Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 19

< 18 February	20 February >

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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gints Freimanis[edit]

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

Neither the Irish nor Latvian leagues are fully professional so the player fails WP:ATHLETE. Lack of significant coverage in reliable (or in this case, any) sources means that he also fails general notability guidelines -- Big Dom 23:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has previosly been nominated. [1] Result was 'Keep', please close this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionnsci (talk • contribs)

Comment: Articles can be nominated for deletion more than once. -- Big Dom 08:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played top-level football in two different European national leagues Eldumpo (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played at a fully professioanl level, and the available news sources only appear to be run-of-the-mill sports journalism which is insufficient to establish notability (WP:NTEMP). Bettia ^{it's a puppet!} 12:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia ^{it's a puppet!} 12:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD. The consensus was then that he met WP:GNG, because of significant coverage in major Irish newspapers as in here amd here (the latter requires a subscription to the Irish Times to be viewed). I see no reason to overule the previously established consensus. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But as Bettia says, those sources are just run-of-the-mill sports journalism and do not pass WP:NTEMP so can you please explain how he passes the general notability guidelines? -- Big Dom 17:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Fionnsci (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For all reasons listed above. Rebel1916 (talk)Rebel1916 21 Feb 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep - I think the two Evening Herald articles are signficant coverage in a reliable source. Perhaps they are "run of the mill sports journalism", but that's enough to pass WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete: This is a tough call, but I think it really boils down to whether this is a case of WP:GNG or WP:NTEMP. No one doubts whether the sources are reliable, so initially it looks like he satisfies WP:GNG, but on a closer look I don't think this is the right way to look at it. I believe, after reading the article mentioned (I don't have the times subscription so didn't have access to the second one) that in this case the player got a boom of coverage just because a team picked him up and people were curious about the recruiting. After that I don't see any subsequent coverage. I was actually going to vote keep, but then I thought to myself what is this article really about, and the answer to that is that the article is about the recruitment event and not about the person. Of course the article mentions the person being recruited a lot, but that does not make him notable. MATThematical (talk) 23:58, 25 February 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 Keep, I've withdrawn my nomination for AfD. (WP:NACD) CTJF83 GoUSA 21:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CB slang[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY, 'nough said. CTJF83 GoUSA 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination. CTJF83 GoUSA 05:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Convoy (song) was a number-1 hit in the 1970s, and served to popularize CB slang among people who had not used it before. Clearly notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a great article as it is, which is basically just a glossary of terms, but it could be if it were more about the history and development of CB slang. Example of a reference which might be used for improvement along those lines: [2] Chuck (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was very notable back in 1976 [3] when knowing the terms was an indispensible part of the brief CB craze, and notability doesn't expire. That said, it does need to be more like Text messaging abbreviations (which redirects to the official term SMS language), where the terms are part of an article about the use of the jargon, and not the other way around. But delete the article in its entirety? Neggatorie on that good buddy. Mandsford (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SMS language has a lot of back story and a few more notable/popular abbreviations, unlike this article which is the opposite. CTJF83 GoUSA 18:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - CB slang has a lot of back story, it's just not captured in the article yet. I wouldn't object to pruning the list of examples. Chuck (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary as an appendix on CB slang, and also enter each as an entry at wiktionary. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to whoever wants to make 100 different entries in Wiktionary, I can only say "Have fun!" Mandsford (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the topic is suitable for encyclopedic treatment, and some of the article's contents (drastically pruned) could be used in an improved article. ReverendWayne (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did any of you read WP:NOTDIRECTORY? It's also WP:NOTAMANUAL CTJF83 GoUSA 07:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I have read WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Perhaps you could look at the policy WP:ATD which states that regular editing, not deletion, is appropriate for pages that can be improved. WP:NOTDIRECTORY would apply if an article on CB slang could never be anything more than a list of terms. Chuck_Carroll and Mandsford have argued to the contrary above, to my mind persuasively. ReverendWayne (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is 95% just terms. Perhaps a few sourced notable ones can be merged to Citizens' band radio? CTJF83 GoUSA 18:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you read WP:NOTDICTIONARY exceptions for cases such as in the case of this article can be made, as these translation of slang articles are listed as desirable. At the very least this article should be Transwikied. Volbeatfan (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It a historical part of american culture, sub-linked from the main Truck driver article. There were numerous cultural references to this slang, particularly around the time of Convoy (song) which focused American attention on the industry during the 1979 energy crisis. This slang and related culture was front page news at that time. Movies such as White Line Fever (film), the Smokey and the Bandit series; TV Series such as B. J. and the Bear and Movin' On (TV series) ALL USE THIS SLANG as common dialogue. Notability is not temporary. WP:NTEMPTrackinfo (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whats wrong with listing a few sources about its usage in movies etc, and listing only a few notable sourced examples, instead of a long list of examples. CTJF83 GoUSA 21:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Trackinfo. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on the Google news link up top and read the summaries. Obviously notable. Plus common sense. Dream Focus 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the exceptions in WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Kudos to Colonel Warden for the rescue effort. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CB Slang, CB Lingo, CB Speech are some of the name sit is known by. There's even academic treatments of it. Eg. [4]. -- Whpq (talk) 21:23, 22 February 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) 04:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

42 (Song)[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP with no other edits. Per WP:MUSIC. Song is not independently notable, has not been released as a single or charted as such. Only results to Google search for song name + "coldplay single" are speculation that it might be released as a single. XXX antiuser ^eh? 22:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also Chinese sleep chant, Cemeteries Of London, Yes (Song) and Yes(Song), all created by the same user. Based on the links they've added to these articles, it's likely they intend on making seperate articles for every single song on Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends. -- I need a name (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: Death And All His Friends and ~~Reing [sic] Of Love~~ Reign Of Love too. -- I need a name (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never released as a single and not notable outside of its parent album. I endorse the deletion of all these new pages for non-singles, since aside from the record's four singles ("Violet Hill", "Viva La Vida, "Lovers in Japan" and "Strawberry Swing"), none of these songs are notable by themselves (with "Life in Technicolor" being redirected to the article for its second version which was released as a single, if it already hasn't been redirected) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the articles or create them as redirects to the album. If these stay, then "White Shadows" and "What If" deserve to be created as well. This is just a violation of a formed consensus.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:16, 20 February 2010
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. No indication of individual notability outside of inclusion on the album.--Madchester (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I'm all for deleteing all of these articles, Death And All His Friends charted on the Swedish and the UK charts. the UK charts are one of the most important in the world so perhaps we can salvage something out of this article. Or is this still a violation of the notability policy for songs?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if it charted as a single, then it's effectively a single, regardless of whether it was released as such. There's probably precedent for this as well. XXX antiuser ^eh? 02:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication that this song meets WP:NSONGS, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in agreement with above votes. Also, what's happening here is the creator of the various song articles is simply making use of recording/writing trivia on each song that will be of interest to fans, but not necessarily notable for everyone else. That stuff can be added to the album page. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:25, 21 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsportsmanlike Conduct (Blog)[edit]

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

Non-notable blog. A search for sources gives fan posts and other blogs. The article's references are either circular or still other blogs, and the only actual inbound wikilink to the article is from unsportsmanlike conduct. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 22:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable, doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. XXX antiuser ^eh? 22:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The references provided don't seem to provide any notability for the blog, and I can't find any reliable references either -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:05, 20 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Pepper[edit]

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

Autobiography. Actor who has appeared in many films but almost solely as an uncredited extra or stand-in. Fails to meet WP:BIO. Pichpich (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The IMDB credit list is a rather lengthy list of roles such as "Biker", and "Ex-football Player", of which most are uncredited. -- Whpq (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although the gentlemen has a lengthy work history in film, his roles are descriptives and not named cast... and yup, uncredited means no credit.. just a paycheck. Come on Bob... get some bigger roles and get some coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:ENT. THF (talk) 14:48, 24 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blood metal[edit]

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

I declined the speedy (db-band) as it doesn't apply to genres. Can't find any sources about this genre. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: most likely a term made-up by the editor. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 01:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and non-existent. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:43, 20 February 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. Attack page NW (Talk) 04:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T "the dick" A[edit]

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

Straightforward WP:BLP that completely fails WP:V (per google) for the name and every one of the claimed film credits. As originally written, had a serious feel of libel/attack due to unsupported claims; those serious claims are gone, so now we just have a probable hoax. Caught my eye as attack-page, but now we're here because speedy-declined. DMacks (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I deleted the contentious claims that might have been attacks, as per WP:BLP ("Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced...should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion") and declined the speedy as per WP:DEL ("If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.") and as per WP:CSD ("Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.") and as per "if in doubt, don't delete". DES ^(talk) 22:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete The above said, Google shows no useful sources. Unless sources or some other evidence of notability is provided, this should be deleted as not notable. I could well believe that there are sources not indexed by google, but the article creator or other interested editors should provided them if they can. DES ^(talk) 22:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete According to IAFD, IMDB, GEVI and Gay Porn Times, there are no actors credited under this name (T_____ A_____) and I find no evidence of notable porn awards under this name. It must be no surprise that the films listed do not exist either. "6 Cocks One Ass" would tend to stick in the mind. I find 15 actors using the last name "A_____" but none is a close match for the first name of "T_____". Ash (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being blocked or even banned, I'm redacting the name of this person. I apologize in advance for editing another editor's comments, and I'll even encourage a protest if it seems that I'm out of line. However, it is clear to me that the article's creator intended to defame a person by this name as far as possible, including a discussion of whether a person by that name really is a "gay porn star". Mandsford (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete as per DES - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A probable attack page on someone that the original creator did not personally like. Google indeed shows no useful sources to prove the existence of this person as they presented in this article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Ingenious bit of defamation here on the part of User:Johnny Twosnaps, who has made no other contribution except an attempt to humiliate an acquaintance whom I'll simply refer to as "T______ A_______". Ingenious because, even though the article will be deleted, this guy's name is being throughout the discussion. I hope that an administrator will fix this before it gets worse. Mandsford (talk) 04:12, 20 February 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb tick[edit]

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

This article is a hybrid of a hoax and a how-to guide. I have found nothing to indicate that a species of tick called a "thumb tick" exists. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax fails verifiability. Nothing about the claimed species at the references cited in the article or in Google Book Search. Also reads like a "how-to" but if the species existed that could be fixed by editing. Consider speedy deletion. Edison (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax: Can't find any support for the existence of the species Digitus hallexpollex, or even of the genus Digitus. The claim that the species is a hybrid between two others doesn't make a lot of sense, as it would be unlikely to be considered a species then. And even if it was recognised as a species that originated from such hybridisation, wouldn't it be in the same genus? The two parent species are both in the genus Ixodes. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't find any sign of the Rocky Mountain Tick either - I'd assumed it was Ixodes pacificus, which carries Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, but that is also carried by dog ticks - Dermacentor sp. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just found Rocky Mountain Wood Tick, [5], another Dermacentor sp. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:34, 21 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Jacobs Grodnick[edit]

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

Non-notable reporter. Article does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Warrah (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person does have significant coverage from reliable secondary sources [6][7][8], the core criteria of WP:BIO. Nominating an article for deletion 21 minutes after it was created [9] is not helpful to this project. --Oakshade (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe not notable as a reporter, but 100+ mentions in the Star Tribune over 20 years meets WP:GNG, the article does need more sourcing, but that's not the issue. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:47, 25 February 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.

4 Digital Media[edit]

The result was Speedy deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is pretty much a copy of 4Digital Media, an article that has been speedily deleted four times and salted (and the original author of which has been blocked for spamming). The article does not indicate how the company is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Speedy tag removed by IP. ... discospinster _talk 20:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt RadioFan (talk) 17:52, 21 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bobby McGee's[edit]

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

Article fails to establish band's notability per WP:BAND or WP:GNG despite the large number of references. Closer inspection of the references reveals the majority to be blogs. Of the the ones that aren't blogs - the BBC, The Guardian and XFM - the band only get a passing mention, barely even getting a full sentence to themselves if they get mentioned at all. JD554 (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be an attempt to fein notability with reference spam to blogs and other un-reliable sources. Agree with nominator that while those sources that are reliable, the band isn't the subject of the coverage and mentioned only briefly. RadioFan (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RadioFan. --Maashatra11 (talk) 02:08, 25 February 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 nomination withdrawn. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Leslie Wilmshurst[edit]

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

~~No indication that this author is notable. Does not pass requirements set out at WP:AUTHOR. Google scholar has only 6 hits~~ NOMINAION WITHDRAWN per discussion. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considering the subject matter and era involved I wouldn't necessarily expect to find much in Google Scholar. Plenty more sources can be found by using initials rather than full given names: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The books found include this one, which mentions the subject on 39 pages, and this biography, which, although probably written by a relative, is from a well-established publisher in its field. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... Considering the subject matter and era? Yes, let's... This was actually a time when there were a lot of scholars writing on the subject of Freemasonry. Compare Wilmshurst with with contemporaties such as AG Mackey or Albert Pike. Filter out the hits to the authors' own works, and we better see who is really notable and who isn't. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done as you suggested and checked Google scholar hits filtering out these authors' own works. "WL Wilmshurst" with "Freemasonry" gets 39 hits and AG Mackey gets 63 hits for an equivalent search. That doesn't look like an enormous difference to me. Pike gets a lot more, so does that mean that Mackey is not notable because he gets less Google Scholar hits than someone who is more notable? Anyway, notability is measured neither by the number of search hits nor by comparison with other subjects but by the content and quality of the sources available. Maybe you could concentrate on explaining why the Lomas book that I linked above, along with these 448 further books, are not enough to confer notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would discount Lomas because his reputation for scholarship is very poor. As for the the google books search... I have to admit that this does indicate more notability than it origially appeared when I nominated. Thank you for pointing me to it. This moves me from saying that "Wilmshurst is not notable" to "The article does not properly establish that he is notable", which is a very different issue. I withdraw the nomination. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 21 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worship and Adore: A Christmas Offering[edit]

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

Article was prodded by Orangemike (talk · contribs) and author incorrectly placed a {{hangon}} tag to contest the prod and left a comment on the talk page requesting clarification of why it was proposed for deletion. AGFing on the author's part, I removed the prod and am bringing it here. The original prod rationale was "Non-notable album compilation."

