Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 19

< 18 January	20 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance Companies in Pakistan[edit]

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

Delete since WP is not a directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NOTADIR as the article is just a list of insurance companies. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Insurance in Pakistan and stubify. There is a whole Category:Insurance in Pakistan, which only has two articles right now. Precedent exists at Nursing in Pakistan. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it will mean it is still a directory. Also, the existence of the category is not a reason for keeping the article. There should be a Insurance in Pakistan article eventually but it should not simply be a directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point. I am not objecting to deletion, but I will sandbox parts of the article for later creation. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category:Insurance companies by country will suffice until such time as a Topic Article can state the Notability of the Industry as a whole in the country. BTW, no other country in the Cat has such an Article, and they have FAR more Blue-linked Articles than this 'No-link' ~~Article~~ List. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my bad, Insurance in the United States does exist. However it is an actual Article stating WP:N. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:30, 21 January 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. Clearly fails WP:NSONG. It may be pop-culture, but not encyclopedic on its own. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Presidents (song)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music. Neelix (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to List of Animaniacs episodes#Season Three: 1995-1996. I thought for sure I would find more about this song in reliable sources and I was all ready to vote keep, but really all I could come up with is this brief mention in The Well-Trained Mind: A Guide to Classical Education at Home. There are plenty of hits on lyrics databases, educational websites, and the like, but there just doesn't seem to be "significant coverage" of this particular song "in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" under WP:NSONG. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this article's presence makes Wikipedia better, and so in keeping with ignoring all rules, I say we be bold and allow it to remain. You're saying that because you couldn't find articles that talk about it, we shouldn't have it? Who do you think is going to write about something like this? It's a famous song, verified by it's having been on TV numerous times as part of a notable cartoon show put out by a notable production company on a notable channel. I'm not trying to chain things along as though we should have an article on Bill Murray's uncle because he's the uncle of a notable person...but give it a break, please! You couldn't find a google hit that doesn't reference the song? What are you expecting? The song definitely exists, it is definitely well known and the fact that google is not a good place to search for information on it doesn't decrease its notability. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than sites like YouTube and educational blogs/forums, I failed to find any RS mentioning this song. DRosenbach, WP:IAR does not override WP:5P - Wikipedia is not about The Truth^TM, its about verifiability. Anything not supported by RSs does not belong to Wikipedia, unless they are so obvious that virtually every reader either already believe in it("we can't live without food") or can verify it with reasonable ease("cutting your hand with a knife will cause pain"). Same for notablity: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. In order to be worth including, they need to be notable, and notability is established by reliable sources. Blodance the Seeker 07:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Blodance the Seeker 07:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reliable source is the television shows that have run on TV. And I find your apparent violate of WP:NPOV laughable in dictating what does and does not fall under the rubric of WP:IAR. Its very essence allows it to run over any policy/guideline obstacle as long as the manifestation of the suggested violation serves Wikipedia for the better. One can hardly assert that a world famous song played as an accompaniment to a well-established TV show numerous times does not demand inclusion in an online encyclopedia claiming to present the vastness of all reliable information. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, did you even read WP:5P? "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here." it states very clearly that WP:IAR shall not override the basic policies. Fame and notability is not based on claims. It is based on reliable sources. And reliable sources are defined here, not based on your claims. Further, according to your own logic, how can you accuse people of violating rules if you cite WP:IAR for your own defense and claim that it overrides every rule on WP? Please stop this nonsense. Blodance the Seeker 01:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONG. It doesn't make Wikipedia better. It just reinforces the impression that WP is a repository for cruft and pop culture trivia. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Polargeo (talk) 09:08, 26 January 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 per A9. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try To[edit]

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

Completing nom for anon. His/Her rationale was, The single hasn't even been released yet. Fails notability for songs (bolding mine). It should also be noted that the artist's page is currently up for speedy deletion under criterion A7. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreleased single from an unreleased album, interestingly the page cites charts that the single hasn't yet charted on. Does not meet WP:NSONGS and can not find reliable sources independent of the artist to satisfy WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 04:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Applied speedy deletion tag as RITZ just got deleted. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:08, 20 January 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. Tone 23:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Cussing Club[edit]

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

Essentially a WP:ONEEVENT group that got e-mail-bombed and featured in various News of the Weird segments last heard from in a puff-piece by ABC News in early 2009. Per WP:NOT#NEWS, I submit that this organization fails our notability test of WP:ORG since we are tasked by that guideline to consider the "organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization...." I submit that considering these factors makes it very dubious that this parochial organization is notable enough for this encyclopedia. Past AfDs were probably blindsided by the recentism of the news-coverage. Current consensus on the talk page of the article seems to indicate that the article should be deleted. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI have to agree. There seems little or no coverage beyond the "and finaly" style. The two schools do n ot seem to have consoderd this noteworthy (and one has a schools club page which does not feature this club, which indicates to me that it was ini no way an 'offical' school club). There is no independant varification of most of this clubs claims. It would also appear to have now disapeared being essentiualy a one of shot at fame.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nom. It's not even a 15 minutes of fame sort of piece. This is slow news day material. Shadowjams (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Taylor Karras (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability seems seriously lacking. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allstar Weekend[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC — Ocatecir ^T 05:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A press release claims this band had a song, "Journey to the End of My Life", which received enough airplay to rank in the top 30 on Radio Disney. If that can be verified, would that meet criterion 11 of WP:BAND? If so, I'd vote this as a weak keep. I'm not finding anything else of note, so unless better sourcing is presented, it's a delete. Gongshow ^Talk 08:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added reference at Radio Disney that notes that "journey to the end of my life" was top 29 most played song on Radio Disney. They're also signed to Major Label "Hollywood Records". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.163.154 (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately does not pass WP:BAND, only one release on a major label, an EP, and the 'chart' that they appeared on is owned by the same company as their label, Disney. No independent coverage in reliable sources that I can find to satisfy WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 23:49, 19 January 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 Murder of Brianna Denison. Clear consensus that this fails to establish the subject's notability beyond the one specific event. ~ mazca ^talk 20:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Michael Biela[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E / WP:NOTNEWS violation. A redirect may be appropriate but the history should be deleted. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is unlikely to be an appropriate subject for a biographical article, but could you please expand on why the history ought to be deleted? I see only one problematic edit; the rest seems responsibly sourced. Skomorokh 23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this (now deleted) revision is the problematic edit I allude to above. If there are no objections, I'll redirect the article to Murder of Brianna Denison. Skomorokh 23:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it fails WP:BLP1E so we don't want or need any history. History can be used for direct linking, "suppression" conspiracy theories, capricious reversion and so on. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I agree with Skomorokh's suggestion to redirect. Otherwise I don't think Mr. Biela can get beyond the WP:BLP1E requirement. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Murder of Brianna Denison, per above.--Pink Bull 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of Brianna Denison. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP. Click23 (talk) 20:13, 27 January 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. Two relists have failed to stimulate any real discussion or conclusion: this individual appears to satisfy the general notability guideline but fails the specific guideline for politicians. Ultimately, there is no consensus as to whether one does, or should, trump the other, and hence no consensus to delete. ~ mazca ^talk 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Powers[edit]

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

Failed congressional candidate who is not otherwise notable. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Delete.

Prod tag removed by User:Cjs56 on the grounds that "his contributions [...] extend to his charity and his role in a notable film". Neither makes him notable, in my opinion:

The charity he founded may have been featured on a few news programs but is undeniably minor
He was merely a member of the battalion featured in a niche documentary. So were several hundred other people. They are not notable as a result

Lincolnite (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject fails WP:Politician and I cannot find reliable sources that wouls show notable in another way.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's quite a bit of independent coverage of his campaigns here. In my view, the Buffalo News coverage meets WP:RS; and Powers is thus the subject of significant coverage. Accordingly, he meets WP:GNG notwithstanding the failure to meet any criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. But not a strong keep by any means; Wikipedia will not be at a loss if this article is deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but the article needs NPOV, since there's a lot of criticism out there that isn't in the article. E.g., [1]. THF (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in RS satisfies GNG, but we must be careful to maintain NPOV. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - not enough significant coverage to justify this article. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage satisfying the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Only coverage that exists is as a result of his failed political run. This sets a bad precident for any number of non-notable people getting articles since the press usually covers everyone on the ballot no matter how notable they are as a matter of practice to prevent accusations of Bias. I can find numerous references of the dozens of people that filed to run for the Governer of California after the recall who were otherwise unknown but are mentioned in dozens of news articles for their failed bid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefariousski (talk • contribs) 23:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability shown apart from his candidacy. I do not agree that the GNG trumps WP:POLITICIAN. If that were so, POLITICIAN would be a dead letter, because every political candidate can show press cuttings based on his candidacy. If you read the WP:GNG in full, you will see that it says that sufficient coverage means a subject is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria, and a bullet point below says that this is "a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article." I say that WP:POLITICIAN constitutes such a consensus that, in order to prevent Wikipedia being used as an election soapbox, references concerned with a political candidacy do not constitute notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a fine young man, but non-notable. Fails WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ENT if you want to claim he was an actor. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the GNG is obsolete. It was adopted as a screening device long before G News archive and G Books had the wide-reaching coverage they do today, under the assumption that only the most notable things would have conveniently accessible sources. This is no longer the case, and we need to decide what will replace the GNG. The question then would be whether we wish to regard major party candidates as notable regardless of whether they are successful. My view is, as usual, that we should compromise: the candidates for the major offices are notable, and I would include certainly all national legislatures and all state or provincial chief executives. I would not include candidates for seats in state or provincial legislatures--here we should include only the winners--so for about 90% or more of the political offices we think confers notability, only the actually successful candidates would count--giving us only a ten percent expansion on coverage. I consider that a very conservative extension--I am not a radical inclusionist. (This person, therefore, falls in the notable group.)

I could equally well have given a completely different argument: that the GNG is relevant, even though it shows that more people & things are notable than some of us thought earlier. It is particularly relevant to politics-- it applies with special force here. Politics is the prime example of general notability, and that is why every major party candidate gets press coverage, because the public considers them important. And so they should, for politics is the central function of civilized society.

For years we've been deleting those without apparent press coverage. Now we are asked to delete the ones who do have it. This is perhaps a little ridiculous. But what is truly ridiculous is the confusion implicit in the current notability guidelines.

