find any reliable sources either describing a form of music with that name or defining the term in the first place. Prod was contested by an editor claiming Wikipedia having "1000+" articles with the term... but then again, by Wikipedia's guidelines, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, either. B.Wind (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have actually heard of happy hardcore, even though I don't listen to rave, acid house or even gabber. I know this doesn't count as notability, but it does suggest I heard it from somewhere. Unfortunately, I cannot do a Google search to verify whether this was from friends or the media, as I have filtered Internet which doesn't like the term hardcore. I would say worth exploring further. Moswento (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 08:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 08:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have added references and external links to the article. If you click the News button right up there, you'll find that there are 462 hits for the music style, much of which is pretty substantial coverage. The genre is very notable. Silver seren^C 08:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: (From another computer!) Check out Google Books too: [56] [57] [58] [59]... Moswento (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking the links at the top of the AFD I find that Google News shows 462 results, Google Books shows 216, and Google scholar shows 101. Legitimate music genre, mentioned in many places. Dream Focus 17:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. There seems to be several other good soruces specifically about this sub genre on google news archive, but the most promising ones are pay to view so cant add them right now. Techno! Techno!! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep Clearly a real musical genre. Aside from google news, a simple google search will indicate that it is a recognised (albeit unbelievably cheesy) hardcore genre. The reason its been used in album titles is because it is the name of a genre, albeit an almost brainlessly simplistic one. The article itself though is not great and doesn't do much for people's first impressions of notability. Fenix down (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I think the problem is that techno music genres are mostly neglected by the general public and often belong to local subcultures. IMHO there is especially a gap between US American and European techno music and terminology. Happy hardcore entered mainstream in some European countries for a brief period of time in the early nineties. Many 'reliable' sources of that time do not even exist any more. Nevertheless, it is still quite easy to verify that the term 'happy hardcore' is actually used for a music genre. A simple site search on guardian.co.uk reveals plenty of articles about events and people involved in this genre. In contrast, a site search on nytimes.com does not get many hits, obviously because neither the term nor the genre itself is well known in the US. I also believe that this article should not have been tagged for deletion in the first place, as it is obvious that this was done over a short googling session and without consulting other editors with better access to possible sources. If the same had happened to a smaller genre, its article would probably be gone by now. There-is-life-on-mars (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The term is here still very common in the NL. TMF (a Dutch MTV subsidary) even has a program dedicated to it where the term is used again and again, and some of the current TMF crew are old happy hardcore artists (most notably Mental Theo) 88.159.72.252 (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: definitely a legit genre, and has been around for nearly 20 years. But do try to improve this article with good sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destination 5: The Death Trip[edit]

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

Well, I was going to redirect this but I started researching and there is no such thing as "Final Destination 5: The Death Trip". No independent sources (or an IMDb entry). Filming obviously hasn't begun. Apparently "Death Trip" was the title for The Final Destination in its early stages (source) —Mike Allen 06:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ——Mike Allen 06:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , possibly speedy, as a hoax at best, or confusion at worst. Unverifiable that a fifth film is even being made, much less is in production, failing WP:V and WP:NFF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some discussion of a fifth film, but nothing certain at this stage, and nothing to warrant an article. Possibility of Final Destination 5 discussed already at the Final Destination series article. I would suggest that it's not a hoax, but an overeager fan. Moswento (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references, no press releases, and, to my knowledge, the fourth movie was the end of the series. Possible hoax. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 12:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although it's actually listed on IMDB ([60]), it seems to fail WP:NFF anyway. — Rankiri (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a hoax. The article creator, Masolipis111 (talk · contribs) is likely a sockpuppet of Locked333 (talk · contribs), blocked for being a vandalism-only account. Masolipis's edit here is much like Locked333's edit here. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete ~~or incubate~~ without prejudice as NOT A HOAX, but simply too early for a seperate article. I agree with the nominator's initial thought toward setting a Redirect to Final Destination (film series), where speculation of a 5th in the series might best be covered. Not exactly RS in the strictest sense, but Slashfilm, Screenrant, Shock Till You Drop, and others all make note of Warner Bros. head Alan Horn announcing at ShoWest that they're planning Final Destination 5. So while the article is speculative, the chase for consumer dollars makes the project likely. Wikipedia can afford to be patient and revisit this topic when it receives more coverage and in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been clearer about my mention of it as a hoax. I was recalling Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: The Chipmunk Rampage (film) where there was verifiable development talk about a third film, but the article itself was a hoax using these rumors. In any case, I have no issue with the development information at the film series article, and Final Destination 5 now redirects there. (The redirect was just created by an admin since it was salted.) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Delete the current crap article as the redirect takes readers to where sourced information about a speculated 5th in the series has context. Nice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}`