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is nothing new or novel but only a gathering together of previously released material. I see little hope that this will reasonably develop further.JodyB_talk 20:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - massively non-notable Christmas compilation album. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:46, 20 February 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 A7 ... discospinster _talk 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sensei Thompson[edit]

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

No sources included or appear on quick search to be available. Some obviously patent nonsense. Onorem ♠Dil 19:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably should be speedied as A7 but since I am just back from a hiatus I will defer to another admin. JodyB_talk 20:12, 19 February 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 oppose votes are stronger here. They point out serious flaws that this article has with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, which were not adequetely refuted by the keep side. The vague wave to WP:IAR was ignored; a clear rationale has to be presented for invoking it, which was not presented here. NW (Talk) 01:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaid problem[edit]

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

NOTE: This was previously nominated for deletion and closed "no consensus" in 2006. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mermaid_Problem Perhaps someone could update box and remove my comment once fixed.--Milowent (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it's a funny article, it doesn't cite any reliable sources and is just a compilation of OR. It deserves to be deleted and buried on Wikipedia:Silly Things.--The lorax (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly reasonable subject form an article. I've added the Rescue tag, the existing references and this article [10] may be a good place to start in dealing with the rash of cite tags in the lede. Artw (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also was there not a previous AfD of this resulting in keep? Has the article been moved since? Artw (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The previous AfD was "no consensus". - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i cant find any reliable sources referring to this. it may in fact be a neologism partially propagated by the apperance of this WP article. probably deserves a brief mention in the main article, though, if anyone can find a reference to it outside of cartoons.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be lots of material discussing the sexuality of mermaids and the intercourse aspect is naturally covered by this. For example, see Overview of Critical Interpretations of The Little Mermaid. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First off, never nominate an article for deletion simply because of some suggested guideline. "Wikipedia is not a series of rules" is one of the founding unbreakable policies. And there does seem to be plenty of mention of this, it discussed in many places, including many notable works of fiction. Dream Focus 21:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OR is an official Wikipedia policy though. This article seems to typify this section of the policy: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.--The lorax (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are A, B and C in this case? Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, source A explains the biology of a mermaid and then the article extrapolates what that means without a reliable source. h2g2 is also not a reliable source.--The lorax (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR states if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, then ignore it. This is one of those cases. The article should stay, rules be damned. And Ignore All Rules is a policy. Dream Focus 19:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are a pretty big deal, and I don't think we should go around ignoring them for favoured articles. However since the FT cite [11] tackles the subjetc matter head on they are not really an issue here (Further cites to back that up would of course be a good idea though). BTW, the FT site seems to dislike direct linking, so to view the full article you may have to go to the Articles list [12] and click "Mermaids In Myth and Art". Artw (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but take some serious pruning shears to that "Examples" (aka "In popular culture") section. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever can be legitimately sourced, excluding the examples section, (which looks like it wouldn't be that much) into mermaid, then delete. I don't doubt that there are critical studies of mermaid myths and modern mermaid stories which address the issue, but there don't seem to be any that call this issue "the mermaid problem," meaning that the name given to the article is not appropriate even if the issue itself has some notability. (And the "Examples" section reads more like a TV Tropes article. Nothing wrong with TV Tropes, but TV Tropes and Wikipedia have different standards, and you shouldn't confuse one for the other. TV Tropes (which takes a much lighter approach towards article naming) already has a Mermaid Problem article, anyway.) Chuck (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MAD which explains why merge and delete is not a satisfactory combination. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Comment adjusted accordingly. Chuck (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much original research. Well written essay, though. --John Nagle (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains useful information on a topic of interest to many people (while people who are not interested in the subject are not obligated to read it -- if there can be Wikipedia articles on Klingon Language and Klingon culture, then certainly an article on mermaid reproduction is not too unreasonable). This article has many citations to relevant examples in the media. Its title should be changed, however, to something more descriptive, and the discussion should contain only facts supported with citations to reliable sources, rather than the author's personal observations, theories, or opinions. The entire article could be merged and become a subsection of the main Mermaids topic (which in effect, it already is, but on a different Web page.) In any event, the facts, images, links, and citations in this article should be preserved, either in a renamed article, or as a subsection of the Mermaids article. 69.108.13.103 (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*This vote appears to be invalid given that the user has made only 1 edit.--The lorax (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

That's called an ad hominem argument and it's not good logic. Experience is irrelevant in AfD debates. The contributor either made a valid argument or they didn't. A user called Don'tDeleteMermaidProblem could make an argument and if they're polite and refer to policy then they deserve as much respect and consideration as an admin with 60,000+ edits. See WP:ADHOM, which will also give you several more persuasive ways to rebut the contributor above's arguments.- DustFormsWords (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, Dust, and I struck it from the record. No disrespect intended, 69.108.13.103.--The lorax (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None taken. And that's some awesome recent work on Ferris Bueller's Day Off. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – while mermaids are a genuine encyclopedic topic, the alleged "mermaid problem" is not; this is just an essay drawing together bits and pieces from here and there, and as such OR even if some of the statements are sourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A collection of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and a WP:CFORK of the valid topic of mermaids. This is a personal essay, better hosted elsewhere - not wikipedia. Verbal chat 13:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure synthesis essay. Ridernyc (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AfD in 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mermaid Problem, where keep !votes determined that this is not OR. This is an age old dilemma, as I learned in middle school: "Indian goes up to a mermaid and says 'HOW'! Mermaid says, 'that's a damn good question!'"--Milowent (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nothing more than an extended "in popular culture" list. Failing that, Merge to mermaid. I don't see any good arguments in the article, the discussion above, or the past AfD for this being notable independent of mermaids, or any reason why it can't be adequately dealt with in the main article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep per prior AfD in 2006. There is a lot of OR in this article, but if cleaned, it's legit. THF (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into mermaid. It seems to me that the mermaid-sex issue loses a lot of context as a standalone article. Does WP have any precedent for a standalone article on a hypothetical/mythological issue? (The closest comparison that I can think of off the top of my head is the time when the Straight Dope message board had a fact-based discussion about whether a Godzilla attack would be covered by insurance.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:53, 24 February 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. (X! · talk) · @980 · 22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Jordan, Financial Adviser[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion ostensibly on grounds on notability (though the tone and content could use some work).

Put simply, being quoted by newspapers is insufficient to achieve notability. We need reliable sources that talk about William Jordan, not mention him is passing. It worries me that for all the "emminence" that is being claimed in the article, not a single meaty source has yet been provided. If several could be found, then obviously we ought to keep the article. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. William Jordan is a notable, contemporary in his field of financial planning. 23 national media programs and periodicals have used him as an expert and/or reference for programs and articles. The periodicals listed are not JUST newspapers, though the Wall Street Journal is one of the most well respected current financial publications of this day. Nor is FORBES a newspaper, nor Kiplinger's Retirement Report, nor TIME, nor BusinessWeek. These are national current media with more than a million readers and viewers each. In the industry of financial planning, these are most of the most prominent publications. Jordan has been interviewed as a source for The Wall Street Journal not once, but three times--by Jane Kim in April of 2008 and Shelly Banjo in June and January 2008. Jordan has been interviewed as a source by FORBES twice by Ashlea Ebling in June and January of 2008. Jordan has been interviewed as a source for Kiplinger's publications four times: March of 2008 by Jeffery R. Kosnett and David Landis, April 2008 by Kathryn Walson and three times by Mary Beth Franklin, September and April 2008, and in January 2010.

CNBC's Wall Street Journal Report, Closing Bell and Power Lunch are programs where William Jordan was asked to talk as an authority in the field of personal finance. (Visit williamjordanassociates.com for clips and pdf's of articles.) Why do they like him? Because he is an independent expert in his field. He is not tied to AIG or Charles Schwab or Fidelity. Jordan is not just referenced in passing, he is the reference for these articles, programs and publications. Heath224 (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are plenty of reliable sources quoting him, their only mentions of him appear to be that he's the president of a financial services company and a short quote. I have been unable to find any independent mention of him that "address[es] the subject directly in detail", so I feel that he fails to pass WP:GNG. 19:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being quoted by RS is not enough to make you notable. Sole Soul (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From Forbes January 2008, The Great 401K Escape by Ashlea Ebling, here is pointed direct advice in what the subject of the article should do with funds per William Jordan's advice: Jordan plans to increase Wright's fixed-income allocation and construct a ladder of individual bonds with different maturity dates. In his 401(k), which doesn't let him buy individual securities, Wright's only choice would be a bond fund, whose maturity structure cannot be customized.

And again direct advice from William Jordan on the subject of creating a retirement paycheck from Kiplinger June 25, 2008 article, Creating a Retirement Paycheck, by Kathryn Walson: Try not to tap principal in the early years of retirement. One way to generate income without tapping principal is to shift more of the stock portfolio into dividend payers. "Dividend-paying stocks allow retirees to take income no matter whether stocks go up or down," says William Jordan, president of the Sentinel Group, in Laguna Hills, Cal. If your mutual funds pay dividends on a quarterly basis, take the cash for your reserve fund rather than reinvesting.

Angie Rust, 67, who lives in Orange, Cal., retired last June from her job as a manager with an engineering firm. With Jordan's help, she set up a withdrawal strategy that will enable her to take a cruise every other year. Heath224 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Consistently being quoted by reliable secondary sources does, according to Wikipedia Notability in a Nutshell, make one notable: Wikipedia covers notable topics - those that are "worthy of notice" and have been "noticed" to a significant degree by the world at large. A topic that is suitable for inclusion and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence.

At the same time, in two of the four Kiplinger's articles Jordan's clients are profiled through the entire article. They are the article. The writer takes these individuals as a case study -- per Jordan's strategies as to what to do: 1) when one is facing retirement (Kiplinger June 25, 2008, Kathryn Walson) 2) when one is self-employed around at tax time(Kiplinger, March 2008 by Jeffery Kosnett and David Landis). This is also the case in the January FORBES article, The Great 401(k) Escape. This article is about Jordan's client and the strategies he is employing to help his client invest money from his 401(k) into other investment opportunities, since the client is 59 years old or over. Jordan's advice "address[es] the subject directly in detail." Heath224 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 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) CTJF83 GoUSA 21:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Rice (cricketer)[edit]

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

Failure to meet Notability

Also category G (sports), I suppose. If someone knows how to include the second category to the top, feel free. -LlywelynII (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fix'd -LlywelynII (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having played first-class cricket, the highest level of cricket for domestic (ie non-international) teams, he meets the requirement laid down in WP:ATHLETE. JH (talk page) 21:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per User:Jhall1 above. Johnlp (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRIN, though this is the closest I have seen. SGGH ^ping! 23:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Aaroncrick (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:CRIN. Harrias (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CRIN —SpacemanSpiff 09:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JHall. I wonder if WP:CRIC should link "amateur" to something - can't quite find what - along the lines of Gentlemen vs Players for historical players such as this. Amateur to modern eyes does imply non-notability, hence this debate.—MDCollins (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ATHLETE. --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 25 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian D'Apice[edit]

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

Article was nominated for CSD in December 2009 but was inappropriately removed by author (I don't think it would have qualified for CSD anyways). Article was prodded by Cassandra 73 (talk · contribs) with the rationale "Does not meet WP:GNG. "State-wide notoriety" claim is not supported." I was going to endorse prod but the comment left by the author, though nearly 2 months old, indicates to me that deletion may not be uncontroversial.

For my part I agree with the original nomination and the talk page comment indicates to me that the author's intent is to use Wikipedia for advocacy purposes; therefore, my opinion is delete. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "state-wide notoriety" wording was the only reason I didn't tag it A7 as it is a claim of significance although there's nothing to back this up, even the two sources cited for this paragraph don't mention him. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I read A7 broadly enough to cover this spam. THF (talk) 14:54, 24 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gibsonten[edit]

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

Prodded by me, endorsed by MuffledThud (talk · contribs), and removed by author without explanation. Original prod rationale was "an attempt to use WIkipedia to propagate a non-notable/non-existent myth"; endorsement comment by MuffledThud was "Unreferenced, either WP:HOAX or WP:SPAM, can find no coverage online at all, from WP:Reliable sources or otherwise."

Delete as original prodder. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Weird burble about a guitar that does not exist, but might. MuffledThud (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete: A non-existent guitar. Joe Chill (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. If, as MuffledThud indicates, the guitar is manufactured and becomes notable, then we can revisit this. But, for now, no. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:15, 23 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore (subculture)[edit]

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

Multiple issues with this page, the most glaring of them being that it consists entirely of Original Research, and cites no reliable sources. The tone of the article is also not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Unless the text is cleaned up to Wikipedia standards and the other issues are rectified, it should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An article being full of WP:OR and not having WP:RS is not a reason for deletion. Right now I'm leaning towards a merge with Hardline (subculture) or straight edge. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utter nonsense. It's impossible to tell what this article is actually supposed to be about. Is it about people hardcore punk? Hardcore dance music? Something the creator made up? The first two would be likely candidates if you wanted to make a page on a "hardcore subculture" in relation to music, but the article sure isn't about either of them, and it seems most likely to be the latter. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to hardcore. This article is total garbage. I was about to clean it up, but then I realized that when I deleted all the junk, there would literally be almost nothing left on the page.Spylab (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that there is a group of youth actually called "hardcore kids", see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

From journal "Symbolic interaction" "militant vegans, straight- edge, hardcore kids, and when they graduated and left college, they gave it all up. ... However, his awareness that these individuals were some of the most “militant” or “hardcore” kids hints at how the extreme situation might op- erate in a person's life"[13]
individual quoted in a book about straightedge "There were a lot of, like, punks, and straightedge kids, and hardcore kids, and skinheads, and it was all kind of a big scene"[14]

Unfortunately, a) I don't see sources that actually study this group of youth b) the article in its current state in unsalvageable and c) stubbing won't work because people will just keep adding crap. So, please burn it down to the ground and let someone write a new article from good sources like books and articles that deal with youth subcultures. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written and inaccurate. Does not appear to be fixable.--Rebel1916 (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Those passages seem to refer to hardcore punk. "Straightedge" is a sub-subculture of hardcore punk that eschews drink and drugs. — Gwalla | Talk 18:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the topic is likely notable and a good article could be written, there is nothing here to salvage RadioFan (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A combo of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Hardcore punk is a far superior treatment of this same topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverified, poorly written, entirely unclear what its topic is--it actually invites a redirect to Hxc, which is a redirect to Hardcore punk. Drmies (talk) 05:46, 23 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Height-weight proportional[edit]

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

This unreferenced orphan is nothing more than a non-notable Neologism. Most sources I looked at simply tell what the acronym means and most weren't reliable sources. General lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. To the extent this topic could be suitable for Wikipedia, it's covered by Body mass index and the numerous other articles linked there. ReverendWayne (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Agree, Body mass index is a better article on this topic. I don't know that a redirect is worthwhile, either. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was some discussion of that merge a couple of years ago. Materials about BMI were moved and this is what was left. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Body mass index Delete per nom. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom? Everything dealing with BMI was already merged. The article consists of what didn't apply. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why I wrote that, must be one of those days. Fixed, thanks for catching it. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:53, 25 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Eckardt[edit]

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

Player is not notable according to the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. According to the sources I could find [15], he has not 'competed at the fully professional level of a sport' as he played only for lower-tier clubs in Germany or the first division in Cyprus which is not fully professional (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Top level leagues which are not fully professional. The article was PRODded, but an IP removed the tag (without further comments) --Jaellee (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jaellee (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The fact that except for APOP Kinyras Peyias FC, none of the clubs he's played for even have articles of their own is a pretty clear indication that they're not fully pro. I'm not farmilliar with either of the German clubs he's played for, but I know that they don't play in one of the top three divisions in Germany. As mentioned above, the Cypriot first division is not fully pro, and the third division where he currently plays therefore deffinately is not fully pro either. It's a clear cut deletion in my opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 19 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes game[edit]

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

This is a completely unreferenced, apparently non-notable game made up one day. LadyofShalott 17:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a drinking game made up in school one day. 88.112.56.9 (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic event. -RobertMel (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Textbook violation of WP:MADEUP. No references or evidence of notability. —LedgendGamer 10:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the drinking game. There does appear to be a drama/improve warm-up by this name described in a number of books [16] that is probably notable (though best, IMO, as part of a list). Hobit (talk) 01:25, 22 February 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) 14:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants in special editions of Big Brother[edit]

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

This is a compilation of information from three articles. Not only is "special editions" not defined but most of the information is already on the main articles. As such it is a triple content fork. The new information is in the form of tables, all of which could easily be incorporated on the main articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is currently nominated for FL status. This article is part of a set, alongside List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates (already an FL) and List of Big Brother (UK) housemates. Conglomerative lists are also a regular feature in other parts of Wikipedia - see List of Ugly Betty episodes for just one example. Therefore, a precedent has been set that said articles should exist. The fact that these are special editions of the programme is sourced and an AFD is not the place to take an article if you disagree with its title. Chandlerchester (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that the "list of..." for TV programmes is usually transcluded from individual season pages, the information is not a content fork. This article is just repeating the information from the individual programs when those articles are so short they could easily accommodate the extra tables, that you have given the article a B-class grade and then nominated it for FL does not mean that the article has any merit, especially as at this point you are the sole contributor. I don't think it should be an FL, that is why I have nominated it for deletion. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also it has been removed from FL assessment. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than a collection of other Big Brother contestant lists. TJ Spyke 18:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to List of Big Brother (UK) housemates, not notable on its own. Reywas92^Talk 02:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant list. -- ukexpat (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chandlerchester. ArticlesForRedemption 03:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: ArticlesForRedemption (talk · contribs) has already cast a !vote above as Chandlerchester (talk · contribs). See WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dwanyewest.[reply]
Delete - redundant to List of Big Brother (UK) housemates. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:28, 24 February 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. Merging and moving discussions can be opened on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUMMMFITCHH[edit]