Basic keep The GNG guideline overrides speciality N guidelines, (lowering the bar when 3rd party independent coverage could reasonably be expected to exist), it was always meant so, and has always been so. Turning this upside down is flawed reasoning. It also raises basic difficulties for our processes, for how are we normal editors going to keep track of the undergrowth of speciality guidelines, in which there may be very limited participation. The worst example I have seen is seven editors and a 4:3 vote that was succesfully presented as "community consensus" for a change to WP:PORN. As long as the GNG guideline overrides the speciality guidelines, major harm to the project is unlikely, and I do prefer that we spend our time actually contributing with content etc, not monitoring all this bureaucracy. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:34, 27 January 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. Ultimately, it seems that enough reliable-source coverage has been found to demonstrate the subject's notability. The neutrality of the article going forward is clearly a valid concern, but it's a concern that must be solved by diligent editing rather than deletion in this instance. ~ mazca ^talk 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indaba Music[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Article was created by an WP:SPA account(Talkin bout chicken (talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than to promote indabamusic.com. Was speedied previously as spam under WP:CSD#G11. References given are to splogs that do not confer notability; and to press releases that do not count as reliable sources. Others seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Nothing more than Self-promotional Advertisement masquerading as an article (complete with linkfarm) and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I speaking with the Editor or not? Is this the correct forum to discuss this issue? I will edit the page to include reliable and prominent news sources. Recently I have been trying to include information throughout Wikipedia concerning a larger issue, the changes to copyright law and content creation that are undergoing in the music business. Indaba Music has been noted by the Press (look at their page - http://www.indabamusic.com/corporate/press) as the leader in this area of collaboration and content creation using Creative Commons. Like the profiles of any other related business such as Apple, this one is valid and does not warrant deletion. It has been re-created in an attempt to allow the world to access information, like any other posts. I have read the Wikipedia guidelines and feel that I have meet them. Please explain any specific concern. Talkin bout chicken (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indaba Music has been edited appropriately. Please confirm that the changes are acceptable. I have tried very carefully to adhere to all Wikipedia policies. Thank you,Talkin bout chicken (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Hu12 (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections to the revised version of the article?Talkin bout chicken (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On the right track here. NPOV issues are minor, if any. Further third-party coverage in the future will hopefully allow for greater article expansion. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the vote. When will the deletion notices be taken down? Talkin bout chicken (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as this article fails WP:SPAM; the article subject (the company) is playing second fiddle to the promotion of its products. None of the sources cited are reliable; they all orginate from own press releases or self-published sources, and it appears that nothing has actually been published about this company. Self-promotion is not the route to establishing notability in accordance with WP:CORP. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many unbiased, new articles and mentions that include the topic of the article. The major news corporations listed as press sources are reliable and HAVE published verifiable articles. I will list these articles and link directly to the original news sources for clarity. 208.105.67.138 (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The news sources have been listed and linked directly to the original, unbiased source. The sources include highly reputable publications and websites. They do not qualify as self-promotion as these news companies are not part of the business which is the topic of the article. Talkin bout chicken (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem I have with this article is that its subject matter (the company) is not the subject of any significant coverage, and news sources, whilst they may be reliable sources, are little more than routine announcements in the form of content provided by the company itself (they all seem to feature comments from Daniel Zaccagnino, a director) that are not evidence of notability in accordance with WP:SPAM. It seems to me that this article that should be about a company is merely being used to promote the company's website and provide some publicity for its directors. Self-promotion does not to provide evidence that the company is notable in accordanc with WP:CORP; there has to be evidence that the company has been "noted" by sources outside the company. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Clearly fails WP:CORP. References given are to splogs that do not confer notability; and to self-published press releases that do not count as reliable sources. Others seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Additionaly this is one part in a long history of spam and promotion on wikipedia by Indaba Media, LLC.;

Articles

Accounts

Nothing more than Self-promotional Advertisement masquerading as an article--Hu12 (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like Hu12 added back previously edited sections to make the article look worse before writing the comment above this one. I fixed the language and content so that it is far less self-promotional-if at all. There are some notable and very interesting news items that I pulled to try to illustrate the company. It looks like there is reasonable news and sources but that some interviews were perhaps mixed in. Also, it makes sense that when news sources cover a company, they try to get an interview or at least a quote from one of its leaders. Of course, I also found articles that just talk about the company and compare it to other similar companies. I also compared it to Amiestreet which I think is similar in terms of size, industry, and the rest. What do you think? If I may, I say Keep 24.34.72.114 (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)— 24.34.72.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. Clearly an attempt to Mask the lack of notability thru bombardment of press releases, self-generated sources as it is clear that no significant coverage in secondary sources has "actually" been published about this company.--Hu12 (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I will review your concerns and see what is crux of the issue. Talkin bout chicken (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is lengthy simply because I believe we are talking past each other and are ignoring the facts of the situation. Hopefully this clears it up:

I see your point about the content of the news sources, some were not relevant to the article. I included the ones that are, which do not seem to be derived from press releases and are also from notable sources. My intentions as the guidelines state have always been to follow the rules set forth. It seems to me that when a business has significant use of its products as well as traffic and also has reliable new coverage that appears (granted neither of us can determine why the authors wrote their articles) to be simply because the business is notable, than an article is deserved. Specifically, please consider these articles.

The LA Times wrote this in 2007, so although dated, it is an evaluation of the business again another competing business, illustrating the key players in the small but growing market of online music collaboration. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/newmedia/la-ca-webscout19aug19,1,5973343.story?coll=la-entnews-newmedia&ctrack=3&cset=true

Business Week included Indaba in a similar, but much more extensive article. This is without quotes or press release as far as I can tell. Note that although competitors are listed, Indaba was chosen as the focus of the piece (slide 6 of 6). Again, at the time the site was far less used, but a niche has never precluded relevancy of a topic in any other encyclopedia that I've seen. And note that today, the user base has grown to a much larger number, and I'm sure we could find traffic numbers to also support this distinct part of relevancy. http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/07/0727_mozes/index_01.htm

The Washington Post wrote about Indaba the same here and similarly compared it to other online music sites. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/21/AR2007072100099.html?sub=new

I am also aware that Wikipedia:Notability means impact and that Wikipedia:Notability is not a matter of opinion.

Therefore, we should be able to use facts to resolve this issue. Since those articles were written, the site has grown from 5,000 (see Business Week) to 350,000 (see site. On Feb 3, 2009, as a testament to the growth and notability of Indaba Music, Wired Magazine (an industry news source) wrote an article describing the company's recent interview on the Colbert Report. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/02/indaba-music-go/ I am certain we can agree that Colbert is not a legitimate news source. However, the show's profitability relies on connecting with as many people as possible, so therefore it is in Colbert's best interest to invite notable and unique people. The point demonstrates how Indaba Music's growth has led it to become more prominent in it's industry.

From a neutral point of view, we could also discuss the level of musicians who have chosen to work with Indaba Music or simply to be part of the site. I deleted a list of famous musicians who use Indaba because I did not know if it was appropriate for the article. However, consider that popular artists across genres - people who have Wikipedia entries that are already deemed notable have worked with Indaba Music or use the website of their own fruition. For example Mariah Carey, Yo-Yo Ma, T-Pain, Rivers Cuomo, and others. The original list is much longer, though I doubt all of them already have articles - these are merely highlights that I have read about.

I believe that it is important to Wikipedia:Give an article a chance because it seems that this conversation began when I was a) still editing the article b) still learning what information is important and necessary and c) still learning what information is not relevant. To me, the company has been noted and evaluated by relevant sources, has a large and proven growing group of users, and works with the highest level of talented musicians. I am happy to continue this conversation, but let's please focus on the facts because Wikipedia:Notability is not a matter of opinion. I believe that anyone reading the article now for the first time as it currently stands would find it reasonable and perhaps only in need of minor edits.

Thank you Talkin bout chicken (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article prove that this company does not fail WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are plentiful. Seems quite notable.--Pink Bull 20:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the plentiful coverage in reliable sources. See this article from the Los Angeles Times, this article from the Christian Science Monitor, this article from the New York Sun, and this article from Vator. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Those sources alone would be sufficient to establish some notability. It's a little thin, I think, but it'll do. Mind that the article is neutral in tone, and that it remains non-promotional, and I don't think we'll have any further issues. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:18, 27 January 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 as criterion 3 of WP:PROF met. . LibStar (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diogenes Angelakos[edit]

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

nominating for WP:ONEVENT, he is not really known for his academic career as google scholar reveals [2]. gnews proves one event coverage [3]. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was ready to !vote "delete per nom: but then I decided to do a bit more google-searching, just in case. There is an obituary about him at the UC Berkeley website[4]. It mentions that he was a Fellow and later a Life Fellow of IEEE (which would likely make him academically notable per WP:PROF). However, when I attempted to verify this fact directly at the IEEE website, his name does not appear in the list of Fellows:[5]. I am not sure how to explain it, but this case probably deserves more digging to see if he is academically notable. The scarcity of GoogleScholar hits might be due to the fact that most of his active research would have been done in the 1960s and 70s, and GScholar would not be very good at tracking citability for publications which are that old. Nsk92 (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the obit here[6] repeats the IEEE Fellow info and mentions that he was a Guggenheim Fellow in 1957. The latter does check out[7]. Nsk92 (talk) 03:54, 20 January 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. A commons gallery is already being developed, as per User:Bwmoll3. Inappropriate for en-Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery[edit]

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

As per Category:Wikipedia image galleries, this article is an image gallery that should actually reside on Commons. The appropriate replacement gallery has been established at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Air_Command_Emblems . Thus this page has been listed for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Buckshot06 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-Delete- This type of gallery is discouraged under the WP:Gallery rules. A gallery on Wikimedia Commons is being developed to replace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwmoll3 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 January 2010

Delete per nom. I was going to suggest renaming to Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems, keeping the encyclopedic content, and dumping the gallery, but on a close reading there is no encyclopedic information here except generic information about SAC. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons. --Pmsyyz (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trademarkia[edit]

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

This is a non-notable website. The information about the company is sourced entirely to two websites, one of which comes from a press release from trademarkia itself.