Delete. While I agree that the article is not a hoax, I also feel it is premature—and there are not enough reliable sources—for an article yet. Additionally, there are no sources for the title of the film. Based on that, I see no need to leave a redirect behind. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortune Valley Hotel and Casino[edit]

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

I was going to just prod this, but then after looking at the history I noticed a curious set of events. Long story short, a questionably notable stub, suffering from WP:ONEEVENT, that had the relevant event being removed by a brand new user who strongly implies a COI issue in response on the user's talk page.

I don't think the one event makes the casino notable, but I also think the COI and removal of content is problematic, particularly because there's been discussion preceding the removal of sourced information. So, I'll bring it here for a wider look. Shadowjams (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at all.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sajan GCMS[edit]

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

The article is significantly made up of primary sources. I believe this article is neither notable nor has any reliable sources to support it. Further, it borders on advertising with just a few token statements put in to project a different view. Request AfD delete. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 05:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not affiliated in any way to Sajan or their partners, nor I intend to be in the future, if that is what you are implying. I merely published this article as part of the requirements from a localisation module in college. If my article mostly refers to the developer's website, it is only because there is little information available outside there. I believe my article should stay in Wikipedia because it summarises the tool conveniently. Jordibalcells (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Practically no independent coverage. Pcap ping 02:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the creator of the article says "If my article mostly refers to the developer's website, it is only because there is little information available outside there." then we have a real notability problem. David V Houston (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bluewn[edit]

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

Contested prod. Neologism with no assertion of actual usage. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete - I'd watched it for a minute too. It's too bad we have to waste AfD time on this. Shadowjams (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO, WP:OR. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed that this is highly obvious. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben MacKinnon[edit]

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

This is an author and teacher who has published a book and 5 articles. They've been published in either Wrecked for the Ordinary or Prodigal Magazine. All of the references are either primary sources to this, or from http://selfpublishingtoday.com (or another related one to that). There's also the official site and the official bio. I don't think this meets the WP:ACADEMIC criteria (I see no indication that he's a professor either--he's 22) and all of the sources appear to be closely related to the publishing sources. Shadowjams (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. High school teacher who has written articles for online sites and has self-published a book. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Athaenara, "‎G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNS - Global Notification System as well." Non-admin closure for housekeeping. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GNS - Global Notification System[edit]

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

Non-notable service that seems to be in the early stages of development Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. I would like to know how it is spelled in Ukrainian, so I can enter an adequate search string in Google. However, the current version is borderline spam. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Глобальна система повідомлення" yields no results. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G11 and tagged as such. Also fails WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Barrett (Texas firefighter)[edit]

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

Unnotable person. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, a host for obituaries (which the article is basically a repeat of), nor a Brazos Valley, Texas news site. Only "coverage" is from the obituaries in a few local papers reprinting the press released obit, and from his own employer:

teexweb.tamu.edu and teex.org are both official sites for TEEX (Texas Engineering Extension Service)
rootsweb.ancestry.com - appears to be a user edited/researched site - therefore unreliable
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal - local paper of his home town
Amarillo Globe-News - local paper of Amarillo on the TEEX fire school, not Barret himself, he is simply quoted giving statistics about the organization and the school - other than mentioning he is the fire chief, nothing is said about him personally[61]
Bryan-College Station Eagle - local paper of BCS, where TEEX is headquartered
KBTX - local television station of BCS