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

Unsourced, perhaps original research; what sources exist appear to be taken from this article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A well known aviation mnemonic (or a variation of it). Have added some references. It is a check that I have been using since the early 1990s. The check that I was taught and use is BUMFFPICHH, this was taught to me by a graduate of the Empire Test Pilots' School, the check appears to date back to WWII or earlier, an explanation of its origin would be nice. The sentence on rhyming with an ancient word for fifteen is not entirely relevant, seems out of place and as it is uncited could be original research. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My discussions on the talk page asking whether this article should be nominated for AFD or not were based on not having found any refs. The challenge seems to have been met with two refs now found, which shows that this is a notable subject. It does tend to prove that if you shake the tree that some apples will fall out of it! - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know a little more of those references; do they actually say "BUMMMFITCH"? The second reference implies that it's actually about "UMP and flaps"; I'm not sure what the first reference is actually claiming to be a source of in the first sentence. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a full stop to separate the sentence cited using Trevor Thom, which for further clarity is this text; A shorter version for simple aircraft is BMFFH; many variations exist for different aircraft types. The Spitfire check is verbatim from the manual, what I am noting is that in both cases the letters are in order (BMFFH and UMPF) and are shortened versions of the article title. It occurs to me that this is a British/Australian check as we have GUMPS for the US (and Canada?) and the newly found BUMPH which is the same thing for Australian pilots. Seems to be a need for some merging here, possibly into a new article Pre-landing check mnemonics or similar. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a better idea than deleting this, actually. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have just added a written source for BUMFFPICHH. All the associated articles need looking at for a plan to merge them (if this is the consensus way forward of course). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's another good one: PRAWNS. This stuff is well worth keeping as lives are lost if these mnemonics are not used. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY. There is no sign of information on the development etc of the the phrase/mnemonic, which would be required to expand this beyond a dictionary definition. I note that the idea of this being important to keep for safety is a WP:USEFUL fallacy. I have no opinion on having a new article called Pre-landing check mnemonics but there would need to be more than a list of dictionary definitions for each one. It may be easier to find encyclopedic information talking about them generally than individually. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTADICTIONARY is meant to prevent articles as simply definitions of words and terms. Encyclopedias to in-depth to the subjects, like the "Checklist" and "Aircraft type examples" sections of this article which would be inappropriate for a dictionary. --Oakshade (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. It is quite an expanded dictionary definition, perhaps, but only because it is a quite a complex term to explain owing to all the terms in the acronym and the specialist nature. WP is not Dicdefs on steroids. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to pre-landing checklist (or similar) and merge with the other similar articles, editing aggressively to reduce emphasis on any particular acronym and adding new material from other sources regarding the checklist actions themselves. -- The Anome (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some of this information should be made into an entry at Wiktionary. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:29, 22 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Hong Kong[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this page has no information other than various transliterations of the same name. As far as I can tell, the issue of how the name is pronounced is not particularly notable or contentious, and Wikipedia has no similar articles (see Special:PrefixIndex; the ones that are listed are mostly redirects, and of the non-redirects none of them are about placenames). PROD was contested with the rationale that the article should be "moved to Names of Hong Kong", but I don't see any reason for that either, as the article includes nothing but different transliterations of the same name. And apparently this was AfDed in 2005, but the encyclopedia's standards have changed a lot since then and none of the keep arguments from that debate look very convincing to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjanag (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Delete. Cf. Hong Kong#Etymology. — Rankiri (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this whole article is redundant to the little box in that section, which I mentioned here when I was removing a link to this article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Names of Hong Kong (See Talk:Pronunciation of Hong Kong) and expand as a standard "Name of" article. There's no reason why Hong Kong shouldn't have a "Name of " article, like other localities, and this is a good starting point. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. On renaming even renamed it's still just a dictionary entry, the interesting bits of which are well covered in Hong Kong#Etymology and that article's infobox.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it is not a dictionary entry if it is used as the starting point of a greater article, so I don't see why that would be a problem. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing especially notable, or interesting, is asserted about the topic so that a stand alone article is called for. The information belongs in Hong Kong, if not already there. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to Names of Hong Kong if there is really enough info for such an article (more needed than this article + Hong Kong: Etymology). — AjaxSmack 05:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dee-leet. Bearian (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Hong Kong as some name/etymology/etc. section. fetchcomms☛ 20:48, 21 February 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 userfy to User:Garbolia/China Spy. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China Spy[edit]

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

Future non-notable film that has not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography. Appears to fail WP:NFF. ttonyb (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point of views are:1. Here are examples of all the upcoming films and 2011 films, most of movies are Future non-notable film before or even during filming and post production, and non of the 2011 films has principal photography yet. My question is that, should we delete the category of 2011 films and all the titles on wikipedia until they start to film and having principal photography? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Upcoming_films The following 200 pages are in this category, out of 569 total. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2011_films The following 12 pages are in this category, out of 12 total.2. China Spy movie 's production company successfully produced feature film Empress Vampire. If a company had the ability and experience to produce a decent feature film and submit to Cannes, it is logical that they will also have the ability to produce another feature film and will not fail before filming.Thank you.--Garbolia (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to be moved into articlespace when more appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is: to be justice, remove all new movie titles planned filming on 2010 and beyond 2011 from wiki, because it is impossible for any of these movies to have principle production work at this time. I would lost justice if only remove one or two of them. Or there should have a rule special for that on wiki admin, so no one would even consider to work on these kind of articles.--Garbolia (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Let's focus on the issue at hand and the reason for this AfD. Specifically, does this article meet the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. I know it is tempting to refer to other articles as justification for keeping or deleting this article, but each article needs to stand on it's own merits. Unfortunately I have seen no justification for inclusion. If this changes, this article can recreated when it meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to author with our thanks, for the article is a decently enough written stub even though premature. There's no need to make him recreate all his work, when it can sit nicely out of the way and be improved as more sources become available. Allow return without prejudice when WP:NFF can be properly met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or userfy, per MQS. Tim Song (talk) 03:36, 26 February 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. Is notable although additional sourcing would be helpful JodyB_talk 14:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CGram Software[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable company, article by single-purpose user. I could not find any significant third-party coverage. Haakon (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. There are a few Wales newspaper and magazine stories, e.g. [17] [18] [19], and it won some awards, but they seem pretty obscure business awards with a limited geographic participation. Not sure about the Accountancy Age award nomination; this has wider area or participation (whole UK), but it didn't win there. Willing to reconsider if additional evidence is brought. Pcap ping 00:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Linux User and Developer whose award they won is not obscure or with a limited geographic participation but is UK wide. They had nominations for both Computing (magazine) and Accountancy Age awards both of which are UK wide.Vrenator (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC) (creator of page)[reply]

Weak Keep. Not the most brilliant claim to notability, but I'd say the award from Linux User and Developer sways it in favour, as LUD has a reasonably high circulation. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found two other uses of Cgram. Neither appear related to the company: Cgram, the ANSI C grammar by Mohd Hanafiah Abdullah from Indiana. CGRAM stands for character generator RAM. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not turning up good online sources, but 1980's activity with "early Unix manufacturing systems" could be expanded on. Short reference via Google Books in Mini-micro systems, V.16, p116, 1983, "Cgram Software, Swansea, Wales, provides a manufacturing system also written in c". Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage, the award is nice but not enough to demonstrate notability RadioFan (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not really a Wiki person so I hestitated to update this page previously, but as it is listed for deletion I have.

This is a long established Software Authoring company and such companies are quite uncommon. I used to work with them in the 80's and 90's. Back in the 80's it was well known in the early commercial development of UNIX, along with many other companies no longer in existence and not documented anywhere on the web. They produced the first UNIX Manufacturing System at a time when the computer industry saw UNIX as a toy for academics, they implemented Supplier chain control at Ikeda Hoover and this was for many years referenced as a model in the Standard UK Accountancy textbooks. This was extended to an innovative Kanban supply system in 1990. In 1997 they installed what I believe was the first commercial Linux system in the UK (at Meddings Machine Tools). In 1998 they introduced one of the first commercial systems with a front end written entirely in Java/Swing.

There is a general problem with things that happened in IT before before the web gained momentum, online references are sparse and this important chunk of IT history seems to be in the process of being lost. Wikipedia is currently the only useful source of most commercial history generally and it is an area which there are compelling reasons to expand, not shrink. If you look up the companies that were instrumental in making UNIX popular, providing the spring board for Linux, there is almost no imformation on them. It might make a useful Wiki Project.

The award and nominations are a reason to keep the page, but the history of innovation is more important. Some of the users recommending delete think the award is insignificant and being from Wales they cannot be significant. Wales ? Ring any bells ? JamesOfBerkhamstead (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — JamesOfBerkhamstead (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Notability is demonstrated in the awards but even more so in the early history showing that they were pioneers in the IT field. I've tried to change the article so that this comes across better and that it not merely to promote a company. Vrenator (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)(creator of page) — Vrenator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The notability of these awards need to be established and any claims of being "pioneers" also need to be corroborated with 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Note already posted above: "Linux User and Developer whose award they won is not obscure or with a limited geographic participation but is UK wide. They had nominations for both Computing (magazine) and Accountancy Age awards both of which are UK wide."

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler King (singer)[edit]

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

I can not find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources for this person. Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:N or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow ^Talk 14:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article, as I'm finding no in-depth coverage for this album sufficient to meet WP:N and in particular WP:NALBUMS.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 14:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Upon further review, much of the article's text looks to have been copied from the subject's homepage bio, so WP:CSD G12 may apply as well. Gongshow ^Talk 15:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC (GregJackP (talk) 16:38, 25 February 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. Keep per WP:SNOW. There's no way that consensus to delete this is going to be reached. Fences&Windows 15:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Austin plane crash[edit]

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

This may prove to be controversial, but I think the debate is one that will need to happen at some point. The event does not pass WP:NOTNEWS or WP:EVENT and has no lasting significance. The coverage is better suited to Wikinews, who seem to be doing a good job of it. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 14:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. __meco (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how the snowball clause applies to this situation? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for now. While I don't have the most knowledge about the incident, it seems to be an act of terrorism by one person. It resulted in deaths, and was against a government agency. I don't know if it is early enough to judge the article's notability, but considering it is an act of terrorism, I think it should stay for now. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the 2002 Tampa plane crash did minimal damage but has an article.username 1 (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and ban nominator. Just kidding but keep. So many articles of this type are taken to AfD and are almost always kept. If this type of article is really in violation of "WP:NOT" then maybe it is time to change WP:NOT to reflect reality. You know, "descriptive not prescriptive" and all that. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The event is notable, has received wide media coverage, and articles on similar events also exist and have not been deleted (see: 2002 Tampa plane crash, 2010 Las Vegas courthouse shooting, 2009 Pittsburgh police shootings, just to name a few). WTF? (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is nothing more than an elaborate suicide by someone pissed of at the taxman and it's getting next to no coverage outside the US. The coverage it is getting from the likes of CNN is nothing more than "9/11 all over again" hyperbole. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:12, 19 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Growth leadership[edit]

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

Mysteriously contested prod. Article flopped onto wiki in one piece on 5 August, was rapidly tagged and prod'd as original research and WP:ESSAY, tags and prod removed 12 August, article never touched since. THF (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is a blatant advert, kill it. Roger (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as original prod-er. Spam. Toddst1 (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam for a non-notable book, also patent nonsense, a flimsy gauze of glittering generalities: Growth leaders are responding to the new organizational realities. They are also assembling and applying various “intelligences” that allow them to function creatively in an increasingly complex and challenging business environment. These social, emotional, moral, and cultural, intelligences have proven their worth over the years, and growth leaders may be making special use of them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis. Just edges out of being a spam Speedy Delete, but it's a narrow thing. The key here is that there is no real evidence to suggest that the concept as presented is notable at all. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:51, 25 February 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, blatant hoax (CSD#G3). GARDEN 14:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WTN International[edit]

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

No evidence that the company described in this article exists. No Google hits for the combination "WTN International" "Network Group Plc", seems really, really unlikely for what's alleged to be the world's largest telecommunications company. A search for "WTN International" alone reveals fewer than 600 hits, and appear to refer to all kinds of companies with that name except a UK-based company that is the world's largest telecommunications company. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From Google I gather there is no such thing as "Kappa's Greatest Hits Gold", "MTV Hardcore Mayhem", "MTV Hardcore Madness". The reason I didn't post a db-hoax request is I had in my mind that that is one of the CSD requests that only apply to a new article, but I'm seeing now that that isn't the case, so I'm going to do that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:14, 19 February 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 as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk To J.K.[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence that a show by this name exists on a channel called Kappa 1 or in connection with someone named Jeremy Kyle, or that a Jeremy Kyle has any connection to a channel called Kappa 1. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:57, 19 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlito Ostria[edit]

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

Reason

Delete: Does not satisfy WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY. Not even clear to nominator what this person is purported to do. [email protected] (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No present indication of notability. Polargeo (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost certainly not notable enough for a BLP. A quick search for sources turns up nil. In addition, I removed a bit of unsourced highly negative information about him. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His claim to notability is in the last paragraph - he is President of Touchlife Ministries International in the Philippines. As such, he has a biography on the ministry's website. StAnselm (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough to deserve an article. User234 (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- I find it difficult to judge notability. However his organisation is engaged in 15 different areas of ministry in the Philipines; I would have thought that made Touchlife Ministries International notable, and with that its president. However, I would be happier of the organisation had an article first. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:59, 21 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Gems[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, unreferenced, borderline WP:SPAM, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor. MuffledThud (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per MuffledThud and the fact that it was created by the WP:SPA Blueclown85 as evident from [20]. Smocking (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is spam and I can't find notability. Haakon (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It'd be a good candidate for G11. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, not notable. WWGB (talk) 00:59, 20 February 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 Masters of the Universe. Even the article notes that his role is minimal. Nevertheless he has been mentioned in WP:RS albeit not signifigantly. We can redirect without prejudice until such time as he becomes truly notable. JodyB_talk 14:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clamp Champ[edit]

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

There is a no reliable third person sources and lacks notability Dwanyewest (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having read the article, I'd point out that he was notable as being the only black character introduced to the original series, as well as his notable comic book appearances. Also, he was one of the characters featured in their live action performance Masters Of the Universe' Tour mentioned in two major news sources which I've added to the article. Dream Focus 06:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its's merely a vehicle for a overdetailed plot summary and like many of the other Masters of the Universe characters