In addition, I would seriously question the motive for creating this article in the first place WP:SPAM. The article purports the company to be a free database, yet the purpose of the company is to sell its trademarking services. The article creator has also spammed wikipedia with links to the website. Martin451 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 23:07,

Comment: I have edited the article to address your concerns. This site is notable, as there is nowhere else on the web to find stuff like the original Eli Lilly trademark, the original Coca Cola trademark, etc. I am biased, as I used to be a contractor to this company and am new to Wikipedia. I created the original post. However, I strongly feel that this site is worthy of mention on Wikipedia, if for nothing more than because it has so much great historical trademarks on it. It's database of trademarks is larger than the USPTO's own public search. I apologize for my previous posts, I will make sure my future posts on Wikipedia fully comply with policies as well, (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our relevant policy is WP:WEB and WP:CORP to determine whether an article should exist. It does not look like third-party independent sources exist for writing an article about this site. Therefore, it should still be deleted. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily kept (snowing). –xeno^talk 22:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barton Bridge[edit]

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

Notability iBen^discuss/_contribs 22:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certainly of lesser importance since the motorway usurped the name Barton Bridge, but still of value. In its heyday, it was a fairly important crossing over the Ship Canal - and past importance can carry over. Gets a mention in Swing Bridge. Could do with referencing. Can be seen at http://www.salfordonline.com/salfordvideos_page/15057-barton_upon_irwell_a_fascinating_corner_of_salford_-_(part_2_of_2).html Might be a good idea to move to Barton Swing Bridge to avoid confusion with the massive viaduct on the M60. Peridon (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to say Keep? Peridon (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable from several angles firstly as a Grade II* listed building.[8] Next as a named bridge. Finally, as a historic landmark recorded in several reliable sources.[9][10][11][12][13][14] etc Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, listed buildings in the UK appear always to be notable. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons already given. Plenty of potential for expansion. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - listed building, interesting piece of architecture next to the canal swing bridge, to which it is connected. For those unfamiliar with the area, it's on the left Parrot of Doom 10:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a listed building (or structure) and there is plenty of scope for expansion - but shouldn't the title be Barton Road swing bridge - without capitalisation of the last two words? Richerman (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep. Not all listed buildings are individually notable, but listed major structures are. I was originally going to suggest merging this with the article about the adjacent swing aqueduct, but having read that article it seems the aqueduct is a good standalone article and merging the road bridge in would dilute it's focus. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grade II* status confers notability. English Heritage (the organisation responsible for the classification system) defines buildings with such status as "particularly important buildings of more than special interest" (see here). "National or greater than national importance" is also a description I have seen applied. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Grade II* listed building noted for its special architectural qualities. An important industrial structure and local landmark. Probably more important than the Hulme Arch Bridge... dare I say. --Jza84 | Talk 12:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all except the nom above. Nominating a bridge article within 6 minutes of its creation is not cool.--Oakshade (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a very important bridge and an insight into the Manchester ship Canal's past, as well as Britain's industrial past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannibal Wright (talk • contribs) 16:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Considering that Grade II* listed buildings are considered to be "particularly significant", the rather limp assertion by the nominator that the article is "notability" (I assume that's supposed to meant that the subject is not notable) is demonstrably wrong. I am left wondering how much effort the nominator put into researching the subject. It was nominated six minutes after creation. Nev1 (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grade II* listed building are sufficiently notable to sustain their own articles. Only 8% of listed buildings get rated at II* or higher. Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep cf Nev1. Wow, he waited six whole minutes before jumping on the article! What restraint. - Denimadept (talk) 21:01, 20 January 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. Tone 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Christmas Carol - As told by Jacob Marley (deceased)[edit]

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

This appears to be a non notable version of A Christmas Carol, and I'm unable to find anything reliable to suggest otherwise. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails RS and V. Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any coverage of this production, and the references given are either promotional or stub listings in online what's-playing lists. In the event James Hyland is kept at his own AfD, there may be a little bit of this that's worth merging there. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:42, 20 January 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 page, as I created it, used non-primary sources. Agree that puffery happened along the way, mainly using changes not made by myself.--TimothyJacobson (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. A lack of reliable sources outweighs any other arguments. Kevin (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Hyland[edit]

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

Lack of independant 3rd party reliable sources. Not verified. Does not meet BIO. Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per sourcable assertions of notability. Their lack is always a concern, but when they are available, what can be improved through regular editing is a reason to fix, not delete. I believe the acclaim of his works as shared here, and the awards he's won as listed here can be sourced... specially with the hints of origin as provided. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you remove the puffery and sources belonging to him, you have a guy that doesn't look like he passes WP:CREATIVE. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Can't find any non-primary sources. Googlehits mostly refer to other people with the same name.--Pink Bull 20:42, 26 January 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 page, as I created it, used non-primary sources. Agree that puffery happened along the way, mainly using changes not made by myself.--TimothyJacobson (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nom 2 says you, says two 15:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Move Here[edit]

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

I originally thought this had just enough to satisfy WP:N, but upon closer inspection I discovered all but two of the sources were published months and in some cases years before the documentary series was created. The two that were published after the series premiered are trivial. Great for expanding background information, but not for proving notability. 2 says you, says two 22:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going ahead and withdrawing this, didn't realize documentaries are held to a different notability standard. 2 says you, says two 15:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see. Thanks for being very specific about its conflicted notability. I couldn’t find any article notable enough that has been written since the series premiered, so please feel free to delete that page. —Brampitoyo, 23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nowhere in the notability policy does it state that sources must treat a subject within a particular time frame. It only requires significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, and does not state (or even imply) that this coverage be after or during an event. If we had such a rule, books written after a historical event or biographies written after a person's lifetime would not count towards notability. Now that would be silly, wouldn't it? Even if the articles aren't quite as good for verifying what has gone to date now that the series has started, they are significant enough attention from good sources to solidify notability. Steven Walling 07:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with your rationale if we were talking about the Portland independent music scene itself. However, the sources given do not discuss the notability of the documentary series "Don't Move Here" with the reason being that they were published long before the series was even produced. Since notability is not inherited, just because of the mere fact a documentary series is made about a notable musical movement does not mean that the documentary series is automatically notable. 2 says you, says two 14:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the sources that are more focused on the music scene in general. I'm talking about the links like the ones from Willamette Week and The Portland Mercury, which are award-winning media outlets generally considered reliable sources. Both the posts from WW and Mercury are exclusive coverage mentioning Don't Move Here as a noteworthy project. Steven Walling 23:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, I also made sure that I am citing from nationally recognized media outlets like The Fader, rather than just local or regional ones. —Brampitoyo, 21:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep as documentary films rarely get the coverage of big budget blockbusters. That sources wrote of the plans to create the documentary series months in advance of release is coverage none-the-less and even if established early, notability is not temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:26, 20 January 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. A lack of any reliable sources outweights the other arguments here. Kevin (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oschino Vazques[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy Notability. Freikorp (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be verified that he signed to Roc-A-Fella Records. Bearian (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD notice was removed from the article by G Zak S on the 13th. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just being signed is not enough for wp:music. no evidence he has had significant roles in multiple notable films. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"DON'T DELETE"-Oschino is part of state property and had solo songs on their albums he was prt of roc-A-fella how is he not notable —Preceding --G Zak S (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)unsigned comment added by G Zak S (talk • contribs) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Google News archives, and also a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find any sources that would help to establish WP:GNG notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:11, 26 January 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. SilkTork *^YES! 22:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Adamo[edit]

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

Not notable musician Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His claim to notability is that he was a ...former concertmaster of the Teatro Comunale di Bologna.. but the article has been uncited for about three years. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete If the only claim to notability is the concertmaster assertion, and there are no references available to actually verify that he indeed held this position, then the article should unfortunately be deleted. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 22:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just to be clear, a concertmaster isn't a conductor or director, it's whoever plays first violin (I assume you knew that). So it's not really an assertion of notability; it's just an assertion that no one in the Bologna opera was a better violinist. That said, with my basic Italian I can't find any coverage, significant or not, or Mr. Adamo in reliable sources, just a variety of false positives like a Bolognese lawyer also named Giovanni Adamo; nor do I see anything else that would satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. Thank you, Glenfarclas, I didn't know that- I've learnt something! Delete per nom and per Glenfarclas- simply non notable. The fact that nobody has found a source for it in all these years speaks for itself almost but that aside, his one claim of significance is not sufficient for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. HJMitchell You rang? 23:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete if the claim is true he's prolly a pretty good fiddler. But there are lots of good fiddlers. Ho sources, no blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:12, 24 January 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 , as nominator has not provided valid rationale for deletion despite request on talk page. No prejudice to re-nomination with a valid deletion rationale. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Castady[edit]

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

Reason KellanFabjance (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've left a message for the nominator, asking for a rationale. If one is still missing after a while, feel free to close as Speedy Keep - with no prejudice against a nomination with rationale later. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge. I would suggest merging to The Fold, but Castady is also a former member of another notable band - Showoff. I found some independent coverage ([15], [16], [17], [18]), however, subject is known mainly as the singer of The Fold. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Glen Leigh Fulton[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Speedy declined because of award of CBE, but this award seems to be relatively common (see this page which indicates that there are currently over 100,000 honorees). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That 100,000 figure is for all members of the Order of the British Empire, the vast majority of whom would be at the lower MBE and OBE grades. The number of CBEs is much less that this. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I could find nothing that would confirm this individual exists.—RJH (talk) 22:08, 19 January 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, default to "keep". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masjid Umar Leicester[edit]

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

no reason why this mosque is more deserving of an article then any other Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 18:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Evington, creating a new section on places of worship and using the external links as referneces for the sentence. This is usually the best solution for churches, primary schools, local minor sporting clubs and the like. Unfortunately the target article is rather a hotchpotch at present, and will need tidying up. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability; if we merge, there's no reason that I couldn't create an article on every other religious group in the city and then merge it into the main article, and the resulting merges would violate Wikipedia isn't a directory. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Architecturally notable. Was shortlisted for a religious architecture award. I added some references. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (voted above). The shortlisting is certainly grounds for not deleting out of hand, but this is likely to remain a short article, and my preference is still to merge it. I have not livied in Leicester since I was a student over 35 years ago, and have no currrent personal knowledge of the area. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge for the reasons set out above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since it has some third-party notability. Polarpanda (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination provides no reason to delete - we have articles about numerous mosques and we have no special requirements for these. There appears to have been no due diligence performed per our deletion policy - there isn't even a talk page for the article yet. It is trivial work to find a substantial source which covers this topic in detail and I have added a citation to the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news only shows one result [19]. It has won a notable award for its architecture, so the building is notable. Dream Focus 13:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our articles on mosques are uneven and easily need to be expanded. We aren't in a rush here so a stubby can sit until something notable is added by someone who actual knows what can be written and sourced. As to any merge suggestion I would add that a list of places of worship or a list of mosques would equally work if consensus pushes that teh article simply can't exist as is. -- Banjeboi 14:59, 25 January 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 (CSD A9) by Jclemens. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 01:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underestimated Vol.2: Vengeance[edit]

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

Delete. Album fails general notability guidelines, and the article about the artist (Swifty) has already been deleted as the result of a recent AFD. JBsupreme (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Per db-alum. Joe Chill (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete: Just confirming Joe Chill's statement. Per WP: ALBUMS if an artist is not notable, the albums are not notable by default. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Additional references found (Non-admin closure) I42 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jungftak[edit]

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

Supposedly fictitious entry in a 1943 edition of Websters. But the only reference for this provided is a radio DJs blog, and that DJ is reporting something a caller to the radio station told them - so utterly unreliable. No other references found. I42 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to confirm (having no access to that particular dictionary) that it is a fictitious entry - however, the radio broadcast did seem to confirm it so I listed it as a reference. L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found another report ~~which has Websters denying this ever happened~~. I42 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears just to be claiming that it is not a real bird... L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I misread it. The article seems to confirm that the word did appear in the dictionary. I will withdraw the AfD. (Fascinating story, too!) I42 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 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. Ignoring the OTRS side of things, I see no sign of notability for inclusion on en-Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Wiederhold[edit]