All of the sources are from around the time of his death except the Amarillo one, which was not about Barrett, but about TEEX's fire school where he happened to teach for awhile. Barrett has no significant coverage in any reliable sources outside of those obit repeats and the random ancestry.com link. The "award" he won is an unnotable employee award from TAMUS itself. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This person appears to only have come to media attention through his death, and the article is written like a memorial. Dew Kane (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are 46 articles on American firefighters. Many are on Wikipedia for reasons other than being firefighters, such as Clint Eastwood and Dan White. I believe that this article compares in importance with the other firefighter articles. He was the fire chief of the Annual Texas Fire Training School and knew literally hundreds of firefighters throughout the state.Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who he knew is irrelevant and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. Wikipedia is, again, not a memorial site. He has no demonstrable notability per Wikipedia's actual guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of references to Mr. Barrett on Google taking up most of six pages.Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are dozens of copies of his obituary in various local papers, which you continue to "lovingly" (which is the only way the tone of the article can be described) to add to this "article". Wikipedia is, again, not a memorial site and not a news service. WikiNews might be appropriate, but not Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that Mr. Barrett was an impressive individual, and it is a shame that he died so suddenly. The points above about the references are telling, however - almost all of them deal with the fact that he died. BLP1E doesn't necessarily apply, but it's informative - individuals notable for only one thing should be covered as part of that one thing, rather than as individuals. If you take away the death-related sources, there is only one source that tangentally relates to the subject - and that's not enough to support an article, not by a longshot. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the one event guideline. Just one source that is not a "he died" announcement, and that one source (which is annoyingly cited in google cache) simply indicates that he was once available for interviews. Dahn (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ultraexactzz. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but modify This person was the fire chief of the world's largest fire school. That is more notable that a president of most universities. Wikipedia notability guidelines don't address fire school but I wouldn't expect it to since the guidelines take up only one page. He also had some role in the TEEX system (that was later involved in the Space Shuttle crash). He also received the highest honor. The part about hotels offering discounted rates, I'll agree if someone supports deleting that part of the article. I'd also like to see the article rewritten to sound less like a memorial. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "World's largest fire school" strikes me as an extraordinary claim that would require solid support, and I can't find ANY support for that claim in our articles. The section of Texas Engineering Extension Service about the field says that at 120 acres it is largest in the US - this claims appears to be based on area, not on attendees, which strikes me as less remarkable. This source says "The 120-acre Brayton Fire Training Field in College Station is the largest in the United States...", and this source says, "He was especially noted for his role in planning the future development of the Brayton Fire Training Field, considered by many to be the top firefighter training facility in the world." The latter seems too weasel-wordy to use. cmadler (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cmadler's and nom's analysis of the sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xat.com[edit]

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

Non-notable website with no coverage in reliable third-party sources. Q ^{T C} 01:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, was about to second the prod when it was removed. fetchcomms☛ 01:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --CapitalR (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Non notable website with over 10million users now?... hows that work... type chatroom onto google, xat is second result (: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.107.72 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 21 April 2010

Non-notable in Wikipedia-sense means it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines of notability, regardless of how many registered users it has. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely this article should be marked a stub and not deleted?...

Don't Delete I don't think this article should be deleted, just work on and expand the article, I added an entire section just now, though someone needs to source the xat wiki for me, I don't know how to do that. This website is to important just to delete. 74.176.37.155 (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Susie[edit]

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

Non-charting Michael Jackson track. I suggest that it be redirected and protected, because it continually gets recreated and I'm fed up to the back teeth of having to plaster about with these non-notable MJ song articles. Pyrrhus16 23:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2010 (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) 00:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Internationalist Organization[edit]

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

Article has been unreferenced since 2006. A small "tendency" within a small party, without references to establish notability--it does not pass WP:N. (If there are special guidelines for such groups, I'd love to hear about them.) Drmies (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2010 (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) 00:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources I can find. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result: Merge and redirect (non-admin closure) as any relevant content can be merged with List of The Price Is Right pricing games and the article redirected. The pricing game was only around 21 days and was not a long lasting notable game on the The Price is Right. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs related to discussion for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gallery Game

Articles for deletion/Bump (pricing game)

Articles for deletion/On the Spot (pricing game)

Articles for deletion/Shower Game

Articles for deletion/Telephone Game

Double Bullseye[edit]

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

Article is about a pricing game that was played on The Price is Right over a period of only 21 days almost 38 years ago. Article is not notable and completely unsourced. Also, article topic already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs Sottolacqua (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sottolacqua (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No individual notability, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant content to List of The Price Is Right pricing games and redirect, rather than deleting. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Stifle. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Stifle's merge reasoning and Glenfarclas' redirect reasoning as well. This article fails the notability guidelines and has no reliable sources to cover this article. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Price Is Right pricing games#B 2. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs related to discussion for this article:

Articles for deletion/Barker's Bargain Bar

Articles for deletion/Bullseye (active pricing game)

Articles for deletion/Most Expensive

Articles for deletion/1 Right Price

Articles for deletion/Triple Play (pricing game)

Buy or Sell[edit]

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

Topic is not notable to warrant individual article. Subject matter is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sottolacqua (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No individual notability, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come on down... yet another Price is Right game. I would support a merge too. Shadowjams (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant content to List of The Price Is Right pricing games and redirect, rather than deleting. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Stifle. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect' per above. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Stifle's reasoning Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Price Is Right pricing games#C 2. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs related to discussion for this article:

Articles for deletion/Barker's Bargain Bar

Articles for deletion/Bullseye (active pricing game)

Articles for deletion/Most Expensive

Articles for deletion/1 Right Price

Articles for deletion/Triple Play (pricing game)

Clearance Sale[edit]

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

Topic is not notable to warrant individual article. Subject matter is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sottolacqua (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No individual notability, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant content to List of The Price Is Right pricing games and redirect, rather than deleting. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Stifle, but redirect the term to Closeout. The chance of someone typing "clearance sale" into the searchbox because they are interested in this pricing game rather than in the, well, clearance sales from which the game took its name, seems low. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Stifle and Glenfarclas' reasonings. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are attribution issues with Glenfarclas's plan, but perhaps it might be better again to make a disambiguation page to the list of games and closeout. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Nolukh Hazari[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable person. I could find no coverage of 'Baba Nolukh Hazari' and results for 'Syed Murad Ali Shah' were about another person. Also this article sounds like a hoax - "It is believed that he recite the Quran 900 million times, while standing on one leg", really??? EuroPride (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The silliness mentioned in the nomination is vandalism added after the article was created, so it shouldn't influence any decision about keeping or deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (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, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I googled the name and checked the first 6 results. They returned derivatives of the wp page or trivial mentions. Szzuk (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADK Hospital[edit]

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this hospital, Google turns up less than 10,000 hits and new search shows brief mentions of people taken there, not enough for significant coverage. fetchcomms☛ 15:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. One of the two major hospitals in Malé. [62] (Haveeru Daily), [63], [64], [65], probably more in Divehi. — Rankiri (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been removed from list of Military-related deletion discussions and included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.... I believe this was an unintentional mistake, as the article doesn't mention any military-related connections. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's in the Maldives, which isn't the most Internet-wired country in the world (see WP:CSB; being one of the two main hospitals in a country is notable. A few more reliable sources: [66] [67] (not focused on ADK, but explains what ADK stands for). --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article definitely has encyclopedic value. ~BLM (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs better sourcing, but seems at least minimally notable per sources brought up during this discussion. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 23:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLACKOUT (improv group)[edit]

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

Non-notable group. GHits consist mainly of Facebook and similar hits. I was unable to find any reviews, did find a couple of announcements, fails WP:ENT GregJackP (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i put a link to a review on the site and it passes WP:ENT with #2. JOhnjon24 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Was not able to find any major reliable sources on this group and none of the sources listed in the article seem to establish notability (mostly being videos of their work or schedules). Agree with nom that it fails WP:ENT. mauler90 (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey guys. thanks for all of your help so far. i've been trying to make this page look right and it seems like everything we do is wrong. The reader is a real paper in Chicago that gave them a real review. vocalo is a real radio station in the chicago/ indiana area with over 4000 listeners and they really won that competition. iO is the theater they do their show at. they didn't make that site. they really have a show there. and the sources that list them in different comedy festivals are real. i'm not sure how to make that clearer unless you actually called these places to verify. i'm in the process now of looking for the first time they were interviewed on the radio before they were hired. they provide a lot of info that would be a good source but is audio an acceptable reference? i seen pages on this site get away without having any of this stuff so any advise is greatly appreciated. thanks again and i hope the tone of this message dosen't sound harsh. if there's anything we can do to keep this page from going down, we'll do it. just let us know. thanks.JOhnjon24