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you consider this a plot summary? Have you actually read the article? It introduces the character in the first bit, listing their powers, as is standard for fictional characters of this sort. In the next section, it list what different media he has been in, each paragraph mentioning a different thing: Toy introduction of character complete with mini-comic, Marvel comics appearance, appearances in UK comics, reasons why he wasn't in the cartoon, additional information about the plan to add him in the 2002 relaunch, and a notable show parodies him. The next section mentions he was one of the characters in the live action performance they did in various parts of America. Dream Focus 20:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other characters in the series also nominated: Rio Blast, Scare Glow, Ninjor (Masters of the Universe) Dream Focus 20:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its fails WP:GNG as wikipedia states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- A single, dubiously sourced, sentence at the end is supposed to justify the vast amounts of fancruft preceding it? Dwanyewest is correct; this is just a vehicle for plot summary and other trivia. Reyk _YO! 03:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The character history section is not, IMO "fancruft" and is not pure plot summary, having significant aspects of real world impact. However it does need cited sources. 19:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete non-notable character, No notability outside of the franchise. Ridernyc (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because we do not have to go to the ends of the earth to verify its existence from a notable show and toy franchise. Just look here. As such, per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, no reason has been presented (nor is there one anyway) as to why we not either continue to improve this article or merge the sourced material from it or even redirect it. Its title is plausible as a search term for the millions of people interested in toy and cartoon history and it comes from a multi-million dollar franchise as well. WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:JNN are never acceptable reasons for deletion and certainly not when we have merge and redirect locations and the subject we are discussing is not something someone just made up. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one ever performs the mergers. This junk just sits around forever. Ridernyc (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still no reason why not to at worst redirect. We don't need to protect the public from this material. We delete that which has no serious value to anyone or that is legally damaging (hoax, libel). Toys and television are major industries and in the former with collectors as well. Toys are relevant to many people, both emotionally and financially. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have notability criteria for inclusion in the project. I can confirm tons of stuff that gets deleted by CSD everday. I can confirm almost every band that gets deleted, yet we still delete them. Ridernyc (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't. "Notability" is subjective. And one could make a serious case that something that appears on a television show and as a toy and is familiar to millions of people is obviously notable. There is no objective need to delete here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cartoon ended in '85, this character was created in '86, in other words he never appeared on TV. I also highly doubt that millions would recognize this character. Ridernyc (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot go by doubt, but what we can verify. And we know that the page gets over 1,000 hits a month. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow down to quoting page views, you know as well as I do page views have no place in an AFD conversation. Ridernyc (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why not...as it just further demonstrates that we are discussing something that is verifiable, from a notable franchise, and that is important to other editors and readers, ergo no reason exists for not preserving in some capacity. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing but someone making assumptions. I already showed you you were wrong once. You assume he notable, just like you assumed he was on a cartoon series. Ridernyc (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that he is something we can gold in our hands in the real world. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a sufficient argument. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a not a reason for deletion, either. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also just because something exists doesn't make it notable verfiable proof has to be shown. WP:ITEXISTS Dwanyewest (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being part of a mainstream franchise and being verifiable does make it notable enough for at worst a redirect. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page views? Google hits? A lack of notability trumps that. But knowing who is backing its keeping, it will be kept forever and be of poor quality forever. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , but consider for merging if done properly. Absolutely certainly should be at least a redirect. No matter how one feels on this sort of article, there is no valid reason against a redirect. As for going by count of hits on a page, it really does not matter, because we cover both popular and specialized topics. A page with low counts is still part of an encyclopedic record; a bad page with high counts is all the more urgently a problem that needs to be corrected. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 23 February 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) 04:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown to Destruction[edit]

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

There is a no reliable third person sources and lacks notability Dwanyewest (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Notable enough for being the season finale of an internationally broadcast TV series (see [21]). The huge list of monsters at the bottom was superfluous though and I've deleted it for now. It also badly needs references. Smocking (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a TV Guide Dwanyewest (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is the same user as the nominator. You do not make a second "vote" for deleting the page if you are suggesting it be deleted in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Major season finale, the episode is notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have also discovered that it is included on a DVD where all episodes are included as fan favorites from a poll of some form operated by Disney.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finale of a notable TV series. jgp T C 22:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory Dwanyewest (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are going to keep making comments to add onto reasons why you want the page to be deleted, add it to your initial summary instead of as new comments. And please try to keep your signature on the same line as your comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its fails WP:GNG as wikipedia states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to keep repeating yourself. If you are going to expand your deletion reasoning, don't do it in a new comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if a reliable source that shows that this is a notable episode can be found. Delete if no reliable source that shows that this is a notable episode can be found. Powergate92Talk 04:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How many times have I told you that it's nigh impossible to find reliable sources about individual episodes of children's television shows?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do realise the onus is on a editor to prove what they are saying is true WP:PROVEIT. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.[1] All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.[2] If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you stop randomly quoting policy on us? If you have something to say say it. Don't just copy and paste shit from policy and guideline pages. The article now has two references that show that the episode is notable as it was chosen amongst several others by the fans to be on a special DVD, one of which includes a review (even if it is on the Amazon.com page).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For five years this article has been in need of reliable sources and still suffers from having none. The subject simply lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore fails the general notability guideline. Being a plot-only description that lacks a discussion of the reception and significance of the work is also an example of what Wikipedia is not. - Sarilox (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- References have since been found.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established by substantial coverage. This episode has not been shown to be notable separate from the Power Ranger series as a whole. Racepacket (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the fact that I added two references that source its inclusion in a DVD compilation based on a fan poll put forth by the copyright owner mean nothing?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reference 1 can't be used to show notability as WP:Notability#General notability guideline says ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity" and WP:Notability#Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity says "Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large." So now there's 1 reference you are using to show notability but you need more then 1 or 2 references as WP:Notability#General notability guideline says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" 1 or 2 references are not "significant coverage". Powergate92Talk 16:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's more than one can ever hope to get for a children's television show's episode.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements, i.e. notability has been established by substantial and significant coverage for our purposes. Article clearly meets WP:Notability. Well done! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per lack of anything resembling genuine sources and strongly protest the misleading conduct of the keepmongers here and at other similar AfDs. The "sources" for this article consist of a single paragraph on the Disney site which is so short I might as well quote it in its entirety:
This ultimate collection of favorite Power Rangers adventures as voted on by the fans includes "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: White Light -- Parts 1 & 2," "Power Rangers In Space: Countdown To Destruction Parts 1 & 2," "Power Rangers: Lost Galaxy: To The Tenth Power," "Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue: Trakeena's Revenge -- Parts 1&2," and "Power Rangers Wild Force: Forever Red."

and an Amazon link to buy the DVD. To call this "substantial and significant coverage" is wrong. Completely wrong. Staggeringly, blatantly, totally and irredeemably wrong. These "sources" are supposed to justify this big huge rambling pile of cruft? Give me a break. Reyk _YO! 17:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. Also, keep in mind WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lack of sourcing is a terrific reason for both deletion and for calling a truly abysmal article what it is. Reyk _YO! 17:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Another editor in good standing has demonstrated that sources verify this notable episode. "Cruft" is nonsense non-term that we do not use to justify anything here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not liking how something is written, is not a valid reason for deletion. Most articles start off like that, and some of them improve over time. Dream Focus 21:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The way that WP:GNG is supposed to work is that Wikipedia tracks the degree of specificity of independent media. For example, the last episode of M*A*S*H drew record crowds and much media coverage. The last episode of Power Rangers did not. That tells us that the finale of a kids TV series is not worth a separate article under WP:GNG. In part, this is because such articles are an invitation for original research. How can we properly source the plot summary in this article from secondary sources? Being a "finale" is not a basis for notability. Racepacket (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        How can you possibly be aware of the ratings/viewers for this or any particular episode of Power Rangers or any such television series? Children's television series are never going to get the level of news coverage that sitcoms or dramas or anything else will ever get. The references are sufficient to show that this particular episode is notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable finale of notable show. Finding sources for this seems easy - only took a minute to find a good encyclopedic source. Should be kept for further improvement per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, it is a notable finale of a notable show. Google book search shows four results for "Countdown to Destruction" AND "Power Rangers" [22]. Not sure if any of them count. Most of the news search results were from tv.com. Children shows don't get the media coverage that other shows get, so you aren't going to be able to find news sources talking about it like they do every episode of the Simpsons or Battlestar Galactica. Millions of people watched this show, it therefor notable by rule of common sense. Dream Focus 21:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has shown improvements, and needs continued improvement, but that's no reason to delete. Other users here have proven other sources are out there, which establish WP:N, and I imagine there are even more if you look hard enough. — Hun ter Ka hn 13:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable source to meet WP:V for the episode of a childrens show is the work itself, and if its in DVD there's no problem. The article would improve by being cut to half the length,because the reader with a general interest would be more likely to read it, but that's a different problem. Given the show is important enough, the only question is whether it can be said in combination articles or separately. It would be a matter of style, except fo rthe problem of the overshortening of the sections of combination articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I have a removed a claimed source that does not even mention the subject, and repeat my protest at this kind of bad sourcing. Reyk _YO! 20:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not even sure where you pulled that out, because it seems to cover the subject as a whole.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even that source you just presented still has nothing to do with Countdown to Destruction. It merely discusses Powers not this episode Dwanyewest (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's the same book.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Does the book mention "Countdown to Destruction"? Yes or no? Does it back up the paragraph the citation is attached to? Yes or no? The answer to both questions is no, therefore this is a misuse of sourcing. Surely you cannot be so dense as to misunderstand this. Reyk _YO! 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, you'd be right that it does not mention "Countdown to Destruction" because the book was published before the episode ever aired. However, you could be a bit less of an asshole when conversing with other users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Have I hurt your feelings? Oh dear. Perhaps it's just that I have run out of patience for the dodgy stuff that's been going on here, and feel strongly that it needs to stop. Faking sources doesn't just hoodwink the Wikipedia community, it also deceives our readers- and if that isn't something that warrants a strong response, I don't know what is. Reyk _YO! 00:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Ryulong you are hardly in a position to lecture others on civility [23] Dwanyewest (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not relevant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SENSE. This was a popular children's TV series. This particular episode is singled out as one of the series' "great moments" in this book (p. 193, with preview in amazon). The article gets several thousand hits a month. I don't see who is served by deleting it. --JN 466 00:03, 27 February 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 redirected to List of Power Rangers: Jungle Fury episodes; no real need to waste a week and the community's resources on this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of a Chance (Power Rangers)[edit]

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

There is no reliable third person sources and it lacks notability Dwanyewest (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and not a notable episode. Powergate92Talk 04:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect with/to List of Power Rangers: Jungle Fury episodes. The redirect could be useful, but the content is definitely not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:05, 20 February 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. Black Kite 00:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwildor[edit]

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

There is a no reliable third person sources and lacks notability Dwanyewest (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a major character in a notable film, had his own action figure, and appeared in various comic books. Dream Focus 07:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to out of universe coverage in reliable secondary sources proving this character's notability, such as this magazine that reveals who plays as the character, which character from the show this film character is based on, as well as who designed the character, a description of the character, and the character's relevance to the story, which I have incorporated throughout the article. There appear to be a couple dozen other published books we can use to further improve this article. And as pointed out above, this character is not just in the movie, but also as a toy as well as cover character of a publication. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a comic scan [24] and a handful of books which either list the Billy Barty as portraying Gwildor with a couple lines of information [25][26] and one of the dozens books has nothing to do with the character [27]. The number of google hits a characters is reliable third person evidence to confer evidence. Plus a few lines in a few lines in a book is hardly substantial coverage of the subject to make it notable.Dwanyewest (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That cinefantasitique article looks pretty good. Too bad it isn't accessible online in full. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are sufficient for notability , even for those people who feel that it is not enough to be a major character in a major film. The nomination, apparently without checking, says there are no 3rd party sources. Sources are shown, but the response is that they aren't long enough and that all of many books presented which apparently deal with the subject "have nothing to do with him," With arguments like that, one could delete most of Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 25 February 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 deleted early per WP:SNOW. This is unsalveageble as an article and shouldn't need the full seven day run. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to promote a website[edit]

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

"How-to" articles are in violation of Wikipedia policy. Seduisant (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An obvious WP:NOT#HOWTO, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above. ZooPro 23:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, this is unlikely to become an encyclopedic topic. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wp:NOT#HOWTO. (And just think - the creater actually made it obvious that it's a how-to guide.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:28, 19 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kazoku kai[edit]

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

Contested prod. Contesting editor gave no reason for contesting it. A chain of martial arts schools that fails WP:CORP. 5 gnews returns, only 3 of which were about the chain, 2 of the 3 were mere mentions. Most ghits were from one of the schools or non-reliable sources. General lack of significant coverage by third party sources. Has been tagged as having no sources and as an orphan since 2007. The author stated he was going to expand it and demonstrate notability in 2007 and never edited it again. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recently created art/org. with no indication of notability. Large enough that it might cross the barrier some day but not now. JJL (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found no reliable sources and article's only claim to notability is that it's a "worldwide karate organization." Papaursa (talk) 03:34, 23 February 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) CTJF83 GoUSA 00:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Association of Radio Transmitters[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. most of the 18 gnews hits are passing mentions that merely verify its existence [28]. and no, I highly doubt you will find foreign language coverage of this and no the sources are not available on the internet and only in libraries. those wanting to keep must provide evidence of significant in depth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're really wasting our time and possibly having fun playing the cat-and-mouse game with us. It's really hard to track the individual deletion submissions. Also, this leads to scattering the responses. Please submit them altogether, if you think they should go, don't drop in one by one. PanchoS (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

disagree, a small number are notable. it's easier to show the lack of coverage individually. LibStar (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not. Its a waste of our time. Make a MASS AFD since you are using a cookie-cutter Rational for all of them, and making the same request/argument of asking for Cites in each, to which the same awnser is replied to each, AFD is not cleanup. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~because it brings back memories...~~ Plenty of ghits. I would not expect many gnews hits since that is not an accurate representation of notability. gnews is only a snapshot of history. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please provide actual examples of third party coverage. you can't just say it's notable without evidence. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS should be avoided. LibStar (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the discussion and decision of the parent List's AFD... this article complies with the decision made. Going through the list and putting Each Article up for AFD is a waste of time and effort (as I notice several associations have pop'd up here lately). To delete the stubs would revert the List of amateur radio organizations back to a bunch of external links only, where it was agree'd that stubs were the better of the 2 options. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask that you consider a MASS AFD since you are using the same rational in every case and I am using the same !keep argument in every case. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organization gets mentioned in the news. If it wasn't notable, it wouldn't be mentioned at all. And I agree, since all of these organizations are part of the International Amateur Radio Union group, their AFDs should be combined together. Dream Focus 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Support the use of stubs in this way. Some articles may have sufficient independent notability to stand on their own, some not, but all have inherent notability as national organizations affiliated with a notable international organization, and, while finding local sources specifically covering each particular association may be difficult, it is highly likely that such sources exist in local languages, by virtue of being recognized national associations involved regularly in international and national work, often with governmental recognition, and particularly where association histories extend back up to eighty years. The need for stubs for good article presentation is sufficient to outweigh minor notability concerns. --Abd (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it now has references. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I truly believe this organisation is notable. They have a long and varied history and they contribute meaningfully in their field. ManicSpider (talk) 22:27, 23 February 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. Participants seem strongly divided over whether this episode has received sufficient coverage to demonstrate its notability independent of the series as a whole. It really seems that the notability of this is somewhere on the borderline, and reasonable editors do differ over which side it falls on, particularly in the context of "Wikipedia is not a TV guide". As per normal practice we default to keeping the content - I would emphasise that I find DGG's comments about a well-executed merge to be cogent and are well worth considering here, but there's no consensus to enforce such a merge in this discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 13:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once a Ranger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are no reliable sources to assert notability WP:GNG and fails on the grounds WP:SOURCES the onus is on the author to prove what they are saying is true WP:PROVEIT. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as nominator hasn't given a valid argument for deletion. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a TV Guide. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article are all third party. One is to a Japanese publication (the name of which has not been preserved through the history) and the others are to TV Guide. In addition, it is notable in that it is the fifteenth anniversary episode.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple third-party sources. jgp T C 22:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory Dwanyewest (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are going to keep making comments to add onto reasons why you want the page to be deleted, add it to your initial summary instead of as new comments. And please try to keep your signature on the same line as your comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Very important episode in history of Power Rangers, with multiple sources, and is noteworthy Rick lay95 (talk)rick_lay95
I don't think the links used on this article count as good evidence to assert notability. It fails WP:GNG as wikipedia states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You said that already. And none of the mentions are trivial and WP:OR is not an issue on this page; everything is either directly from the episodes' airing or a translation of the Japanese text.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is what passes for sourcing these days? Two one-line passing mentions in a TV-guide and a photograph of a sticker, all of which "source" just one paragraph in this gigantic quagmire of cruft? Not a chance. Reyk _YO! 17:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a photograph of a book that I have found the title for. It is being used as a supplement to the mention of the subject in a book.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, which is the default once a WP:ITSCRUFT non-argument shows up in any discussion. Otherwise following WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE, no reason has been presented nor exists as to why even at worst we would not redirect with edit history intact. Ideally, the article would be improved further, but we are here to aid our readership and it is clear that some of our readers may indeed come here typing this phrase as a search term and as such they should at least be taken to a list of episodes or something. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources provided are weak and do not establish independent notability of the episode itself. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive episodes. As a plot only description that does not discuss the reception and significance of the episode it violates what Wikipedia is not. The article contains 3 "sources": two of which are to a one sentence plot summary at TV Guide, and the last is to a book written in Japanese that appears to have been published before this episode even aired, so I find it hard to believe that it really has anything to say about this episode. All in all the sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability guidelines, nor can I find the significant coverage needed to establish this episode as notable enough to deserve its own article. Sarilox (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The book discusses certain aspects about the episode by saying that a specific character will appear (the text describes that the antagonist for this anniversary episode is the offspring of two previous major antagonists). Just because it happens to have been published before the episode aired does not mean anything. The Japanese media that covers this and similar television programs will often publish content before it makes it onto the airwaves. The fact is this episode is the fifteenth anniversary special. That makes it notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is determined via the GNG not by primary sources. A book being published before an episode airs is relevant. Assuming that you're right and the book does mention Thrax's parentage from two previous antagonists, based on the scan of the book that was in the article, I don't see much discussion there that would go beyond that fact. It just doesn't look like significant coverage, not of the character, nor of the episode which is what this whole discussion is about. And based on your comments below and on my talk page, I don't see anyone here suggesting that an article about an episode can't have a plot summary. What an episode article can't have is only a plot summary as that violates what Wikipedia is not. I see that you've added 3 more sources to the article — it's nice to see that you're actually trying to find sources and working on the article rather than !voting keep, saying it's notable, and moving on — however those 3 sources are all fan sites. Even if the one source with the ratings could be traced to a reliable source, it's just ratings, it's equivalent to a trivial mention rather than being any kind of detailed discussion. I don't see a problem with including ratings in articles which already have their notability established, but in and of themselves they do not establish the notability of an episode. Sarilox (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Reyk and Sarilox. Powergate92Talk 21:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see this thrown out a lot in this AFD and others but other than plot summary, what are articles on individual episodes supposed to have? It seems to be against the purpose of having an article on an individual episode if it has no plot summary but content concerning everything else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO to justify a separate article, the episode has to be noteworthy itself for some reason, apart from the show it comes from, and have some sort of citation to a reliable source to show that. e.g. the finale of Seinfeld, Dallas' "Who Shot JR?", The X-Files penned by William Gibson, etc... Tarc (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't several of its statements concerning that it is the 15th anniversary episode not suffice for that?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge--properly The two should be equivalent in terms of content. At present , keep is a better option because it is the only way to keep the material from gradually disappearing into the one sentence summaries in a merged article --and those are the ones that really violate NOT TV GUIDE. As for WP:V, the plot can be sourced by the work itself--in fact it usually should be, because its both the logical source and the most accurate. There is no general agreement that secondary sources or anything beyond plot are needed for an article which describes part of a complex work. -- WP:NOT PLOT only has agreement to the extent it refers to the work as a whole. But in any case that is not relevant here, for there is substantial non-plot content. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fifteenth anniversary of a notable show, which had some of the original Power Rangers back again, fighting two of the original villains, and was the highest rated show for children in the target age group. Sounds notable to me. Dream Focus 05:17, 26 February 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 Pokémon. —SpacemanSpiff 23:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon directory[edit]