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

I am the person this is about, and I'm not very encyclopedic. The person who original wrote it seems to be long gone. It's not well written (or accurate) and there is definitely not much interest in making it better. --Charlie Wiederhold (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was initially nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and the collapsed discussion above contains discussion that took place while the nomination was listed at MfD. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. With all due respect to Charlie, Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. Yoninah (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is the one requesting deletion of the article, not the one who created the article. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the notability question, if Charlie himself would like the article to be deleted, then let's think about the reasoning behind the WP: BLP requirements. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while OTRS would be necessary to prove that User:Charlie really is Charlie, we have ample evidence to suggest that he isn't notable; when all but one of the sources are forums, there's no way that you qualify under WP:BIO. Assuming that User:Charlie really is Charlie — thank you for making sure that WP:BIO is being followed instead of simply editing it to make you look better despite a lack of sources. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I care about Wikipedia more than my ego and it had plenty of time to be improved without it happening. I have a personal website, that should be sufficient for anyone who wants to know what I'm up to. :) Charlie Wiederhold (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. Ordinarily I would suggest OTRS as an avenue for a person requesting deletion of an article on himself to prove his identity, but I believe that even if we were to disregard the subject's wishes, he clearly fails notability guidelines. The article is sourced only to forums and an article that is potentially an RS but is not about Mr. Wiederhold, and a quick Google search doesn't turn up anything else that leads me to believe he meets notability guidelines. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this will probably come off as strange since I requested the deletion, but figured I'd put it out there cause I'd like to learn. If this sort of stuff would improve Notability it will at least let me understand better what matters and what doesn't. I've generally avoided live people pages specifically because they are so quirky. Not asking the article to be kept, just clearing up notability conditions. [20], [21], [22]. There is more like that (Search for "chair story wiederhold" and what happened with it when 3D Realms shut down), etc. In terms of creativity did just work on a major product Modern Warfare 2, and was involved very visibly with another Duke Nukem Forever, but there are 100 people on MW2 here so that alone isn't enough and I'm not a lead designer on it or anything, and I just don't get the self promotion side of creative person as it relates to my involvement with DNF. I'm also currently mentioned on the Duke 3D and Shadow Warrior pages here. So dunno. Charlie Wiederhold (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are tens or hundred of thousands of people in the games industry, many of whom draw the attentions of fans from time to time, because of their community involvement, their personality or just by accident. This does not make them notable. Notability perhaps is indicated when the name of a developer is widely known even away from fans of the game or franchise. Jeff Minter or John Carmack for example. It certainly should require significant coverage of the individual - profiles, personal interviews, analysis of that person's impact, in print magazines or the online equivalent (not just fan sites, blogs and forums). By that this article's subject is nowhere near notable enough.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That clarifies a bit my question above to KuyaBriBri. Danke. --Charlie Wiederhold (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inclusion in game credits is not enough in my view. I would expect individual coverage of him, e.g. interviews. Pcap ping 07:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GTS plc[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be an influential organization as per WP:CORP. News searches don't turn up anything; web searches only result in quotations from press releases, and they all sound like advertising. Article has been here for a couple of years and tagged for half a year, and no improvements have been made. Zero articles link to this one. Schmloof (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 January 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. Tone 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Je Suis Une Dolly[edit]

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

Unreferenced, and with no supporting evidence found at reliable sources from google, this appears to be either WP:CRYSTAL or even a hoax. I42 (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL, thus delete. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article was created today and it says that the album will be released on March 15, 2009. This is either a hoax, an article with the wrong release date, or a cancelled album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The infobox says 2010, so presumably the reference to 2009 in the prose is a typo. Having said that, I can find no reliable evidence that this album is due out in March, even the band's official website doesn't seem to mention it....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChrisTheDude. I'm not finding any coverage for this album in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS, and violates WP:CRYSTAL. Gongshow ^Talk 02:01, 24 January 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 under criteria A7. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brennan Saillezmotte[edit]

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

Delete, it is unnotable and although it qualifies for speedy seletion, it has been contested meaning the Afd is the only way to settle this. ToxicWasteGrounds (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, should be a speedy. The talk page is a good reason why. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:48, 19 January 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. Tone 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Ski Mask[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTFILM, this film is not widely distributed, has no notable awards or coverage. Helios Creed guest appearance doesn't establish notability; per NOTFILM, to have the film be notable due to involvement by a notable person it must "...[feature] significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." A guest appearance is not "one of the most important roles in the making of the film". —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur with nominator, there's no evidence this really passes the film notability criteria. I originally concurred with the prod placed on the page, which was removed with the comment that Helios' participation made this a notable film. As the nominator states, this would only be true if he was a major character in the film. If I make a film about my puppy, it would likely be non-notable. Even if I was able to convince Toni Morrison to make a 5 second guest appearance in the film (she lives a few blocks away), it wouldn't make the film notable. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 20:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; I can't find any mention of it in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as currently non-notable. Searches find nothing in independent reliable sources [23] [24], apart from the film exists. No coverage. No reviews. No awards. No festivals. Nada. While it did have a "premier" last October., perhaps this film may have notability in the future... but currently, nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:26, 20 January 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 Intermark Group. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vazda Studios[edit]

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

Orphan article created by Alexandra.routhier (talk · contribs), an editor who only edited Wikipedia from June 30 to August 15, 2008 to create the above article as well as MSP Intermark. The article reads like an advert and a resume, listing "clients and experience", the company president's prior experience, the specific services the company offers as well as what tools are used to provide these services. Extensive searches to locate reliable sources that mention the company in a non-trivial manner turn up empty, leaving me unable to verify that the company meets WP:CORP. I'll gladly withdraw my nomination if sources can be found showing notability and providing info that can be used to populate the article with encyclopedic information rather than its current advertisment-type information. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Intermark Group, the parent corporation. Interestingly, an analysis of the googlehits linked above will reveal that most of this article's content actually refers to the parent corporation.--Pink Bull 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Intermark Group per WP:FAILN. Click23 (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Intermark Group per Pink Bull. Per the Google News Archive search, the notability of Vazda Studios seems hinged on Intermark Group. Cunard (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Intermark Group per everyone else's statement. I also agree that WP:FAILN applies here. Buggie111 (talk) 19:38, 28 January 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, default to keep. Concerns about lack of discussion in reliable secondary sources seem valid, but there is definitely not a consensus for deletion. Article is still fairly new but does eventually need to be properly sourced with inline citations which will help with establishing notability. If that does not happen in the future and notability is still questionable a second trip to AfD would not be unwarranted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blechreiz[edit]

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

Non-notable band. If it were one of the "most important German ska bands of the 1990s", its reformation in 2008 should have produced some notice in reliable sources, but none can be found. Article created by a member of the band. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP!: I do not understand why you don't. I google alert the band which I am indeed a member of every day. and get coverage often. have a look at http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&lr=&safe=off&um=1&q=%22Blechreiz%22&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw&tbo=0, http://images.google.de/images?hl=de&lr=&safe=off&um=1&q=%22Blechreiz%22&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi, http://video.google.de/videosearch?hl=de&lr=&safe=off&um=1&q=%22Blechreiz%22&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iv&tbo=0# or http://www.myspace.com/blechreiz AND of copurse at the sources related to the site(s). As far as sources go, I guess this is a rather big problem with lots of subcultural phenomens: They are usually not mentioned in "serious" writings, fan-zines (which provided a written source before) have almost completely move to the net (i.e. they do not exist on paper any more). Fact is that Blechreiz has recorded seven LPs and a few more records, used to play up to 50 gigs a year and still does some 15 now; at our last concert in berlin, 800 people appeared. gigs are crowded with 200-400 people not just in Hamburg, but in remote places in Germany's East or Czechia, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruediger.rossig (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC) — Ruediger.rossig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment But none of those search results is significant. Basically, they are all either sites maintained by the band themself, or are mere music listing services where practically any and every band in the world can get their music listed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment More sources, not done by anybody in the band:

1. the films quoted in the Filmography, esp. “Ska in Berlin” – ORB (Ostdeutscher Rundfunk Brandenburg television station) – Report on Blechreiz’s 10th anniversary, „Berlin-Warzawa“ – Live video of the Friendship Concert in Warsaw, Poland filmed by Polish TV 1 television station, „Which Side Are You On?“ – Television documentary (Arte/Yildiz Film)

2. http://www.skalovers.de/loves/videos/Blechreiz/28-Blechreiz+Potsdamer+Ska+Festival.html (and other mentionings on that site)

3. http://festivals-2009.festivalticker.de/festivals/potsdamer_skafestival/, http://www.jazzclub-leipzig.de/nc/jazzkalender/jazzkalender-detail/article/ut-connewitz-blechreiz-the-rudementaries.html?tx_ttnews[backPid]=29 and many more mentionings in festival-announcements in 2008 and 2009.

4. A new dvd from the biggest Punk-festival of Germany: "Force Attack 2009 - die beste Punker-Party der Welt" (The best punk party of the world), dröönland production, Rostock 2009

5. Infos about releases etc. on http://www.myspace.com/porkpieska (the biggest ska-label in Germany and all neighbouring countries), http://www.skarorecords.de/shop/CD_SKA_HAUPTSTADTSKA2/index.html...

6. Various mentionings in forums of ska-lovers like http://www.allska-forum.de/showtopic.php?threadid=3300, www.skatime.de, www.ska-talk.org...

7. Various music-download and sales offers on ebay, www.musicload.at, mp3.soundquake.com... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruediger.rossig (talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the ORB mention might indicate notability, without a viable link to indicate that this band was mentioned significantly in the ORB broadcast, this reference is not verifiable.

The other "filmography" listings also do not indicate that the band was featured prominently in the films, or whether it was instead just one of a group of bands that happened to be at a festival when the festival was being covered.

The "ska lovers" reference is a user forum, and as such is not considered a reliable source.

The FestivalTicker piece is a single-line mention of the band, not significant coverage. The JazzClub Leipzig piece is merely a calendar listing of their appearance.

Appearance in a punk-festival is not, in itself, significant.

Releases noted at myspace, forums, etc, are not considered indications of notability.