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass WP:ENT #2 - 4000 listeners out of a metro area of almost 10 million people is not a "large fan base or significant cult following". Additionally, all of the sources on the article are upcoming performance announcements or schedules. No significant coverage in any independent source has been provided to meet WP:GNG. --Darkwind (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

if that's the case then a lot more pages should also be deleted. thanks for all your help. also, what's the protocol for radio interviews? most of the info about them are audio files archived on chicago public radio's website and everyone kept saying that the were blogs which is not the case and information on the audio is more than show schedules. they just interviewed a cast member from breaking bad and discussed the comedy scene in LA and Chicago. i hope someone tries to resurrect this page.

by the way. according to wiki's own article about Cult_following's. They do fit into that category. i wonder if there are transcripts of vocalo's archived audio.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murdo MacDonald-Bayne[edit]

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

Almost completely unsourced, and no reliable sources appear findable (I've looked in UK newspaper archives). The guy may well be notable, but this article has been sitting here for years in this state, with occasional additions from editors not actually prepared/able to provide the required citation. Time to bring up to required WP:V standard or bin. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2010 (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) 00:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? [68] uses the phrase "obscure Scottish spirtualist" (or something close to that - at least the news search excerpt from that did). That doesn't sound good from a notability perspective. There is also [69] which is bit more helpful. David V Houston (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Orange Mall[edit]

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

No notability asserted. No sources found. Some incidental coverage such as this, but almost every source on Gnews seems trivial (mentioning it only in one sentence). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added references and made some progress in improving the article, so I think it is worth keeping now, as its the only enclosed shopping mall in its metropolitan area and thus a hub and notable fixture in the community. My rationale is similar to my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagrange Mall.--Milowent (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved article meets the verifiability and notability thresholds. Kudos to Milowent. - Dravecky (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Independents[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. All I can find is online chatter about this long delayed project. I cannot find any WP:RS that would allow it to pass WP:N -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2010 (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) 00:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasp T12[edit]

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

Declined Prod, rationale was "Unnotable fictional mobile phone from Nathan Barley tv series. Nothing to merge as no sources and an unlikely search term so no need to leave a redirect here". Anonymous IP removed prod notice without any other action so brought here for you to decide what to do with it Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage about this item in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created this article because it seemed significant at the time, there was a lot of talk about it and no-one knew what it was about. It hasn't stood the test of time. — PhilHibbs | talk 18:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The page may be restored and merged should a "list article for Forgotten Realms minor fictional elements" article be created, as User:Jclemens mentioned. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auvyndar[edit]

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

I originally proposed tis for deletion with the rationale Plot-dominated article about a very minor fictional element. No independent reliable sources. which I still believe is true. Prod removed wordlessly by the article's creator. Reyk _YO! 10:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge--let's find or make a list article for Forgotten Realms minor fictional elements, and put (some parts of) this there. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2010 (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) 00:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eshbel Technologies[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable company, article by SPA. I have been unable to find significant third-party coverage. Haakon (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: corporation specializing in the development, marketing and implementation of ERP software solutions for small to mid-sized companies in the manufacturing, commercial financial and services industries.... a goal to develop the most advanced scheduler ... The development of Priority 13 WPF was part of a strategic decision to reverse the trend of constantly increasing IT costs, and address the growing need for secure “anytime, anywhere” access to the organization’s ERP application.... ERP??? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2010 (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) 00:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources currently in article to assert notability. I can't find any reliable sources to add to assert notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Szzuk (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remy Munasifi[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT as a comedian. a few TV appearances does not suddenly mean notability. 7 gnews hits including one which incorrectly says he's a Lebanese American [70]. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The few TV appearance border wp:blp1e. There's hardly anything about his work in this article, just a few random trivia. Pcap ping 02:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morakinyo Michael Williams[edit]

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

fails WP:ATHLETE. has not played highest professional level which is NBA. 1 gnews hit [71] so fails WP:BIO as well. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable college player. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so far. Did find [72] which I added. Another player stats page (cbs)[73]. Lots of coverage on Duquesne and Kentucky related sites, but they're hardly 'independent'. David V Houston (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Stryper Discography on Official Website". Stryper. Retrieved 21 April 2010.

[2] "The Roxx Regime Demos - AllMusic.com Review". AllMusic.com. Retrieved 21 April 2010.

[3] "Stryper Discography at RollingStone.com". RollingStone.com. Retrieved 26 March 2010.

[4] "Stryper - Discography". MetalMusicArchives.com. Retrieved 21 April 2010.

[5] "Stryper - Complete Album Discography". Spirit of Metal Webzine. Retrieved 21 April 2010.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]