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

WP:DIRECTORY. This information has to be available elsewhere, and all it is is a listing of Pokemon characters and their "hit points", "attack" points, and a number of other attributes. I would support userfication so the editor can put it on a non-wikipedia page, but this is exactly the kind of statistical, directory driven page that's not an encyclopedia article. Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. A page that lists all officially confirmed species of Pokémon (including Zorua and Zoroark) already exists at List of Pokémon. And because Wikipedia is not a game guide or strategy guide, it would be inappropriate to merge most of the contents of the Pokemon Directory page into the List of Pokémon page. But a redirect to List of Pokémon would be okay with me since "pokemon directory" does appear to be a plausible search phrase. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC) (Last edited at 22:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
[Keep] This is not a strategy guide to being a Pokémon trainer or a game guide of the Pokémon games. This is a complete list English article that possesses all the 493 Pokémon recognized by the North American Pokémon site. This page was made in the name of giving people a quick overview of each of the Pokémon and their physical attributes all in one chart. I have looked over the List of Pokemon you mentioned to much of my care and just think the list is very disorganized and superficial in nature. It is a list of Pokémon ordered by 4 different Pokédex numbers(obsolete ones included). It is a very inefficient article in itself with space and information barely scratching the basic formula for each Pokémoon and how it stacks against the rest. The list of Pokemon also uses the Japanese names of each Pokemon to much of its appeal which really doesn't mean much to the community of those interested in simply understanding pokemon as a collective of different species. I will be updating this chart with body type, weight(might replace mass), and evolves from/into quite soon. It is very inefficient to spread almost 500 species of Pokémon across several pages of wikipedia and even less organized to split into group of different amounts that do not pertain to each other.If this page is to be deleted, I will make sure that there is a few more discernments that make this article more interesting to a community of Pokémon fanatics. Its not easy to find a Pokédex Online that holds all the Pokémon in one chart with one row per Pokémon with each interesting trait that can be contrasted across all others. I recommend someone make a key for this chart because of my lack of wiki experience and change certain symbols. Even renaming this page as Pokedex could be in better taste. This is hardly to be merged with "list of Pokemon" for it is not a translator of Pokédexes or languages. This is in itself a directory that scratches the surface of each Pokémon. ---Donovan3995 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donovan3995 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't put too much work into it. It is going to be deleted. Unless you want it moved to User:Donovan3995/Pokemon Directory. Learn policies and how things work before making an article. You will not beat the system. Wikipedia is very strict. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don’t be an ass, and don’t bite the newbies. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't being an ass or biting. I was just saying I wouldn't put too much work into it for it only to be deleted, unless he wanted it moved, and also pointed out that it would be unwise to try and fight for the article as he wouldn't win. Maybe I could have worded it better. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Donovan, I want to let you know that I am sorry for the harsh reception you are receiving. I believe you are editing in good faith, and I would hate for you to be discouraged or driven off by the unfortunate events of your first day. However, as Shadowjams points out, if not too clearly: Wikipedia is not a directory. And, you say you want to “giv[e] people a quick overview of[...] each Pokém[o]n and how it stacks against the rest.”, but the problem is that the method you use to do this is derived from in-game numerical statistics – thus these factors, including power, speed, stamina, and even size, are gameguide info, particularly because they are not consistent throughout other Pokémon media. Wikipedia policy on fictional characters is to give brief summaries of in-world history and then focus on the meta aspects, i.e., real world stuff, and some in-world stuff that crosses multiple media,( e.g., all generations of games; games and anime; games and TCG). The existing List of Pokémon provides a listing of trademarked names, and uses evolution chains and various numbering systems show how the Pokémon are consistently related to each other across all media, as well as how their introductions, presence, and prominence have fluctuated throughout the history of the gaming and meta franchise
  Again, Bulbapedia probably has the kind of comparison info you are looking for, and if it doesn’t would probably be a more appropriate and more receptive place( provided you read and follow their guidelines, since they are mostly teenagers and can get extremely bitchy if you don’t).
  Speaking of which, you really should acquaint yourself with Wikipedia’s policies and Manual of Style, as well as those of the Pokémon WikiProject. Doing so will greatly reduce the chances that you will have a repeat of this experience, doing massive work and having it removed or nominated for deletion. Particularly: Spell Pokémon correctly using an e with an acute accent, especially in articles if not on talk pages, don’t capitalize secondary words like “directory”, and sign talk page commens with four tildes( ~~~~) to generate a sig and timestamp, instead of just manually typing your username. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is pure gameguide info. Either move to User:Donovan3995/Pokemon Directory or redirect to List of Pokémon _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ See below will support redirect first i do want to recongnize the large amount of work that was put in here. That in itself is a tribute to the editor, however; That is not a reason to save the article. The fundamental issue is it reads as a strategy guide and directory. And that is unfortunately not what WP is about. The other information contained in List of Pokémon i think is fine and no merge is necessary. I am sorry to say that I have to lean towards deletion in my opinion. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pokémon. The information there is encyclopedic, and "pokemon directory" is a plausible search term. This would also keep the history of the article, in case the author would like to move it to another wiki – perhaps Bulbapedia. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect if feasible. It is a likely search term, so it would make a good redirect to List of Pokémon. History should be preserved for transwikiing, but this does go into gameguide territory and cannot be kept in its current format. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of re-direction as well and would support that. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A note on that. If it's going to be useful as a redirect, it should be renamed so the accented e becomes a typeable e, because right now if you type "Pok" into the search box, this article doesn't even come up on the viewable list. And that's assuming they type "Pok" slowly enough for it to come up before they've type the "e", which excludes the possibility of them finding this in the search box. Shadowjams (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pokemon Directory is already an autogenerated redirect to Pokémon directory from the move. Per double-redirect fixing, they would both be redirected to List of Pokémon if redirection is the consensus reached in this discussion. What’s more, typing “Poke” into the search box does yield results that begin with “Poké”. I suspect that the reason they don’t appear in the search box is because they are both too new and not heavily used or linked to. I am sure when the search box list updates both will start to appear when “pokemon di” is typed.--WikidSmaht (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not exactly when "Pokemon di" is typed, because of Pokemon Diamond and Pearl. "Pokemon dir" shows up with nothing at the moment though. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This level of detail belongs on the Pokemon wiki. --John Nagle (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pokémon. I suppose this is somewhat a plausible search term. Otherwise, it is clearly WP:GAMEGUIDE information. –MuZemike 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:17, 23 February 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) 04:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Unconfined Vapour Cloud Explosions[edit]

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

Article was prodded by Blanchardb (talk · contribs) but the article creator, Michael Nettleton (talk · contribs), left a note on the talk page, indicating that deletion is not uncontroversial. Original prod rationale was "Reads like a research paper"

For my part, I agree with the nomination and rationale for deletion. Additionally, the original author's talk page comment tells me that this is all WP:OR; therefore, my position is delete. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hopefully the original author is following this AfD, in which case, I recommend they actually do go and read the Wikipedia guidelines regarding "Original Research". It's not that the entry is worthless information, it's just not appropriate as an encyclopedia article. -Quartermaster (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the article actually was about "Unconfined Vapour Cloud Explosions" and explained what they are in a concise, encyclopedic manner, I would have less of a problem. As it stands, it's a review of the research ABOUT the topic that appears to me more of a listing of all sorts of research around the topic. Using the sources cited to buttress an encyclopedic article could work. Otherwise, simply jumping all over and citing the research from the citations, that is original research. The topic itself doesn't seem to ever be defined or directly addressed. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. The creator's talk page comment makes his contribution a secondary source, meaning that it could be used as a basis for an article on Wikipedia as long as it is published outside Wikipedia first, then deemed reliable and authoritative. But it cannot be published in Wikipedia as is, given that it is not a tertiary source about the topic. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge I'm no expert and it's hard to read, but it looks like he's talking about BLEVE. Perhaps some of the information and references here could be merged into that page on the condition that it is rewritten and properly formatted. Smocking (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we were to merge, BLEVE and Thermobaric weapon might be good targets - Thermobaric weapon is where Vapor cloud explosion redirects. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Smocking and Ultraexactzz. Bad original research can still be a place to find and add references or a bibliography. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 27 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chalkboyz[edit]

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

PROD was removed by creator of article; shows barely any notability with local news articles; unsigned artists to any major labels Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 00:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nominator. University/College papers are generally not considered good enough for primary sources of notability, and IMO, nor does a mention on a "social network site for unsigned bands". So that amounts to one article in a local newspaper, which does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Maybe in a few months/years. Addionne (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability, completely failing WP:MUSIC; the prod should not have been removed but the person probably didn't know any better. :-/ JBsupreme (talk) 06:27, 21 February 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 merge to Wikipedia. Consensus (or at least the solution probably most acceptable to most people) is that this is not yet a fit subject for a full article, but may be covered with a sentence or two in Wikipedia and/or any appropriate subarticles. Sandstein 06:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Reference Desk[edit]

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

Non-notable article, and navel-gazing. The fact that the reference desk attracted a single study doesn't make it notable. If this were part of any other website, would we have an article about it? Note that things like Wikipedia requests for adminship and Wikipedia administrator's noticeboard don't have articles, and Wikipedia Arbitration Committee was redirected. The closest comparison for this article is probably Yahoo! Answers, and that article has far more references for third-party coverage than this does. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One single study in a not-particularly-prominent journal, no particular coverage in secondary sources. Not notable outside of our own particular world, though I do feel my belly-button is worthy of extra study. Let's get this over with quickly and go back to being excellent at what we do. I'm not looking forward to having to insert the obvious major bloopers that happen on the RD's to complete the record. This should be enclosed in a WP:SNOWball. Franamax (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I look forward to the day that we are well known and notable, but that is not today. Dragons flight (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What they said. --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While it is only one source, it is a dedicated academic study on the subject. That's as good a source as you can get. Wikipedia:Notability doesn't require multiple sources. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I'd say a review article in a respected journal would be a much better source, since it would represent a peer-reviewed summary of a current state of knowledge. This is one primary source, which policy links I shall not put. Franamax (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't a primary source. The author has nothing to do with the Ref Desk, as far as I know. Papers are primary sources about the research discussed in them. They are secondary sources about the subjects of that research. --Tango (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Web, and also raises WP:Self concerns. Not to beat down upon ourselves, we have a single research article, which has received no secondary media/scholarly attention yet, and was not published in a highly prestigious journal; the "subject" hasn't won any awards; is a pretty low-traffic website (<5000 hits/day); and hasn't received any significant coverage in any other secondary sources that I am aware of. At this point we would simply have an article summaary of the JoD paper, which we would not even consider barring our obvious conflict of interest. Abecedare (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has now occurred to me that we already have an article about this topic, improbably entitled Wikipedia. Would the better solution be to simply merge this marginally notable information into the primary article? Franamax (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: that is exactly what I was thinking as I clicked over to this discussion. —Akrabbim^talk 01:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree. The source is sufficient to add say a 1 sentence mention of refdesks at Wikipedia, and a 2-3 sentence summary of their reliability at Reliability of Wikipedia and Academic studies about Wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or weak ~~keep~~ delete. Believe it or not, there are books about Wikipedia these days, and the Ref Desk, is covered in one of them [29] at sufficient length for a stub. Also covered in a self-pub book from lulu.com [30]. A merge seems preferable though. Pcap ping 01:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone have a copy of The Wikipedia Revolution? That is probably the most notable "book on Wikipedia". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but I searched in it on Amazon. No mention of "reference desk" in it. Pcap ping 03:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the links you gave, the lulu-published one appears to say little more than an about.com article I removed from the external links list--essentially just "here's how to use the RD". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had a closer look at the O'Reilly book. It's mostly a couple of screenshots, and sample questions one could ask. Not much useful coverage. A couple of sentences at English Wikipedia seem appropriate though. Pcap ping 03:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And all hail John Broughton for donating the book to us, watching over its evolution, and maintaining the other vast wiki-bible too. Not especially relevant to this AFD discussion but I find it a seriously cool thing to go about doing. Franamax (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: needs more references. Alexius08 (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The author can be contacted. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: (Or at least Give it time to develop) My first reaction was to !vote "delete" but having read the paper that is referenced in the article, it appears that it is mostly summarizing the results from several other comparative studies of "question answering services" that have been carried out by the library science folks - at least a couple of which appear to have studied the Wikipedia Ref Desk. The trouble is that those documents are "pay-to-view" so it's tough to find out what they actually say - and that's probably why we don't have more references than we do. We need to find people who have access to those documents and give them time to assess their value as references. However, my feeling is that there is enough notability here. I was also nervous about the WP:SELF issues - but having re-read that guideline, I find nothing there that says that we cannot write about Wikipedia itself - only that we may not gratuitously refer to ourselves in unrelated articles. We have articles on similar subjects (Knowledge Search, for example) with no referencing whatever - and articles such as Hunch (website) have references that are mostly links to announcements of the site and self-references from the site itself. What we have here is an actual, authoritative academic paper - published by library reference desk professionals. That's a strong reference and a strong claim for notability. The reason I have a "Weak" keep is that I'm concerned about WP:COI and WP:OR issues if Wikipedia ref desk contributors (such as myself) were to work on that article. Hence I'm not going near it personally. But I do recommend that people re-check (as I did) the WP:SELF guidelines and then I suggest we forget that this is an article ABOUT Wikipedia and treat it like any other article about a web service that answers questions from the general public. SteveBaker (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Based on one or two primary publications in highly-specialized venues, adding more than a paragraph or so about the Ref Desks to the encyclopedia will push us over the boundary from information to self-congratulation. There just isn't enough material to justify a full, free-standing article, and we don't generally keep articles about websites which have a few hundred visitors per day. Redirect this article to Wikipedia. Mention these (and other sources, as appropriate) there, in Academic studies about Wikipedia, and/or Reliability of Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (weak). I created the article and am now a bit uncomfortable about it. On the one hand, the number of 3rd party articles specifically about the Refdesk is low enough that we could mention the notable material at a hypothetical new Refdesk section of the English Wikipedia article (if it'll be allowed) until the section is too large and awkward, at which point a standalone article gets created, as usual. On the other hand, there are many articles about less notable subjects that have survived AfD. (I know, someone wrote an essay saying that's not a legitimate justification, but consistency has some value.) I think some of my own discomfort and, obviously, some of the above discomfort is about the navel-gazing and the idea that this should force a higher standard of notability. I think I agree with SteveBaker that this shouldn't be the case. Currently I'd say I'm 49-51 between "keep" and "merge". Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main WP article, though I'm not sure if "merge" is really the word for sticking two sentences into that rather lengthy article. "Wikipedia also maintains a reference desk, where volunteers answer questions from the general public and provide references if available. According to a study by Pnina Shachaf in the Journal of Documentation, the quality of the Wikipedia reference desk is comparable to a standard library reference desk, with an accuracy of 55%." Matt Deres (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SELF. Gosox(55)(55) 01:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC), Weak delete or perhaps weaker merge to Wikipedia. Rereading the guideline, an article about wikipedia appears to be fine. My issue is now notability. The reference desk at a library would not normally be notable, why should Wikipeida's? It is also not notable per WP:WEB. Gosox(55)(55) 02:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in various appropriate articles per Abecedare (02:02, 18 February) and Matt Deres (21:00, 21 February). — Sebastian 00:57, 24 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbed's fifth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Disturbed's fifth studio album