In sum, none of the arguments made by Ruediger.rossig (talk · contribs) above meet any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Not yet mentioned above were Audio CDs and MP3 downloads listed on amazon.com/amazon.de. --92.229.252.33 (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC) — 92.229.252.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The availability of CDs for sale does not make a band notable. Please refer to WP:MUSIC. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The dates of the above mentioned emissions ORB and arte need to appended - which in the case of the ORB emission is no trivial task as this radio station no longer exists and has no representing website. Blechreiz has been and still is a noted and notable band in Germany, it is mentionend in various publications like those of de:Klaus Farin and de:Eberhard Seidel-Pielen (e.g. Klaus Farin, Eberhard Seidel Pielen: Skinheads, Klaus Farin: Die Skins: Mythos und Realität, Markus Messics: Skinheads: Antirassisten oder "rechte Schläger"?) and have found their way into various Rocklexika (encyclopedias of rock music), like Michael Graf: Rocklexikon Deutschland. Entries for Blechreiz are found in online encyclopedias like Lexikon der Pop- & Rock-Musik and laut.de. --Burkhard (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Drahkrub. Also, the article was created less then a week ago. Perhaps more time should be given for development prior to nomination for deletion.--Pink Bull 00:16, 27 January 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 It would be easy to look at this through purely sympathetic eyes at a time like this and just give this article a pass because of the recent tragedy in Haiti, so I want to assure all of you that I have tried my upmost to look at this objectively. The argument that "he's only famous because he's dead" has an obvious logical flaw in it, in that 20,000 or more people died in a matter of moments, no one death in and of itself is more notable than any other, unless the person who dies was already notable. Why would anyone bother reporting on this particular mans death when the streets are literally piled with rotting corpses unless there was something special about him? The argument that "someone in Haiti would have done it by now" also has some rather large flaws. One, most Haitians do not speak English as their first language, so they are less likely to be contributing here in the first place. Secondly, I could see not knowing before the earthquake that Haiti is a wretchedly poor nation where millions of people struggle to get food every day, but in the time since the quake I think I must have heard the term "poorest country in the Western hemisphere" about 500 times. Most Haitians don't have a computer at all, much less high speed internet access. Lastly, from a pure WP policy standpoint, there do seem to be adequate sources from both before and after his death to establish his notability, and I would bet that there are significantly more sources in French or Creole that could be used to beef up this article, although as I said, Haiti wasn't too "plugged in" even before. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy O[edit]

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

Not notable per WP guidelines Erroneuz1 (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - Wikipedia is not a memorial, but almost all of the post-death sources say he was well-known in Haiti. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I could just find one single source to corroborate that claim (prior to the death) I'd be inclined to change my !vote. JBsupreme (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's certainly not easy, but he's mentioned in passing here in March 2006 and here in December 2007. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In my decision I have to take into account what the Haitians have to say about this Jimmy O. In the sources I've seen, they state that he is well known in Haiti, and that's what I think is the decisive factor here. He was not well known in the US and Erroneuz1 mentions on the article's talk page that Jimmy O "hasn't even released an album." It's true that he hasn't released anything in the U.S., but I have no idea what the music culture is like in Haiti and the sources state that he is well known there. Erroneuz also mentions that "This guy didn't even have an article until he died in this earthquake." Well, obituaries are often the best sources of information concerning a persons life and people of notability overseas are often not reported about in the English langauge press until they die in a tragic event, such as happened last week. David Straub (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is Wikipedia not a memorial, this guy never managed to achieve notability through life or death. JBsupreme (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per JBsupreme and Evb-wiki Wikipedia is not a memorial Venustas 12 (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep He was a well known bloke in his home country. 96.245.119.19 (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- That CNN actually wrote about his death indicates to me at least that he had some kind of notability while alive. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - as mentioned by Umbralcorax above, being covered in a fair amount of detail by CNN indicates some reason to find the rapper notable. My vote is "weak" because I'm unsure if his notability is truly independent of the notable event in which he died. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - systemic bias here against non-US/Western artists? Francium12 00:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, if anything this appears to be a reverse bias as a result of this persons unfortunate death. I see no indicator that the artist was actually notable. Where is the coverage, in any language, of this musician prior to the earthquake? I wonder... JBsupreme (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Odd the mass media are reporting this non-notable person's death... Francium12 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Reliable sources indicate clear notability as a musician in Haiti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs)

I need someone to explain what makes him notable in Haiti...he's never released an album and was not even listed on this site until he died. If he was such a huge notable musician, wouldn't an article have been created way before the earthquake? I'm failing to see anything notable about his career as a musician whatsoever. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY. JBsupreme (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When an article got created is irrelevant to the process of determining their notability — people from smaller and non-English-speaking countries are especially likely to not have articles on here until a US or UK newspaper reports on their death, simply because most Wikipedia editors aren't familiar with the topic. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he's such a huge national figure, someone in Haiti with internet access would have created it already. He's a big celebrity superstar apparently. The article would have been here if this was true. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneuz1, your arguement is getting pretty old. Many wiki articles are written after someone dies. The Laura Chapman Hruska and Edward H. Linde articles were just created this week, shortly after appearring in the New York Times obituary section!!! David Straub (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an argument no one can seem to refute Dave. There's a difference between being ranked in Forbes and having no album. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of those cases where an non-notable (by our standards) person gets pumped up only because of their death in a prominent event by the media looking to find "notable" casualties to keep the news cycle flowing. In my view, this guy is not notable for his career - if he was there would have been sources while he was alive. He never released an album so it doesn't appear he ever met WP:MUSIC. The sources only seem to indicate he was "well-respected in the local rap scene". Well-respected does not mean notable. He's therefore notable only for his death and thus does not warrant an article per WP:BIO1E. If any sources can be presented to show that he was notable for anything other than his death, happy to reconsider. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source of Notability: - A 2006 Christian Science Monitor article has the following "Jean recently emceed a hip-hop contest in the Bel Air slum as part of the USAID-funded Clean Streets project. From 50 contestants in three different slums, Haitian rap star "Jimmy O" Alexandre and Jean selected four from each neighborhood to perform in Bel Air." All this talk about him not having an album in the US is irrelevant. He was obviously well known in Haiti, which is why he has an article. And by the way Erroneuz1, if you want to address me by my first name, why don't you provide your real name and some contact info on your user page and stop talking trash behind a wiki-moniker. Or are you a bit too afraid some Haitians might track you down and give you a lesson in Port-au-Prince style street violence. David Straub (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm addressing you by your chosen username if that also happens to be your real name, I have no idea. I wasn't talking album in the US, I was talking album in any country, of which he has none. I'm failing to see what exactly he accomplished that makes him a star and thus article worthy. So he knew Wyclef, that gets him an article? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Implied threats of violence are over the line. Please strike those comments and stay WP:CIVIL. — Gwalla | Talk 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see where he passed WP:MUSICBIO. Oddly, nobody felt the need to do an article on this "famous" guy until he was dead. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article includes plenty of sources in which he is profiled, thus meeting the WP:GNG standard.--Pink Bull 00:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete - He doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO , if it can be verified that he does, please do. A Ghit search is complicated by another Jimmy O, a US musician and the ones concerning the late Haitian musician seem to deal only with his tragic death.—Sandahl (♀) 03:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the "US musician" plays around NYC, it may be the same person. Sources say he lived there. I've seen several club dates listed. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than one [25], [26].—Sandahl (♀) 03:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think either one of those are the subject of this article, huh? --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we are losing geographical focus here. Jimmy O was a Haitian rapper who was well known in Haiti, but he also worked in the US, where he was not well known. CNN mentions that "Jimmy O, a well-known singer and songwriter in Haiti who also was active in hip-hop artist and philanthropist Wyclef Jean's charity, is dead." He sang his songs in Creole, not English (see video). It should not be surprising that he is not well known in the US, but that is not what's important. David Straub (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sufficient coverage in reliable sources. CNN describes him as a "a well-known singer and songwriter in Haiti". The reason that few English newspapers have covered him is systemic bias. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its only systemic bias if there is a reasonable amount of coverage from non-English newspapers prior to his death. Is there? If so, where is it? This is likely going to be closed as "keep" and if so I will be challenging it again later on down the road if said coverage cannot be found. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In cases such as this, I err on the side of caution. If as CNN said, Jimmy O was well-known in Haiti, Haiti newspapers have likely written articles about him. Because these newspapers don't keep long-term online archives of all their articles, searches for sources prior to his death return no results. The only reason I am voting "keep" is due the assertion made by the CNN article. Otherwise, I would agree with deletion. Cunard (talk) 06:53, 27 January 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. Tone 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slimelight[edit]

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

Non-notable night club. Has some vague claims (eg, "oldest") but does not substantiate them with references. Mikeblas (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. It was barely mentioned in The New York Times, and there are a couple other minor references behind pay-gates, but I'm not finding anything the significant coverage necessary to establish notability. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless someone can find sources that I missed. There does seem to be some coverage in third party source, but it's mostly directory sites and trvial mentions. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's the best known Goth night in London, if not the UK (speaking as someone who has friends into that scene) so I am surprised that there isn't more coverage. There is some coverage over at Google Books. I will keep digging, and I'd urge any !voters to have a good look too. Turning the article into one about the venue, Electrowerkz, might be an option, the two together might scrape enough coverage. Fences&Windows 03:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While borderline, it easily meets the "I heard of it before knowing there was a Wikipedia article" test, which has naught to do with policy but seems a useful rule of thumb. Extensive coverage is in this book, and there are several Google Scholar hits that seem to be fairly in depth and relevant. No objection with a merger to an article on the venue, but I suspect that this is its best known event. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
keep per Smerdis. It does seem notable. Simply south (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis. I think you're confusing notability with verifiability; if it is as it claims the oldest goth night in the world, and if it is as Fences says the best known goth night in the UK, it must be notable. As for verifiability, there are references on the article! Marnanel (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a good point - as you say, it should be notable, but we could really do with reliable 3rd party sources. Currently we only seem to have a user-submission site [27], and the Times article doesn't seem to mention it at all [28] (?) Mdwh (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and I've also put out a call to London goths I know asking for help with good references and improving the article further. IMO clearly notable, but the references could do with a tuneup - David Gerard (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't imagine what relevance a USA newspaper has to the notability of a long-running British nightclub. sheridan (talk) 18:23, 24 January 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) 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denton (A Touch of Frost)[edit]

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

This is a PROD refusal. The article is a two-sentence stub which has been tagged as an orphan since last February. Nothing is known about the fictional town, and except as the name of the fictional setting it does not feature in R. D. Wingfield's Frost stories or the television series based on them. TS 18:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no apparent reason to keep this as a search term, and there's no good reason this content shouldn't already be covered in the show's article. No prejudice against keeping or re-creating it if there are sufficient RS that document anything particularly special about the fictional town. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable. The article was only an orphan because the nominator removed all incoming links to it. Quite a shady tactic in my opinion, stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Further proof lies in the fact that the nominator didn't even tag the article in relation to this discussion, blatantly trying to get it through on the sly. Yes I should assume good faith, but in this situation with this user, there isn't a fat lot of good faith left. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion, perhaps the nominator should read up on the deletion policies before nominating any further articles? Jeni ^(talk) 01:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually as I remarked it has been tagged as an orphan for nearly a year. I didn't do the tagging. An orphan is defined in Wikipedia:Orphan as an article with less than three links in (this one had two). Please don't make accusations like that, it sours the atmosphere. --TS 15:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:Orphan, the only problem with being an orphan page is that it's difficult to find and thus less likely to be improved. The removal of links is therefore likey o exacerbate a problem and create facts on the ground. WP:Orphan also advises that we concentrate on those articles with no links Folks at 137 (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable. The TV series is a popular one featuring an important actor (David Jason). Reading the talk page for the series, there seems to be interest in deducing the fictional location and the actual production location, so there is content if anyone wishes to collate and edit. There are probably plenty of interested fans and it's not their fault if we have not been industrious enough. An issue is whether any fictional location deserves an article. This one should be kept, if any is. So far, TS hasn't explained his reasons for deleting the pre-existing links. Folks at 137 (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out that I hadn't explained why deleted the two links to the article. I did so because they pointed to a useless stub that adds nothing to the reader's knowledge, and because nothing verifiable is known about Denton except that it is the made-up name of a fictional English town in a series of detective stories. --TS 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you did it to add weight to your deletion argument? That isn't acting in good faith at all! Jeni ^(talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please don't engage in personal attacks. Please don't leap to conclusions. --TS 10:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability or necessity present, at all. It's just a placeholder name; "A Touch of Frost is set in the fictional town of Denton, which appears to be in or near Oxfordshire, more precisely in the upper Thames Valley. There in fact are at least ten places in the UK named Denton, including one in Oxfordshire, though the town in the series is not directly identified with any of them." From one of the UK DVD distributors. It had to be called something, it's called Denton, how does that necessitate an article? Someone another 23:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think the DVD distributor may well have "borrowed" that wording from this section of A Touch of Frost or an earlier version. There has been a bit of fannish wittering about the location, but it is not based in reliable sources. --TS 00:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may help if we try to establish clear criteria for the retention/inclusion of fictional places. Any such place is "made-up" for the sake of a story and has no notability beyond that. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion, according to Wiki, and most stubs are probaby "useless". Reasons for deletion need to be better than that. If the reason is lack of notability, then probably most fictional location articles should be merged. So, maybe this argument is a generic one that belongs elsewhere where the main principle can be discussed and decided by a wider audience. Folks at 137 (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Also, removing wikilinks in the interest of cleaning up WP:OVERLINKING isn't bad faith. Wikilinking a bunch of words doesn't make an article better, it just makes a sea of blue links that do nothing to enhance understanding of the topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:25, 26 January 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 with an eye toward improving the tone to a more WP:NPOV. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digifold[edit]

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

Non notable product. Article created by editor with a WP:COI - initial version claimed he had invented it. noq (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unambiguous advertising: Digifold is a new generation of 4 and 6 corner folding device for box gluers and associated machinery...it used advanced materials to improve speed and reduce cost... When you're a Pepsi Generation dropout like me, describing such a tool as new generation seems rather breathlessly promotional to the point of bemusement. Google News is all routine trade coverage of who's purchased this line of products, with nothing to indicate general awareness outside the box printing business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is Morgana's DigiFold, a device used in the production of books, then there a good number of independent sources about it [29]. It also has a fairly good claim to notability " the world's first integrated creaser/folder" [30]. The wiki article is a bit unclear whether it's about that or something else. Pcap ping 14:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of Google responses. Article clearly needs improvement, but editors should be given the opportunity to do so. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider revising the article to be about the company--whjch would make a stronger & more informative article. From the description, this is the machine used in book production also or a variant of it. It apparently has a major share in an infdustry, and that is sufficient, even were it not innovative. The sources are perfectly good reliable trade magazines--the good ones are accepted in each industry as the major sources. They is the primary way people communicate about commercial products, and reliability goes according to what is accepted in the subject. TheWholeSubjectDoesNotSeemImportantToMe is not a good argument. And finally, notability is within a field. For a machine, notability within its industry is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising for a product of no demonstrable (via reliable, third party sources etc...) notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Pcap ping 17:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there anything to confirm that it is the same product as the Morgana one? The description of its use seems at variance. noq (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it isn't, the Morgana one should have an article. I basically rewrote it that way from the sources I found. It looks like the product was acquired from another company by Morgana, see Talk:Digifold. Pcap ping 19:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its mentioned in the news enough to be something worth talking about. Google news search results = notable enough to have an article about it. Dream Focus 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and likely re-focus per DGG. -- Banjeboi 06:52, 25 January 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) 05:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bittersweet: The Love Songs Collection[edit]

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

Non notable compilation. Kekkomereq4 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - same procedural question as here. I would lean toward Delete on this one. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cher is unquestionably a notable artist. If her bio article were to have all the worthwhile and properly sourced information about her, however, it would be far too long. Therefore, the editors of the article have properly used summary style. The main article links to a daughter article concerning Cher albums discography, and that article links to articles about particular albums. It's an excellent way to make available a rich level of detail about Cher (which some readers would want) without surrendering to clutter that would impair Wikipedia's value for readers who want less detail. JamesMLane t c 08:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides three sentences in the Milwaukee Journal ("one of the true low spots of a conspicuously erratic career") [31] and a brief mention in Billboard ("paltry" and "schmaltzy") [32], I can't find sources that argue for the notability of this reissue. A footnote in the discography would cover it. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War Paint and Soft Feathers[edit]

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

Non notable song. Released only as a promo in US. Kekkomereq4 (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable song for which I can't find any significant independent coverage. In the event it's retained, it should be a redirect to Cherished per WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Glenfarclas (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this song. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Debate (song)[edit]

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

This song is not a single and is not otherwise notable. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rule Britannia is not a single either, that doesn't mean it isn't notable. Parrot of Doom 18:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRUFT handles things like this. Pursuant I'll have to say Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs) 19 January 2010
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any significant details from this song can easily be fit into Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence. Article current has no content of encyclopedic value (original research/cruft). Una Laguna^Talk 18:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it is entirely necessary to keep. Besides, it is not sourced at all, which is a problem. The format of the article is uncyclopedic as well. However, it would be cool if this article would be put on some other website or something. But yeah, I vote delete. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, But be sure to first incorporate significant details into Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence. The Ministry (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONG. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:30, 26 January 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. Tone 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gina DeVettori[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. No movie she's had a significant role in been in has been widely reviewed. She has neither won nor been nominated for any awards. She has not garnered any significant coverage in any sources. ^Bongo_matic 16:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search turns up her WP page, social networking sites, a few blogs, and IMDB/Rotten Tomatoes type sites. No significant coverage in reliable sources. PDCook (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage appears very limited Vartanza (talk) 06:49, 22 January 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. Tone 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Moore (businessman)[edit]

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

WP:BLP issues aside, this article reads like a narrative of a resume, and I was unable to find any substantive sources on the web to back up any of the claims made about this person. Just not convinced he's notable. 2 says you, says two 14:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Update on sources[reply]

As of this revision, a number of references had been inserted:

One.tel press release. Press release, not independent. Only barely passing mention of subject.
ZD-Net news article on One.tel. Attributes information and quote to subject. No coverage of subject.
3Gnewsroom.com article. Attributes information to subject. No coverage of subject.
SMH article on One.tel liquidation. Attributes information to subject. No coverage of subject.
SMH article on One.tel. States that subject is helping on the liquidation of One.tel and speaking at a forum. Not even close to "significant" coverage.
Auction summary. No mention of subject at all.
SMH opinion piece on One.tel liquidation. Mentions that subject was helping in the liquidation of One.tel, attributes information to subject. Nothing resembling "significant" coverage.
The Age article of liquidation of One.tel. Attributes information on the liquidation to subject. No coverage of subject (not even a mention of his previous role at One.tel).
Computerworld on One.tel selection of Lucent. Attributes information to subject. No coverage of subject at all.
Czech article apparently on Lucent. One mention of subject in an article in Czech. Doesn't appear to be about, but solely an attribution of information to, the subject.
AllBusiness.com article. Attributes information to subject. No coverage of subject at all.

Note I am not bothering to delve into whether the sources can be considered to be reliable for the most part, as it is irrelevant. ^Bongo_matic 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BIO, WP:BLP. Unsourced. Google shows no indication of notability: [33], [34]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the companies he headed seem notable, and the notable ones he is associated with he seems to have been in a minor capacity. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is as close to coverage I could find. Not sufficient to establish notability. ^Bongo_matic 15:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable Venustas 12 (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:46, 20 January 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. Primarily as per WP:NEO - timelines can exist but not as FORKS or under a neologism (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politicalchronology, etc.[edit]

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

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

Appears to be mixture of original research and forked content from other articles to justify a non-notable neologism. Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Politicalchronology does not refer to external research in its field, it is designed to be a source of world political chronology. Nor is the article fully completed yet and all references and sorces required will be edited, as well as further guidance and description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl29gbg (talk • contribs) 15:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could at least start by providing a reference to the term "politicalchronology". At least then reviewing editors would have something to go on. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly merge. With 5 non-WP:RS Google results, "Politicalchronology" is a clear violation of WP:NEO. I would suggest renaming the list but I fail to see a consistent pattern in its organization. Besides, it looks like an unnecessary fork from List of years in politics or other similar lists. — Rankiri (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the above and below. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I hate to say delete just because it has a stupid title (and it really does). It's organized well, every one of the entries is sourced (always a pleasant surprise in a Wikipedia article), and it's concise, saying in one sentence what folks like I would take a paragraph to say. If this were retitled "Changes in national government 2000 - present" or something of that nature, I would find it acceptable. Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list is sourced, but the introduction is original research. I'm also concerned about the selection criteria of this list, which hints at a synthesis problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I strongly disagree with the assertion that "every one of the entries is sourced". Although the article technically starts at 2000, the entries do not begin until 2002. So how come almost every single reference is to a Reuters article from the year 2000? O Fenian (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Politicalchronology 1990s added at this point. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Speedy A10 could be used. Fully covered by xxxx in politics articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Nn neologism & cherry picked content. --blue520 12:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism, covered by categories, entries picked according to made-up standard. I also suggest deleting Political timeline of the 1980s and Politicalchronology 1970s, and stopping this experiment before it spins out of control. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now the article has been moved to a different title. Twice. Very annoying when this happens in the middle of the AfD process. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete In principle I could see a timeline of major political events affecting states' political governance or whatever being created in the article namespace. However, such timelines need inclusion criteria and the terminology used in this article's lead is just weird and would better belong on a private homepage. Consider moving to user namespace as user subpages, if the editor wishes to continue work on them until they have a chance of being up to standard. My vote also applies to the 1970s and 1980s articles. Tomas e (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable neologism. EeepEeep (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO, WP:OR, needless fork. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:33, 26 January 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 closed as moot. I have summarily redirected the page to Coteaux du Tricastin AOC; a redirect is worth keeping here as a plausible spelling error that has in fact been made, and I see no grounds for erasing the history. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coteaux de Tricastin AOC[edit]

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

G7, and A10 (although not really recent). Was originally created through expansion from almost duplicate stubs. This stub named Coteaux de Tricastin is the wrong name. The correct name is Coteaux du Tricastin AOC (now uopdated). Any content worth keeping has been moved over. Kudpung (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My Français is rusty - is the title with "de" a reasonable redirect to the corrected title with "du"? If so, then I think the Redirect would be the simplest option. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nafeh[edit]