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

Not enough information about the album, no tracks, no title. The band just entered the studio. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 12:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No tracklisting, no release date and no references that explicitily refer to it brings only one conclusion: bring on the hammer!!!. 194.176.105.56 (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ That was me, by the way. (I didn't notice that WP had logged me out.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 February 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. — The Earwig @ 17:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joel William Gonzales[edit]

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

Not notable. This entry has been deleted and salted multiple times under several titles. It has been deleted through AFD at least twice before. The previous AFD noms are here and here. This is a persistently recreated entry by what seems to be a paid editor. Nominated for G4, but G4 denied on the grounds of having reliable sources; the sources may be reliable but they fail to establish notability. Hairhorn (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:EZW/Joel W. Gonzales which goes into greater detail about the history of this entry. Hairhorn (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one of his roles is in a somewhat notable productions (Bionic Woman) and IMDB suggests that he was only an extra there ("Kid in Classroom"). In the only production where he has a lead role he is also the only character. The account that created the article looks like a WP:SPA (see [31]). Smocking (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, and salt again. Promotional page for a minor actor with a handful of bit parts who does not come close to meeting WP:ENT; the sources provided similarly do not come close to showing notability, as even a glance at them shows. Glenfarclas (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, under G7. The author has requested deletion in good faith over IRC, and they were the only major contributor. Blurpeace 17:08, 19 February 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) 04:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UShareSoft[edit]

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

Promotional article for a small company with no particular relevance. Google hits are boosted by the automatic relay of an announcement by Sun Microsystems when the company was created. Also noteworthy : the author places promotional links in other articles (see "what links here") and deleted the firt AfD. Oyp (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Catherinenuel seems to be a WP:SPA (contrib log: [32]), possibly an employee or SEO professional. All edits are to the UShareSoft article or add links to it. The article is clearly WP:SPAM. Smocking (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed an SPA, and the account name matches the name of the company's "marketing coordinator". By the way, they did the same thing on fr: (same account, SPA as well), where the article is being deleted too. Oyp (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your thoughts this is a promotional article. It remains completely factual on what the company is, where it is located and which products they are working on. Whether the company is small or large is not an issue, nothing is stipulated in the wikipedia guidelines regarding this matter.

There are thousands of such articles on companies (large and small) in their industry sector.

The promotional links elsewhere you are mentioning seems to be core to their business activity...so someone who is interested in Software Appliances can also read on relevant companies that are in that business vertical. Again, many other companies do the same here.

From their website, in terms of relevance, they seems to have large industry actors partnering with them.

Topy w (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC) topy_w[reply]

Second SPA: your only contributions (2 of them so far) are on this page. Oyp (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, It seems that wikipedia is being used to "advertise" companies in general, even though the articles have been written in an informative way. Should the following articles also be marked for deletion :

rPath bitnami VMware

for example ?

If not, then I do not understand the difference. Kind Regards Jgweir (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC) jgweir[reply]

One more SPA (sockpuppets ?). Oyp (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets reported, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Catherinenuel Smocking (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, I have just joined wikipedia, please don't start accusing everyone as an SPA because this is my first article. People write articles when they are knowledgeable in a certain area - I am considered an expert in Virtualization and Cloud Computing and hence why I am contributing to this article.

Again, I do not understand why there are rules for some articles and not for others. I would like to have a debate on whether the information provided in this article is factual and not purely for publicity. I see thousands (yes thousands) of such articles on companies - usually started by a person within the company. I can name hundreds of such articles. I would like to understand how we could shape the article to be purely factual. Which parts of the article you think should removed. If you believe the entire article should be removed then please start doing the same for other companies...as this is scandalous.

In my previous post I mentioned some other companies that have similar articles - should these be marked for deletion too...or can you please highlight where I am not adhering to the guidelines.

UShareSoft has many neutral 3rd party people discussing and writing about the company -- including IDC; so to the question on the company's relevance...i find it insulting.

Kind Regards James

Jgweir (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC) jweir[reply]

The first thing to do is read the notability criteria for companies. In fact, it should be enough. Oyp (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The argument above, that other articles exist isn't a reason to keep an article. Smartse (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're an "expert in Virtualization and Cloud Computing", and also the CTO & Co-founder of the company in question. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your company. I wish you and your company well, but just know that this is an encyclopedia, not a place to get free publicity. -- Atama頭 23:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this link....

Here are some independent articles from some journalists. This is discussing one subject matter, the companies public launch of their two main products.

ZDNET from Dana Gardner Cloud Computing Journal (by Maureen OGara) She only has 23 million people that have read her blog. ITChannel Info Yahoo Finance Progilibre

Reading the article you provided states: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable."

The word significant is obviously important. This company was created in 2008 (so a Startup), so for sure you could argue that their exposure is not as significant as some other companies. My question is where do you draw the line ?

From their own press release (see here: Press Release of Public Launch) they have had some impressive quotes from current customers including France Telecom and Talend; not to mention IDC.

At this moment in time I am not sure. We could delete the article, only to realize they are relevant in 3 months time.

Thoughts ???

Jgweir (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC) jgweir[reply]

My vote is to delete the article (for the time being). Regards James

Jgweir (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC) jgweir[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations may also be helpful in writing about an organization. Smocking (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence to demonstrate that this company meets the requirements of WP:CORP regarding notability. A google new search doesn't find anything. Jgweir, "We could delete the article, only to realize they are relevant in 3 months time." please see WP:CRYSTAL if the company becomes notable then we can have the article, until then, we should not. Smartse (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I appreciate the effort that James has gone through to find sources, blogs and press releases are not considered reliable sources. The ZDnet blog is the only one that I would give any real weight to, but even that coverage is close to trivial. I just don't believe that the article subject meets our standards. -- Atama頭 23:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Atama, including role of socks and/or COI here. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with WP:SNOW per nom. -- samj _in ^out 03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN per non and per our requirements for significant coverage in notable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:50, 25 February 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 merge to London Irish. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digger (mascot)[edit]

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

Poorly written and not particually notible The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to London Irish. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with London Irish. "Poorly written" is not a reason for deletion. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:03, 19 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Shelf Life (ESL)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contested PROD. Smappy (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonstandard name (should be "Extended Shelf Life" or "Extended shelf life") and there is no content...well really at all. No prejudice against writing an actual stub or better article at an appropriate title, but this ain't it. It doesn't even define the term (less than a dictdef) enough say/describe what it actually is, just declares its genre, and it doesn't assert notability or distinction/specificity in its genre enough to be able to determine that. I'd say merge/redirect to pasteurization, since that's the topic, but the redirect would be WP:CSD#R3 due to naming problem. Best to scrap and restart when someone feels like actually writing some content. The topic is mentioned in pasteurization, but there's not enough content to warrant a separate page right now "just for the sake of having a page about it in case someone wants to write something" as I understand the creator's stated concern. DMacks (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: failed to describe what ESL is, besides being a pasteurization process. Alexius08 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real context to describe what the process really is, why it's notable, what person's/companies may use this process... A lot of content could be here, but nothing that isn't mentioned elsewhere. In addition to the Pasteurization article, (mentioned above) content can be found under High pressure food preservation and Microfiltration. -^Avicenna_sis @ 07:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a complete lack of any useful content -- Whpq (talk) 21:43, 22 February 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 Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Team[edit]

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

Notability. Google search [33] didn't find (I quote policy) "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Most of the sources found are blogs, personal websites, or bookstores. Also, the first paragraph is a copyvio of the link right above it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, fails all 5 criteria in WP:Notability (books). TJRC (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my !vote based on Whpq's finds, below. I'm now Neutral. TJRC (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability requirements for books. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've restored an earlier version of the main body text to remove the copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book spent 3 months on the children's bestseller list according to the NY Times. CBS News has covered it. It has been reviwed by the School Library Journal, and also here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Whpq. Article definitely needs work, but the NY Times piece alone has plenty of material to grow the article beyond the plot outline it is now, making it pass the first criterion of WP:BK. Smocking (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the issues concerning notability are addressed within the article, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - AFD is not article cleanup. If the subject is deemed to be notable, the condition of the article is not relevant. As with any article, you have the power to boldly fix what you feel is deficient. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note - It is now cleaned up. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I realize AFD is not article cleanup, but if the notability issues weren't addressed, the article would not indicate its subject was notable...this means the logical way for my notability concerns to be addressed are by fixing the article during AFD. Anyway, now that it indicates notibility (thank you for fixing it, btw :-) ), you can consider my nomination withdrawn. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:32, 19 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Bobby B[edit]

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

Delete, not seeing the notability here. Did a search on Google News Archive and noticed a small handful of passing mentions, but nothing that would rise up to WP:MUSIC. JBsupreme (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 February 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. (X! · talk) · @974 · 22:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogging in Burma[edit]

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

This is almost irredeemable, WP:OR, WP:EL (which I deleted before nomination), tone, grammar, style, cohesion, spelling, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article is in a bad state and maintained by an account that almost exclusively edits this article. There was a BBC press release copy-pasted onto this article as well which I've just removed. If this were any other article I'd say delete, but Burma is basically a military dictatorship plagued by rampant censorship and although I can't really think of any WP policy on it, it just feels wrong to nuke whatever precious little free speech these people have. Searching for the exact phrase "Myanmar Blogger Society" with quotes you get over 60000 hits [34], so they also look notable enough at first glance. Smocking (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. I acknowledge the scarcity of sources, especially Burmese ones, but I'm also concerned about this article being a WP:PRIMARY historical research source or possibly activism. I'd like to see some secondary sources used, as opposed to just links to the blogs themselves (WP:NOTDIR). I'll revisit this if the article improves. Pcap ping 02:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am undecided whether to Keep or smerge to Internet in Burma. Blogging in Burma has received a lot of press coverage. I wonder if the nominator looked for sources. The best way to fix an article on a notable topic is to improve it using sources, not to delete it. Examples of coverage, much but not all of it from the 2007 crisis:[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] Fences&Windows 00:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Fences and windows. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:19, 26 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Team Pimang[edit]

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

Contested prod. Again, I'm not sure this is a notable team. Searches are not finding much but it could be a systemic bias issue. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - no indication of notability (WP:CSD#A7). The Korean Baduk League that this team is a part of has previously been speedily deleted with the same justification. see [49] Joshua Scott (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per CSD-A7. As above, no assertion of notability. --DAJF (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:45, 25 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rusli Noor[edit]

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

This Biography of a living person doesn't have any references yet, and if the references aren't there it will very likely be deleted. Minima c (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it would be good to have entries for the various secretaries general of ASEAN, which is kind of an important organization. The only good reference I can find is http://www.aseansec.org/12065.htm, which is from the ASEAN website, but doesn't have much information. 219.108.35.74 (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Secretary-general of ASEAN is indeed notable. Needs sources of course, which should be easy to find. We do not delete even BLPs for being unsourced, just unsourceable. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. ASEAN is a very important International organzation, and its website is a reliable source. Noor was also an ambassador as well to the European Union. In any case, this is sourceable and can be found easily. This nomination reeks of WP:ALLBROWNPEOPLEARETHESAME. Bearian (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 23:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One liner BLP's are common in the Indonesian project and although most Afd inhabitants believe in 'universal' Afd principals that ignore country specific issues - this stub is expandable despite the originators apprehensions. Also the position is notable as well as the person. Satu Suro 23:32, 21 February 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 Merged to ED comics by Jarment which was subsequently Speedy Deleted per A7 by NawlinWiki. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Arment[edit]

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

Non-notable webcomic creator. Judging by the user name of the creator and primary editor—User:Jarment—it well could be an autobiographical conflict of interest situation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - complete lack of notability and sources and seems to be COI and autobiographical issues too (user has also repeatedly removed clean-up headers I've added, without addressing concerns, which is problematic given the context). Comics appear to be self-published and haven't received any attention I can find. (Emperor (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on article being merged. Creator appears to have merged Justin Arment with ED comics, which had earlier been speedily deleted as a non-notable webcomic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion can be closed. ED comics has now been speedily deleted for the second time. The nominated article now exists only as a redirect to a non-existent article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:28, 20 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt Russo[edit]