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

This magazine is not notable in Iran. The article looks like an advertisement for the magazine and how good it is! Must be deleted ASAP. Professional Assassin (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There are indications this magazine is notable in Iran. I have added a couple of cites including one which shows the publisher attending an important literary award function. The fact that at least two notable writers have published their work in the magazine indicates notability. More importantly perhaps, the existence of an independent literary magazine, and information about it is of interest to people living in English-speaking countries. The topic of free speech in Iran, is a very current and important issue that some people may want to research or simply know more about. Therefore, I see no reason to remove this article from Wikipedia & I believe it can be developed further by other editors, as I had little difficulty coming up with a couple of new references. The article may never become a very long one, but how long can an article about a literary magazine ever be?—KeptSouth (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine has near zero notability in Iran. The article lacks any reliable source to show its notability. You have added a link as a supposed source which has nothing to do with this article's topic. The only relation between this article and your source is this image caption in your source: Simin Behbahani and Nahid tavassoli, writer and pubisher of Nafeh (a literary magazine). Does it really show this magazine's notability? There are hundreds of likewise magazines in Iran.--Professional Assassin (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two more Farsi sources discussing Nafeh:[35][36]. I'm undecided on notability. Fences&Windows 18:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read both sources. There was nothing about notability of Nafeh in them.--Professional Assassin (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previous relisting by Cirt does not seem to have worked. Sandstein 12:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It feels like we could keep the article, but for sources. Surely, the magazine has been mentioned somewhere? I can't imagine there are that many Iranian literary magazines, after all - but, again, my knowledge of the subject is somewhere between nil and nothing. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After all this time, we still can't come up with anything verifiable that shows they are notable. WP:V seems to be a factor. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Safety Report[edit]

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

Posted my concern here about 20 days ago for this and another article Predicted no-effect concentration. On both articles, there no footnotes to determine where the references come from, I don't quite understand the context of the articles or reasoning for inclusion on Wikipedia. Any truly valuable information most likely could be merged into a relevant article on the topic, but to be honest I'm having trying determining what article(s) that may be. NJA (t/c) 11:53, 19 January 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. Sources have been provided which lead to a rough consensus that this appears sufficiently notable. The article clearly still requires substantial cleanup but appears notable in principle. ~ mazca ^talk 20:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate++[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. None of the sources establish notability, and I couldn't find anything significant on Google. The article has already been deleted three times (see old AFD). Laurent (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly Speedy Delete under criterion G4. The previous AfD was some time ago, but the article still doesn't address the issues raised. The sources are self-published, with the possible exception of the Code Project article written by a student - but even fail WP:SELFPUB as they make dubious claims about the performance of the Standard Template Library. Searches do not reveal [independent coverage that would warrant inclusion. decltype (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to Keep based on significant coverage[37] in fr:Programmez!, which seems to meet WP:RS. decltype (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independent reviews at: [38]; [39]; [40]; [41]; [42]; [43]; etc. LotLE×talk 19:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these souces are reliable. Did you really have a look at them? The last one is certainly not an "independent review", it's a bug tracker. Laurent (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LotLE’s refs. Samboy (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since apparently nobody is looking at the sources, here is a short review:
- [44] - Non-notable shareware website which only has a description of the product (most likely written by the authors of Ultimate++).
- [45] - Non-reliable, self-published source
- [46] - A forum post by the author of Ultimate++
- [47] - Another non-notable shareware website
- [48] - A personal webpage (non-reliable)
- [49] - A bug tracker (no idea why LotLE calls that an "independent review")
- Laurent (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no reason to look at them. I know that Lulu's opinions are so different than mine that any links that he posts and calls significant coverage really isn't. Joe Chill (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was actually responding to Samboy as I was under the impression that he "voted" keep based on the number of references rather than on their quality. Laurent (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I know a lot of poeple who use this software. And comparing it to some other articles on IDEs on wikipedia (for example compare ultimate++ to this one: PellesC), if they do not get deleted: this one is definitly worth keeping.. I mean there is notable software written in it etc... why delete it? The article is neutral and everything... I also think that wikipedia should put the claim of "beeing complete" more into the foreground and ultimate++ definitly belongs to the list of wikipedias articles about frameworks and IDEs of C++. Otherwise they would just not be complete.

129.187.200.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC). [reply]

- WP:Other stuff exists is not an argument for keeping or deleting an article. If PellesC is even less notable than Ultimate++ then it should probably be deleted too, but that's a different issue. Laurent (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:Other stuff exists actually CAN be an argument for keeping or deleting an article (see the WP:Other stuff exists). It is not like there is thousands of comparable entries that keep appearing in Wiki. Number of comparable software is in fact quite limited, there is only about a dozen of actively used C++ GUI toolkits in existence (and about the same number of IDEs). All seem to be covered by wiki now, which sounds reasonable.
Keep Notable references are sparse but exist. wxWidgets and WTL consider this project to be a competition: [50] [51]. It is also mentioned as system being in use in embedded devices: [52]. Critical review seems to be here: [53]. It appears to be quite often mentioned in various forums as possible option, e.g. [54] (more examples exist). Wikipedia lists many similar projects that are about as notable as this one, see VCF Juce TnFOX fpGUI FLTK FOX toolkit. 00:18 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists is not an argument for keeping or deleting an article. Moreover, in my opinion these links do not help establish notability. [55] and [56] are wikis which are not reliable sources. It's actually very possible that these pages have been partly written by the authors of Ultimate++. [57] and [58] are blogs which are not reliable sources. Finally, [59] is a forum, so not a reliable source either. Laurent (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Other stuff exists agreed. However, the question is how detailed wikipedia wants to be. IMHO, mix of various references, even if borderline notable, creates impression that the information provided by the article is useful for wikipedia users. Personally, when I encounter any new term unknown to me, my first reaction is to find it out in wikipedia for balanced review/overview. As I expect this to work for e.g. "FLTK", then it should work here too (that is the reason for quoting similar articles - IMHO, they should all be kept). This can be verified, to some degree, by the article traffic statistics. 10:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.237.17 (talk)

Comment (as I have already voted Keep): there is a number of possibly notable non-English references: [60] - two articles in printed Polish 'Software Developers Journal', issues 2005-11 and 2005-12. There appear to have been two articles in printed French journal Programmez, issues 104 and 114 [61] [62] (links summary of articles in journal with page preview). Also, links like this [63], while not in fact making this notable, appear to suggest that "Ultimate++" is term somebody would miss in WP. This is definitely non-notable: [64] or [65] but supports the idea that the number of similar entries is indeed limited (per WP:Other stuff exists, compare that to the list of major StarWars characters...)

Obscure but perhaps weakly notable: [66] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.237.17 (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be mentioned in some books: [67] [68] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.237.17 (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the French source provided by decltype (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Maybe this really is the best cleanup venue after all... JBsupreme (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feloni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. This artist fails WP:MUSIC and general notability guidelines. Yes, she has received passing coverage by GO Magazine, and yes appeared on a reality television show (Coming Out Stories). We don't create articles for every single person who appears on a reality television show and for good reason. All the supposed references are dead links so I cannot vouch for their authenticity or substance. JBsupreme (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I restored that reference you deleted - apparently because you thought it was dead? It wasn't, just moved. We have reliable sources that meet GNG. The article can be greatly expanded just using those. The issues the article has can be addressed through regular editing which makes this not a good candidate for deletion. -- Banjeboi 09:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For some odd reason nom has again removed one of the articles about this subject. I'll again re-add it in hopes it will remain this time. -- Banjeboi 09:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding the new location of that article, I ran into a few edit conflicts with you while tagging dead links. In any case this artist still does not appear to be notable so I'll let this run its course. JBsupreme (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - All those dead links have also been fixed. I've also found a few more sources. If Curve is online I'll add that interview too. -- Banjeboi 10:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I checked the previous nom and searched for some sources, and the result is satisfactory to me. As I'm going home from work right now, I don't have time to sort it out in details, so it's a weak keep. Blodance the Seeker 09:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passess the general notability guideline and criterion 1 of WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:17, 21 January 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 both due to insufficient/trivial mentions in reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L. Cedeño & Bliss Wishes[edit]

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

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

There is nothing in either article that tells me that the subjects are actually notable for inclusion. Along with apparent WP:BLP and WP:COI issues (author User:Etrangere has admitted to being involved with the subject), I'm not even sure if this passes WP:MUSIC, nor does the related article (an album by the artist). All of the references in the first article are trivial mentions or user-oriented websites (Last.fm and AllMusic). These websites do not even have any content on them other than track names and release dates. And the news article used for a reference does not even mention the subject. The article on the album is even worse. It's just a tracklist with a reference for the release date.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with deletion. The article only mentions the things that make this artist notable. Specifically it notes the characterizations and description as mentioned by NPR, which is a viable, editorial source. Also, the link to NPR does mention the artist. As a matter of fact, the linked story is specifically and exclusively about the artist, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say it doesn't mention the artist. As for the related album - that is the album that is noted in the linked article. As stated NPR, is a viable, editorial, notable source. There is no original research contained in this article.
Allmusic is a viable source from the inquiries and research I've done here on Wikipedia. Allmusic is used as a source in a great many articles here. Still, if it's not a viable source according to consensus I will remove it. As for the rest of the links being user-related. They're not related to me - they're related to the artist in question. I agree that Myspace is not a viable source and should be removed.
I think instead of removing this article it should be improved with better sources and more description of what makes the artist notable. Since I wrote the article I'm not sure if my opinion counts here but I will gladly attempt to improve the article in hopes that in can be retained. Etrangere (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Etrangere, you have an emotional and fiscal stake in the retention of this page on Wikipedia. This website is not for advertising.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to above - As the author I'd like to keep the article but I don't have a "Fiscal" nor an "emotional" stake in the outcome. What don't you get about - I'm not the subject of the article? If I'm not mistaken - editors who contribute articles are invited to take part in these discussions. If I'm wrong please direct me to the guideline which stipulates that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etrangere (talk • contribs)
    - You are apparently somehow involved with the subject, which was stated on ANI when I first found these articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, as listed quite clearly, by you, Et, here.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 10:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please attempt to read all of the entries you are citing before adding comments relating to the nature of those comments Daedalus969. The entry you are referring to has been explained over and over again. All opinions are valued - just be informed. It's more helpful. Etrangere (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You admit that you are an aquaintance of the subject of these articles. You certainly have a stake in their inclusion on this project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. I only see a single album on a marginally notable indie label, the rest of the indies are non-notable. Further, as WP:MUSIC states, significant mention in reliable sources is required. I see none of that here. The NPR piece is a short bio with no named author, and cannot be used to establish notability. Then we have Allmusic and Last.fm. Two companies which simply publish music information. No named author, cannot be used to establish notability. Lastly, we have the Dallas observer. That's a single article. Multiple are required.. what's more, the Observer doesn't even mention this artist's name. It gives a passing mention to a band he was in, The Junky Southern, but that's it. The article is about some other band that the subject of the article wasn't even in. Fails WP:N, fails WP:MUSIC. Delete.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 08:19, 21 January 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.