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

Borderline notability bio / attack / which was created by an SPA and declined speedy by another potential SPA with a few extra edits (including other speedy declines). I have done some work to clean up and reference, but this seems to be a magnet for vandalism and -BLP comments by multiple IPs, as well as by the original author [50] 7 07:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't know how wikipedia works as far as editing and code but I know these links ought to help with establishing notability:

http://adventure.wrecked.org/?filename=homeless-jesus&redirected=wreckedfortheordinary.com http://www.enochmagazine.com/articles/general/brandt-russo-interview-pt-1 http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/blog/breaking-news/what-does-brandt-russo-have-in-common-with-todd-bentley/ http://www.nhne.org/news/NewsArticlesArchive/tabid/400/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5739/language/en-US/Brandt-Russo-Trying-To-Live-Like-Jesus.aspx too bad I don't know how to list them as sources, edit the article, or insert citations for any of them. I think, though, that if you're only talking about deleting the article because notability hasn't been established, then I've given you enough here to prove that Brandt Russo is in fact notable98.199.105.39 (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i was trying to accommodate all of the rules and didn't think what i was typing was incorrect. i even used the word allegedly. anyway, i don't feel that any of my information is incorrect. in fact, everything was referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.44.135 (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without better sourcing for notability. The only thing that loks like a claim to notability ("he was well-known in Christian circles for his ministry among the homeless in various cities") is sourced to his own web page. Hairhorn (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, the links provided above are not reliable sources. Woogee (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources appear to be mere news items or self-published. Essentially a one-man protest movement, operating by seeking notoriety, but that is only what I judge by reading the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but NB: there is minor news coverage; we've deleted people more notable and kept articles of bios of people less notable. I side on the WP:NOT#NEWS of the divide, but I would imagine there would be inclusionists that could construct a sourced Frankenstein of an article from existing sources. THF (talk) 14:51, 24 February 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 keep Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Turnbull (curling)[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ray Turnbull is the John Madden of Curling. The article should be undeleted. WaxonWaxov (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Surely being part of the team that won silver at the 1965 World Curling Championships means that someone would pass Wp:ATHLETE - and more specifically Criterion 2: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." We can't use the Olympic Games one, has curling wasn't an official event until Nagano, but he was at the World Championships. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He easily qualifies as an athlete and as a broadcaster. In addition to his second place at the World Championship, he won the Brier, which is a very big deal in curling circles. (As the article states, "The Brier is regarded by most curlers as the world's premier curling championship.") And there are plenty of media articles about him as a sports broadcaster.[51][52][53] Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major AFD fail. Very well known curling broadcaster in Canada, and former Brier champion to boot. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend, this appears to be a highly notable broadcaster. JBsupreme (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brier winning curler and national broadcaster. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:14, 20 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Champion X-men[edit]

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

I strongly recommend deletion per WP:NOHOAXES. While this hoax is not blatant enough to qualify for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G3, several editors have already identified it as a probable hoax. The article asserts its subject's lack of notability, stating that "little is known" about it. The article's author credits himself with creating File:Xmenchampion.JPG, supposedly the logo for the show. He has also added uncited information about this series in other articles, such as X-Men in other media. In summary – at best, this is WP:MADEUP; at worst, it's a hoax. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious hoax, logo looks it was created in MS Paint, I think Marvel Animation can probably manage better than that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- hoax. Reyk _YO! 11:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. I can find no sources indicating the existence of such a series. Surely a currently running television series would at least show up in a channel listing somewhere? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed: hoax. Though the MS Paint logo was good for a chuckle. Jrh7925 (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V in that searches on Google, including with alternating spelling turn up no results. I am therefore inclined to agree with my colleagues that this article is likely a WP:HOAX. As such, in this particularly case I am okay with redlinking as there does not appear to be a valid alternate thing in existence known as "Champion X-men" to rewrite as, nor would we redirect a hoax to somewhere. The only thing I could really fix here was to italicize the title; however, another confusing aspect of this article is that it actually cites two different names for the show: X-Men: Champion and Champion X-men. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax.Edward321 (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. It always seems unreasonable to me that we have to let such articles as this remain for a week. It is not a sufficiently blatant hoax to qualify for speedy deletion under G3, but, as A Stop at Willoughby points out in the nomination, the article asserts its subject's lack of notability. It always seems to me that we ought to be able to speedily delete any article which does this, and I made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles which assert non-notability to that effect. So far the proposal has had no response, either positive or negative. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 25 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Ant's Life[edit]

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

A contested WP:PROD. This article fails all the criteria at WP:NF. It has a page at Rotten Tomatoes, but apparently there are no significant critical reviews. Two references provided, and ample Google hits, verify existence but not notability. I found one blogger review of the film, but no reliable sources or significant critical attention. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For a second, I almost thought this was one of those Video Brinquedo knockoffs. Either way, it fails WP:NF because there are no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to lack notability, as demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources. 16:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robofish (talk • contribs)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:NF. Claims of being criticized and praised by "websites" unsupported by any actual reliable sources and none found which provide any coverage of this "film". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Schelp just as was done for Spark Plug Entertainment and per discussions HERE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:28, 21 February 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 all except GangRags. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze Ya Dead Homie (EP)[edit]

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

For the following reasons this article meets criteria for deletion:

Fail to meet Wikipedia's General notability guideline: since the album's release in 2000, it hasn't gained significant independent coverage in reliable media publications and haven't been ranked on any national or significant music charts.

Therefore, there are just a few unreliable sources (including fan sites) which can provide only basic and inaccurate information about this album.

Fail to meet Wikipedia's albums notability guideline:

Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and albums that haven't gained significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subjectare are not notable.

There is not enough reliable sources to expand the article with adding sufficient information. JuventiniFan (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same reasons mentioned above:

JuventiniFan (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, demos/mixtapes are almost inherently non-notable since no sources every pay attention to them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — these releases all charted on the Billboard 200. The artist is well known within a cult audience, and has a strong association with well-known artists such as Insane Clown Posse, Twiztid, Big B, Kutt Calhoun, R.O.C., and Boondox, and is signed to a well-known label, Psychopathic Records. One of the songs from the album Colton Grundy: The Undying appeared in the video game 25 to Life. None of these albums are demos or mixtapes, despite what ~~Ten Pound Hammer~~ JuventiniFan claims. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Strike that user name. I just realized that it was the nominator that made this mistake, not Ten Pound Hammer. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Weak Keep Blaze Ya Dead Homie (EP) / Keep Clockwork Gray / Keep Colton Grundy: The Undying / Delete GangRags --- these aren't mixtapes so that rule does not apply. Was enough WP:BEFORE work done before this combined AfD? Verifiable sources for the first EP are slim but the artist has achieved notability. The two studio albums (Clockwork Gray and Colton Grundy) have charted rather strongly and therefore are notable. The only problem is with GangRags which should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Otherwise, these articles need expansion, not deletion. Yes, independent verifiable sources (beyond AllMusic and Billboard) are few but that might be the fault of the media. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — GangRags does not have any crystal ball comment. It cites reliable sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - GangRags still needs a WP:CRYSTALHAMMER. Per WP:NALBUMS "unreleased albums are in general not notable" and Twitter is not a reliable source. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep With the exception of GangRags, all albums clearly pass WP:NALBUMS as they were released by a notable artist and have reached national music charts. Rather than deletion they need to be better sourced. Juggalobrink (talk) 20:59, 25 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar (Malayalam film)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Unreleased film of questionable notability. No IMDB listing or verifiable independent references. Fails WP:MOVIE. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film has already attained notability because its plot is based on terrorism, which is not a common theme in among Malayalam films. Moreover, the film is reported to be about recruitment of youth for terrorism, which has become a very hot and sensitive subject. However, the article requires more Verifiable Reliable Sources to be cited, which can be done. Arjun ⁰²⁴ 14:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is now sourced. --Pink Bull 15:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. in its current sourced form. --Sodabottle (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And allow improvements. Notability in ~~Malaysia~~ India is notable enough for en.Wikipedia, and coverage in reliable sources, even if non-English, meet the requirements of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anwar is a Malayalam (an Indian language) film, not Malaysian; Comment intented to avoid misconstrual by future editors. Arjun ⁰²⁴ 19:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opps. My bad. Made country correction above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:10, 22 February 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 - Kept due to a cold snap - Peripitus (Talk) 20:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Drury[edit]

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

Cricketer who has not played at the top of the game - only at the county level. No references or other assertion of notability. does not meet the biographical notability standards. see here for information on his playing career. Peripitus (Talk) 05:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thanks for notifying, Peripitus. I was unaware that I hadn't left an external link at the bottom of this one - which strikes me as something I wouldn't normally have forgotten to do in an article I created as recently as May 09... anyway. As for the AfD debate, this cricketer has played List A cricket, and is therefore notable by WP:CRIC and by extension WP:BIO notability guidelines. Bobo . 11:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bobo. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Bobo. Harrias (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE - List A appearances are the highest level of one-day domestic cricket internationally. --Dweller (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. SGGH ^ping! 21:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Dweller. Johnlp (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CRIN —SpacemanSpiff 09:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable via WP:CRIN. Any player who has played List-A cricket, First-Class cricket or Twenty20 cricket is notable, be it they only played a single match for a team like Huntingdonshire back in 2001. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played for the highest domestic league YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability in athletes. Edward321 (talk) 04:11, 23 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jérôme Joy[edit]

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

Possible advertising/promotional page for a musician of questionable notability. Many copyvios from this page, and the username of the article creator Homestudio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same as one of the subject's websites. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are the albums mentioned in the article on a major or notable independent label? If so, that would strongly suggest notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear to be - quick Google searches on the first few ([54] [55] [56]) titles only show variants of the subject's website or Wikiprdia article. Looks like a lot of self-published online distribution. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is neither asserted or proven here. Lacks coverage in 3rd party source RadioFan (talk) 20:39, 22 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independents (Australian NUS faction)[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG, article has existed for over 4 years with no citation. No significant third party coverage of this. Australian Matt (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - the only thing less notable than student politicians is unsourced articles about them. The complete lack of sources here also raises serious BLP concerns. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep, this in unsourced because there's no significant coverage anyway. This does not contribute towards significant coverage. Neither does this, since it identifies Matthew Chuk as a "small i" independent. StAnselm (talk) 08:33, 20 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Young[edit]

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

Very few secondary sources found; what little exists talks only about his Big Brother appearance. Reads like an advert. Nobody cares, as usual. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E, reads as an ad. Ironholds (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E, also borderline G11. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (GregJackP (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BLP1E, WP:SPAM. JBsupreme (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create Redirect to Big_Brother:_Celebrity_Hijack#Liam_Young; if we're going to have gigantic Big Brother articles, it's little surprise someone will try to create contestant articles, and they should be redirects when they pop up. THF (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no to the redirect. Someone could easily overwrite it with the same crap. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way to deal with that problem, if it arises, is to protect the redirect rather than refuse to create a redirect that will help our readers (the important people) to find what they are looking for. A protected redirect is a much better safeguard against recreation than a red link. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per THF. ArticlesForRedemption 03:01, 24 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Eldridge[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. This page was previously kept after a deletion review, however the article now fails to meet the notability requirements as set out in WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO1E. The article was retained due to the notability of events in 2005. Current day sources are non existent or peripheral Australian Matt (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Australian Matt (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources on a blp of a nobody.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.--Grahame (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep President of a national student union is notable--and in this case, particularly because he engaged in nationally noted events. Since he was notable for what he did in 2005, he remains notable always. We're an encyclopedia, not just a current events web site. I do not see how anyone who has looked at the article can fail to notice there is indeed a source present, & one that shows his presidency, which is not peripheral. Needs more sources of course,, and they're right there in Google News Archive. [57]. . DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From my perspective, the subject was not notable "for what he did in 2005", but the events occuring at the time (the introduction of Voluntary student unionism were notable. Australian Matt (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Student politicians are not notable, not unless they stage a riot or something, NN YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite its pretensions the NUS isn't well known to most university students, and its office holders receive little to no coverage in reliable sources so notability isn't established here. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 25 February 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) 21:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liga Panameña de Radioaficionados[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. no coverage in Spanish or English. those wanting to keep should provide actual evidence of third pary coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the discussion and decision of the parent List's AFD... this article complies with the decision made. Going through the list and putting Each Article up for AFD is a waste of time and effort (as I notice several associations have pop'd up here lately). To delete the stubs would revert the List of amateur radio organizations back to a bunch of external links only, where it was agree'd that stubs were the better of the 2 options. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask that you consider a MASS AFD since you are using the same cookie-cutter rational in every case and I am using the same !keep argument in every case. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Exit above and argument now written entirely too many times. --Abd (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Membership of IARU should be adequate for notability purposes. Another smallish national society but it deserves its own page. Dsergeant (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge back into the main article and split again when someone can provide sources for notability (they don't need to be online). There are just no sources to write a meaningful article on this association. It has almost the same exact text as Radio_Club_de_Costa_Rica, Club_de_Radio_Aficionados_de_El_Salvador, Club_de_Radioaficionados_de_Guatemala and Club de Radioexperimentadores de Nicaragua, so of course you can use the same rationale for deletion for all of them. Radio_Club_de_Honduras only's difference is one sentence that is sourced to their own website. This should have been a group nomination. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC) it's the organizer of the 2009 FRACAP reunion, and it appears in the "Manual de radioaficionados" of the Panama government, which has some 3 pages on the history of the Liga and of the FRACAP. I also found a source for the history of the Nicaragua association, which is also member of the FRACAP, so I guess that sources can be reasonably found for most if not all of them. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Enric. Yes as to group nomination, that's been noted in the other AfDs, would have saved a lot of trouble. However, this is the problem with these national member organizations of the IARU: many of them were founded and recognized years ago, and they continue in routine operation, and unless there is some disaster, they don't attract much notice outside of the ham radio world. In a disaster, the name of the organization might be mentioned, or not, it might just be individual members mentioned. However, due to the national character, and because these organizations represent the IARU to local government, and vice versa (represent local governmental concerns to the IARU), it is a certainty that sources exist, such as what you found. Eventually, we will have access to archives of QST, for it is all but completely certain that QST would have reported on every action of the IARU, but it is very difficult to search those archives, apparently, attempts have been made, and we will need much more specific information to locate the issue. It all takes time. Given the certainty, however, and the existence of IARU recognition, published by the IARU, I've argued that this is sufficient independent notice to justify an article on the dual basis: national scope (see WP:CLUB and international recognition by an independent notable organization, the IARU. It's been claimed that the IARU is not "independent," but when it recognized the pre-existing national organization, it certainly was. And it published that recognition (and maintains the list). Thanks for finding the source, that will help. --Abd (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Without reliable, third party sources to back up the claims of notability, most of the "keep" arguments are rendered invalid, and as such, this article is to be deleted. (X! · talk) · @973 · 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Audio[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added one source already. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One source isn't going to cut it unfortunately. I'm not finding the kind of significant coverage that WP:CORP demands.--RadioFan (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company is listed in Dun and Bradstreet's Million Dollar Directory, Volume 1, pp. 389, 599. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Directories such as this one generally dont do much to establish notability. Its listed in the phonebook as well. Still not seeing significant coverage in 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god that is the best comeback ever! I laughed for like 25 seconds at that! 00:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep: It is an entry level budget car audio company but it is fairly large and well known. I think their finer electronics such as head units must be better than their amplifiers which greatly lack quality and are given bogus ratings. Might as well keep the article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's well known, there should be some reliable sources that could be added to the article, I'm having problems finding them however. Aren't there any reviews in magazines? RadioFan (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly; I think they suck too much for reviews in any credible magazine. Even if it's below you search boss audio good or boss audio bad and read forums of what people think. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice to keep if someone digs up RS establishing notability. I agree with Daniel C on the merits of Boss, but Bose is not any better, and neither is Bosch in some markets. The thing is indeed quite common but it's next to no-name, hence small chances of RS coverage. NVO (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I accept that D&B listing as possibly significant. Perhaps someone could discuss their criteria. We usually do better to rely on objective outside sources. DGG ( talk ) 08:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. No claim to notability is asserted, nor is significant coverage from any reliable, third party sources cited to support such a claim. Business directories are specifically disallowed as evidence of notability by WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per User:DGG. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:03, 26 February 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 incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Songs From The Tainted Cherry Tree. I understand that no one is supporting incubation, but based on the discussion, it seems to be the most agreeable solution for the time being. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Songs From The Tainted Cherry Tree[edit]

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

WP:NALBUM states "unreleased albums are in general not notable". There is no indication this is an exception. Furthermore there is not even a full track listing and the name is 'confirmed' by one facebook source. I42 (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS, WP:HAMMER. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate lack of sources. Will be notable in <2 months, incubation seems like an idea here. Keep track listing revealed. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has already been a lot of coverage and comment on this album in the music press and on popjustice and digital spy and a firm release date has been given of 26 april. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.79.227 (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album title has also been confirmed by Diana's official website as well as her official Facebook page which is now clearly referenced on the article. The album has a firm release date of April 26 and has received a lot of coverage to confirm its release:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.194.212 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 February 2010

Strong Keep - I've had an article nominated for deletion for the exact same thing. The name has been confirmed officially, and lots of people & the press may be keen to know about the album so it should stay. Hassaan19 (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Once notability is established, then we include an article on it. I42 (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, most of the sources cited by the IP are primary or trivial. It won't kill you to wait. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has been put up for deletion partially for not having a full track list, but since then, the full track list was revealed
- http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a204222/diana-vickers-reveals-album-tracklisting.html
- http://www.facebook.com/DianaVickers#!/notes/diana-vickers/diana-vickers-album-tracklisting-announcement/327964314152 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotus Wolf (talk • contribs) 22:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was nominated primarily per WP:NALBUMS as a unreleased album with no significant notability. I42 (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - its gonna be released soon and the artwork and everything will kick off in about a month so we should keep it! AND ALSO THE TRACKLISTING WAS ADDED YESTERDAY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverL906 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 20 February 2010

Delete name and tracklist addition aside, the notablity of this album still has not been established and likely will not be established until its release. Nothing here worth retaining until then anyway. RadioFan (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Per WP:NALBUMS. Facebook is not a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VernoWhitney (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 February 2010

KEEP! - ARTWORK WAS RELEASED THE OTHER DAY CHECK HER WEBSITE AND THE TRACKLISTING IS ALSO ON HER WEBSITE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverL906 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 26 February 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) 07:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruna Ferraz[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Only very trivial coverage found on Google News. Epbr123 (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does not indicate why the subject is notable under the guidelines for pornographic actors/actresses. There seems to be a corresponding article at the Portuguese Wikipedia, pt:Bruna Ferraz, though it seems likewise poorly sourced. Intelligentsium 03:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG / PORNBIO as mentioned, sorry for not commenting earlier! JBsupreme (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy may find home on another wiki - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one? JBsupreme (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No returns on AVN or Xbiz. Only one trivial mention on gnews, nothing that looks promising on ghits. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Horrorshowj (talk) 13:43, 20 February 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) 20:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Westbrooks[edit]

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

Does an appearance in the irish national basketball team qualify as notable per WP:Athlete? No indication of professional competition, no appearances in olympics or world championships. No significant coverage as an individual either. Polargeo (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being part of a national team is enough, see this AFD, and Ireland has never made the World Championships, and only made the Olympics shortly after WW2, so criteria 2 of WP:ATHLETE isn't passed. Is Ireland's Superleague a fully professional league? Well, UCD Marian's website, a member of the Superleague, calls themselves "semi-professional". So, Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if he has made a registered appearance at an sanctioned national team competition, he is notable. The swimmer in question hadn't (and swimming/basketball is a tenuous comparison at best, so I would avoid using it). We need to figure that out and it'll clearly answer the question. matt91486 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually what WP:ATHLETE says. It never mentions national teams at all. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- If you actually want to go through precedent on AfDs, this is what we've always used. National team appearances = notability at the highest level of amateur sport. Which is in fact what WP:ATHLETE says. matt91486 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But he has not competed at the highest level firstly because basketball is a professional sport and he hasn't competed at a professional level and secondly he hasn't even competed at the highest amateur level because the Irish national team has not got through to the highest amateur level. There is a line which we should draw somewhere and I think it is usually drawn rather higher than this with athletes. If we did draw it at this level we could have articles on all sorts of individuals. I suggest starting with the Suriname national cricket team and moving on to the Scottish elephant polo team. Polargeo (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Despite your argument of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, this is where we have drawn the line before. There are other basketball AfDs that have been kept on the basis of national team appearances. I have absolutely no idea how to find them in the archives, unfortunately (which I know would make life easier for everyone). It doesn't matter that basketball has professional leagues - it still has a non-professional arena. matt91486 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that he fails WP:Athlete. Your argument appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but you can't find it and somehow if you did it would make a difference. Polargeo (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has not competed at the highest level of amateur basketball. My illustrations above may be extreme but are intended to show that competing for a national team is not the same thing as competing at the highest level if either the sport is very minor or the national team does not compete at the highest level. Can Irish national basketball be considered at the same level as the Suriname national cricket team? Possibly. We are talking about a country with a population of around 5 million and absolutely no real tradition of playing basketball. Basketball is a very minor sport in Ireland, see Sport in Ireland#Basketball. Note that three brothers in his family all made the Irish team. Their dad is a coach. It is likely that a bit of time playing basketball in US colleges was sufficient that in Ireland they are national level. If he had taken part in the olympics or a world championships he would meet WP:Athlete but he has not and is unlikely to. Polargeo (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EuroBasket is a major continental tournament, and Ireland has been competing in the qualifying stages for it. Westbrook has presumably been on the roster for the EuroBasket qualifiers. It's a complete red herring to correlate the Suriname national cricket team, because they are not playing a role in a major tournament as the Irish team is. matt91486 (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have just suggested that Ireland has not qualified even for Eurobasket. WP:Athlete demands a bit higher than the qualification round for eurobasket and you don't even have any sources to say that Westbrook played in it anyway. In this case my comparrison with the Suriname national cricket team is far from being a red herring. Polargeo (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying it's a red herring because there was no major continental South American cricket tournament that they could even qualify for. I think we pretty clearly just have different views on notability for international competition.

Merge into a new article on the Westbrooks family and their favourite pastime.Red Hurley (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be noted that this is a humorous suggestion just in case a very serious admin takes this one :) Polargeo (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm serious - tho' usually I do like to be thought of as humorous....sometimes. Their basket may be out of reach.Red Hurley (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will first say that I'm unfamiliar with any AfD precedent in this area, so this is all my own judgement.[58] says there can be professional players in the SuperLeague, but I have been unable to find any sources saying that he's one of them and with Ireland's lack of performance at the "highest level", he fails both parts of WP:ATHLETE. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:33, 25 February 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) 04:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sessford[edit]

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

Contested prod. This is an article about a non-notable athlete who has only competed at the national youth level. Only valid source is a press release and not an actual published article. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 17:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. While apparently(?) a national-level amateur athlete, was unable to find any sources which indicate that he has competed at "the highest amateur level of a sport" as would be required to meet WP:ATHLETE. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:12, 25 February 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) 20:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent[edit]

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

This featured list fails WP:NOT a list of statistics. The results of a club through the years can be presented in many ways. By season is the most logical one, by competition (league, cup, ...) is pretty logical as well. Beyond those, you enter the realm of indiscriminate statistics though. By opponent, by month of the year, by day of the week, home or away, ... While obviously a lot of work has gone into this list, and I don't dispute its accuracy or completeness (reasons why it became a featured list), I don't believe that the basic concept is something that should be allowed on Wikipedia. Whenyou go through Category:English football club statistics, there are only two articles with this format. I believe that the normal format, like in List of Luton Town F.C. seasons, offers more than enough detail and a complete overview of the history of the club. Fram (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated is List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. results by opponent, for which the same arguments apply.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'm sorry, but I feel the need to temporarily come out of retirement over this. I may be the mush who created this list, so maybe a little biased, but here goes anyway...
- First of all, you appear to have misinterpreted the list's intention. It is not meant to be an overarching history of the club, and it was never meant to be; all I ever intended it to be used for was to provide an easy and convenient way to find out the all-time league records between two particular clubs, something which I personally find quite interesting to do in the run-up to a match, for example.
- Secondly, you seem to think that this article is intended instead of the other Luton Town lists and articles, which is simply not true. The lists were intended by myself to be companions for each other, to provide an unrivalled base of information on the club in depth, accuracy and accessibility, which I believe that I have to a fair extent achieved, although not completed. This list was meant as a footnote to the records and statistics list, nothing more, nothing less. The List of Luton Town F.C. seasons and all of the other Luton Town articles and lists are all still there if the reader wants to read them; this isn't instead of anything. I worked very hard to ensure that the Luton Town "set" became mostly featured, and tried here to be bold and create a new format. It quickly became an FL, so in my mind I was successful.
- Thirdly, part of your argument appears to be that "there are only two articles [sic] with this format". You may be aware that this list was the first of its kind on Wikipedia; I know, because I created it myself. But am I to take your comment as saying that were I to create similar lists for more clubs, then they would all be kept? Please forgive me, but I simply don't understand this logic – how would lots of lists which "should [not] be allowed on Wikipedia" be any better than one or two?
- Finally, I'm afraid that I simply don't see how "by opponent" is as trivial as "by month of the year, by day of the week, home or away".
Please keep well, and I await your comments. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-written referenced article that collects information on what is a notable subject for the history of the club - an easy to view collection of information on opponents. Whilst I understand the comments regarding the possible myriad of different ways club stats can be collated, and how this could lead to masses of such lists for each club, I think it reasonable to record information on club head to heads, as this is an important aspect of a club's record. I can't see the benefit in wishing to delete such a good article. Eldumpo (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is how club A fared against club B in the 1920s, 30s, ... an "important aspect of the club's record"? Important is how you fared in year A, B and C in competition A, B and C, not whether you beat club Z during that year or in that competition. Fram (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant encyclopedic interest in knowing which teams a club has competed against, and thus the importance can be attributed via the desire for useful historical records. Just because this list can be argued as being 'important' it does not mean that other means of presenting club information are not important. The list only shows the total league record against clubs, and does not break it down into decades or seasons. As well as allowing an understanding of past achievements against clubs, the list provides an easy reference as to whether clubs have ever met in the first place, that would be time-consuming to check by going through relevant league tables. In addition I don't believe (as per WP:NOT) the article is long and sprawling, and it has sufficient explanatory text to be put into context. Eldumpo (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I very much like the fact that Luton Town content has been nominated for deletion on the basis of non-notability. However, this is comprehensive, informative, and could not reasonably be contained within the records and statistics section. The list covers every single game they have ever played against a particular club in one line, which does not strike me as excessive. Given that we allow ~3000 lists of the county routes of each county in the United States (those are B roads for the benefit of British readers), and an individual article for many of the roads, I do not think the potential 120 lists of this nature is over the top. WFCforLife (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's sufficient that the data be available in some order. It doesn't have to be available in any order. That's what database query engines are for. The American Statistical Association has a list of sports data sites [59] from which raw data can be obtained for detailed analysis. There's a site devoted to stats of English soccer leagues. [60] They have elaborate analysis capabilities. That's not something a wiki can do well. --John Nagle (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The value of this list is that it compiles Luton Town's Football League, Southern League, United League and Football Conference statistics into one easy-to-use list. To the best of my knowledge, no other site (or book) does this. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 06:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Nagle - neither of those links contain anything remotely like the level of information displayed in this article. Not even close. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reasonable benefit in deleting this article. It's well-written and informative, and contrary to what others have said, this information is not readily attainable elsewhere online. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - my copy of The Definitive Gillingham F.C. has an equivalent table for that club, and I believe other volumes in the series do the same, showing that this sort of analysis is considered important in football and therefore encyclopedic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Funnily enough, most of the information for this list came from The Definitive Luton Town F.C., another volume in that series. I would say, however that this list is more inclusive and complete because it includes all league matches and not just Football League ones (as the one included in the book does). – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 05:05, 22 February 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joint National Baptist Convention[edit]

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

My first assumption was that this must be a notable event, but when I tried to add reliable sources, I was not able to find any. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the organisation is also known as the Joint Black National Baptist Convention, google news searches find plenty of sources for it, two of which I have added as references. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified keep There is plenty of news coverage about their first meeting in January 2005, but I was unable to find any reference suggesting that they ever met again. The article claims they meet "every four years'" so there should have been a convention in 2009, but I can't find any confirmation of that. --MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:40, 19 February 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 merge to List of people from Assam. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Popular Assamese Brahmins[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Clear case of listcruft as this is just a list of names that this user considers "popular", thus constituting total original research. -- Big Dom 22:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of people from Assam WorLD8115 (TalK) 11:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @155 · 02:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above. Sounds reasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:45, 26 February 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) 18:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zuji[edit]

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

Another vaguely promotional article about a company. The sources I have been able to find verify that the company exists, but they also are all passing mentions of the sort that every company, no matter how notable, can be expected to get. There's lots of companies in the world; most are not notable, and this one isn't. Reyk _YO! 08:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm reluctant to spend any time on rescuing this article by adding sources, mostly because all the bold capitals give me a headache, but the awards would appear to be genuine and important enough to confirm notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Travelocity, of which it is a wholly owned subsidiary. --MelanieN (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This being a $37M company it might barely pass notability guidelines, but the article reads like promotional material, has almost no references and was only really contributed to by WP:SPA Travelbug007 (contrib log: [61]). Smocking (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G11. No claim to notability is asserted, nor is significant coverage from any reliable, third party sources cited to support such a claim in accordance with WP:CORP. This ariticle is pure spam: burn with fire. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:21, 21 February 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ina Zdorovetchi[edit]

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

not entirely sure if she meets WP:MUSIC as competitions are not well known. fails WP:BIO, hardly any third party coverage [62], which is unusual for someone who is active in America and is good as the article claims. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Ina Zdorovetchi is enough notable Rirunmot 18:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she seems to have won several prices, and in particular the second prize at the international harp contest in Israel seems to push her above the notability threshold. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:31, 19 February 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. (X! · talk) · @143 · 02:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Steve Katsos Show[edit]

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

non notable amateur TV program - article mainly written by editor who appears to be the host of the program. noq (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable program. Warrah (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Article's creator appears to have a COI and many of the edits appear to have come from that same editor from a anon-ip RadioFan (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost no meaningful coverage, save this minor mention. Not enough to support notability.--SPhilbrick T 16:54, 21 February 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) 07:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV Quick and Choice Award for Best Soap Actress[edit]

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

Not sure what to do about this one, might be a notable award but I have no way of knowing a search for "TV Quick and Choice Award" brings up a total of 66 hits. I can find actress listing that they won the "Best Soap Actress award" but nothing else. Nothing about who gives out the award, no other categories. Also most of the hits seem to just be mirroring my search and/or mirroring this article. Ridernyc (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable award from lower-tier (compared to other UK listings/soap opera gab mags) magazine. Nate • (chatter) 13:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 19 February 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. (X! · talk) · @143 · 02:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XQuiD[edit]

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

non-notable open source project. No indication of wide spread use or any other indication of notability. Contested prod. noq (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing independent coverage of this one. Pcap ping 00:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No meaningful coverage. Nothing to support notability.--SPhilbrick T 16:46, 21 February 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. (X! · talk) · @142 · 02:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Revere's Horse[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Paul Revere's Horse

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

Unremarkable subject, no references i B e n 00:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any third-party coverage of this journal. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No meaningful coverage. Relatively new journal, so this could change, but at the moment, there's nothing to support notability.--SPhilbrick T 16:43, 21 February 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. (X! · talk) · @142 · 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sapiosexual[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on this term was previously deleted in 2006 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapiosexual (2nd nomination). It was then recreated as a redirect; recently however, User:SamJohnston turned it back into an article, with the edit summary 'if it's nn, csd/afd it - don't point it at another word with a different meaning.' It still is a non-notable term, with no sources other than blogs. This article should once again be deleted, and protected from recreation. Robofish (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - recreation of deleted material, with no more substance than the previous two times. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt & SNOW - as above. -- samj _in ^out 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete and salt, per orangemike. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I'm not finding any reliable sources that could be used to establish the notability of this neologism. A trip to DRV should be necessary for recreation. Deor (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, non-notable neologism, no reliable sources. Anna Lincoln 08:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage of the term in reliable sources. Polargeo (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 22:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 22:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a liberal dose of SALT. Neologism, with approximately zero sources - Alison ^❤ 23:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + salt - non-notable neologism; probably intended as promotion for the website. LadyofShalott 03:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + salt per above. --John (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW already! -- samj _in ^out 20:56, 24 February 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.