Article should be deleted. Notability not established Em7 (talk)

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

The result was delete. Clearly WP:CRYSTAL - few "possible" tracks, non confirmation of title, little resources to cite from (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mission.Impossible.Area[edit]

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

Future album with no confirmed release date, only a handful of "possible" tracks, and a title which has not been confirmed in any reliable source as far as I can see. Smash with the WP:HAMMER and recreate when some definite information is known -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Agree with nom for the most part but there is significant coverage in Rolling Stone, we know the producer and two of the tracks from that piece. Some more concrete information (release date, title) from reliable sources is still needed. J04n(talk page) 15:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One source isn't enough. Joe Chill (talk) 01:07, 20 January 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. Unable to find multiple souces that declare him to be notable even with Israeli circles. WP:SELFPUB and does not meet WP:BIO (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoel Glick[edit]

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

non notable author of self published works. noq (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm unable to find any substantial sources using google that are not already in the article. The current sources don't appear to meet WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yoel Glick does not appear very much on Google, because his work is rather esoteric and he does not teach in large or popular institutions. His work in the last fifteen years has been done quietly. In the 1980s he ran a very important school for Kabbalah in Jerusalem's old city. Edoecohen (talk 17:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, esoteric nature of work is not a reason to keep. The key issue is whether the individual meets our policy for inclusion of biography inclusion. In particular, we need multiple, indepenent, reliable sources about Glick. If we have those we can keep. Otherwise it is very hard under Wikipedia policy and guidelines to justify keeping. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet qualifications to be included. Does not assert notability. Yossiea ^(talk) 17:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just did some searching on several academic databases - literary, religious and alternate press - and found not a single entry about this man.Sabiona (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Yes as I wrote above - his work is esoteric, meaning it will not appear in literary, religious or alternate press. Are those the only criteria of who can have an article on Wikipedia? Edoecohen (talk (UTC)

- You already added 'Keep' in a previous statement. Doing so again is not really...helpful. I was clarifying that while others had commented on his lack of coverage in Google and similar sources, I also checked paid databases and academic sources.Sabiona (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. The WP:ILIKEIT vote above doesn't really establish the notabilty of this subject. RadioFan (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Esoteric? Maybe. Notable? Not so much. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:37, 26 January 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 with an eye toward improving the tone to a more WP:NPOV. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary M. Reynolds[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable person who does not meet WP:BIO. His eponymous firm (GMR Marketing may be notable, but he is not. The page is slick, as would befit a page written by a marketing company; judged on its merits, though, I do not believe it meets guidelines. Baron Larf 07:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. In my view, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Forbes Magazine profiles get him over the line of significant coverage in multiple sources. Both articles focus on Reynolds to a greater extent than his companies. My brief scan suggests there are other sources, although the focus of those sources is more on the company than Reynolds. But I think this only just scrapes over the notability line and am willing to be convinced otherwise. The article does have a very PR feel about it. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Forbes and MJS profiles probably satisfy WP:BIO, per User:Mkativerata. But the nominator is correct regarding the seemingly lack of neutrality of the article. --Pink Bull 01:03, 27 January 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. Tone 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J. Futuristic[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Artist has released 2 non-notable mixtapes and a single that neither Billboard or Allmusic show as ever charting. [69]. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources.} Niteshift36 (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage at present to establish notability. Maybe when his album comes out.--Michig (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not (yet) a notable artist. Hasn't charted as either J. Futuristic or as J. Money, his previous incarnation, and there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Yappy2bhere (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails wikipedia guidelines for musicians. Alio The Fool 19:37, 21 January 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. nothing in gnews [70]. google mainly has directory listings [71]. LibStar (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be just a non-notable executive of a firm. I can't find anything of significance about him. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are Google News references to him as "N Venkat". Sometimes people with long names use a shorter version for business purposes. Here is an article which refers to him as a "management guru": Kalavalapalli, Yogendra (2009-06-15). "Hot tips from management gurus". The Hindu. Retrieved 19 January 2010. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The references currently in the article are all links to mainstream India financial media. He has received widespread coverage as "N. Venkat". (though a lot of that coverage is sourced from press releases and product launches). --Sodabottle (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough sources to establish notability, and I suspect more can be found by searching in Hindi and Urdu. Pantherskin (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this individual has no article in either Hindi or Urdu, so there may not be significant coverage in those languages. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- For someone in the corporate world, Hindi coverage would only be a subset of English coverage and Urdu a subset of that. Vernacular press is helpful for other areas but not for business/industry. -SpacemanSpiff 18:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if this field were an except to the general guideline that sources in any language are adequate for this or for any other subject, there are sufficient English language sources already present for notability . DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 26 January 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. Tone 23:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people of mixed Japanese and Korean descent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of people of mixed Japanese and Korean descent (2nd nomination)

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

Nomination for speedy deletion as recreation of article previously deleted at AfD (see previous AfD discussion) was declined by an administrator, but as before, this article is still a meaningless list which corresponds to the "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" section in WP:NOTDIR. DAJF (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as clear violation of WP:NOTDIR per nom. Also note that consensus in the previous AfD discussion was clearly that the article should be deleted, on the basis of its subject and not its content, therefore the fact that the article is now better written is irrelevant. Also, why not toss some WP:SALT on it, too? Lists of this sort will never have encyclopedic value. Ivanvector (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete it's just plain difficult to verify such a list to encompass all possible WP articles that fall into this. technically 1 Japanese or Korean great great grandfather would qualify a mixed heritage person onto this. this is almost impossible to verify. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt This list is of absolutely no value, and by all practical means has no chance to become encyclopedic - WP:NOTDIR,WP:IINFO,WP:V. Blodance the Seeker 07:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Anna Lincoln 10:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see any notability. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. Tasty, tasty salt. JBsupreme (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this any different than List of Mexican Americans? Before anyone says "that's the other stuff exists" argument, I'll point out that we have an entire Category:Lists of American people by ethnic or national origin. I don't see giving Japanese and Korean ancestry a different standard of treatment than we would accord to any other group. Mandsford (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, "Mexican American" = "American in nationality and Mexican in origin". "mixed Japanese and Korean descent" = "mixed Japanese and Korean in bloodline". They are two entirely different things. As you can see, some of the people in the list are actually American in nationality - so how do you prefer to call them? "Asian-American" or "Japanese-Korean-American"? Blodance the Seeker 02:09, 20 January 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 snow speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion. Snow as well. WP:NAC TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airsickness bag[edit]

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

unsourced Mjpresson (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, article chock full of unsourced material.Mjpresson (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No reason to delete the article just because it lacks sources. Tag the bits of the article that need references with ^{[citation needed]} tags, or better yet, look up some sources. Ivanvector (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Simply being unsourced is not in itself a reason for deletion. Contentious statements can be removed or tagged as requiring references for verification. --DAJF (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with the above comments. Airsickness bags are common and prominent enough to be notable, the article does not have to be deleted simply because it lacks sources. JIP | Talk 05:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lot of the current article belongs in an airsickness bag, but see [72], [73], [74], etc. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See also patent 3149771 and its patent history. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. {{noref}} good, delete not good. Blodance the Seeker 07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The question is not whether the article is currently well-written and properly sourced, but whether the subject (airsickness bags) is notable enough to be included in the English Wikipedia. I think the answer to the latter is clearly yes. I have also added a reference where they are covered in some detail. decltype (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Decltype summarizes this well. Clearly a notable device. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:54, 19 January 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. Unsourced BLP with non-notabilty able to be determined (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Wickrematunge[edit]

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

A confused and confusing bio: "Canadian politician in Sri Lanka" and "born a Catholic however converted to Christianity". The facts seem to be mixed up with those of Lasantha Wickrematunge of whom he is alleged to be the father. Quite simply: no evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search for sources has turned up negligible coverage. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG . --Mkativerata (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero reliable sources; violates WP:BLP, WP:POLITICIAN. Bearian (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete supposed politician who fails GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 21:01, 25 January 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 WakkaWiki. Merge what you will from the history, but I see little sourceable information that could be merge-worthy. Sandstein 06:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UniWakka[edit]

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

UniWakka is a wiki application that seems to have been under development from 2004 to 2006 or so, but never with any notable usage or references. Yaron K. (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [75]. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WakkaWiki. Multiple books mention it as a derivative of that, but there's not much commentary otherwise. Pcap ping 06:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pohta ce-am pohtit. LotLE×talk 09:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into WakkaWiki, does not pass WP:GNG on its own. Click23 (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N without question and the other article subject is not much better. Jeepday (talk) 23:28, 27 January 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. Had been given a speedy tag - why on earth was AfD considered necessary. In any case, page-widening was sufficient justification for deletion as vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanezza[edit]

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

Formatting nightmare iBen^discuss/_contribsReplied here? 03:13, 19 January 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kornizon[edit]

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

Hoax? iBen^discuss/_contribsReplied here? 03:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - complete hoax; should have been speedied, not put up for AfD. --mhking (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Now tagged for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax/vandalism. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. hoax article, written to have a scientific appearance. There's nothing about Kornizon in the search engines, there's no ancient german astronomer with the name of Matthäus Ackart. Placing this article on AfD is a waste of time, storage-space and bandwidth. The speedy-deletion tag shouldn't have been removed. Amsaim (talk) 03:23, 19 January 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. Tone 23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Innovative Optical Health Sciences[edit]

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

This journal was started by World Scientific only in 2008, and is covered by neither Scopus, WoS or any subject indexes. I do not see that it is remotely likely to be notable yet, and there are no sources saying otherwise. it is held in only 10 WorldCat libraries, including some, like Fashion Institute of Technology, that presumably subscribed only because they were offered a package of all of the publishers journals. This is part of an attempt to enter indiscriminately into Wikipedia all journals from that publisher. Several of us have been going through them to remove the ones that are of no possible notability. I sometimes wish we could find some way of saying just that if anyone looks for such titles here, but that is not our job--we're not a reviewing service. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if DGG says it isn't notable, it really must be non-notable. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Article creation premature, can be re-created later if the journal becomes notable after all. --Crusio (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. No indications of notability yet. Nsk92 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:50, 19 January 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Brown[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Barely sourced and seemingly non-notable; has been tagged for well over a year with no improvements made in these areas. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Deletealmost completely unsourced doesn't even come up in the first 30 hits on Google. Looks to be a vanity article for a guy that got a bit part in a commercial and did some extra work. If this is criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia get ready for a list of notable actors that's a few million entries long.Nefariousski (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he had a top 20 UK single- one of the WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria is "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.", and he wasn't just in one commercial he was the mainstay of Halifax's campaign for something like eight years. There are probably more sources to be found if you include "Halifax" in the search as it's such a common name. A quick search gets results from national UK newspapers- the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Daily Mail (which I shall for now drop on the article's talk page since I'm pressed for time.) MorganaFiolett (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It pains me to say it, as this annoying little mans ads have irritated me for nearly a decade, but...he has indeed had a top 20 single in the UK...he has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources (the highest quality newspapers in our land no less), as per the links given by MorganaFiolett on the articles talk page...he does have a large cult following among the kind of people that like the 118 118 guys and insurance meerkats. Sadly encyclopeadic. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High notable. Lack of effort is no reason to delete - see WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:13, 26 January 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Manufacturing[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added several references. The article should be moved to Lindsay Corporation, the company's correct name. Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange, such as this one, are quite likely to be notable. – Eastmain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 01:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. Note that this is a manufacturer of center pivot irrigation systems. An established manufacturer of hard goods under its own brands and with a noticeable physical presence, to be sure: but in other contexts routine coverage of the naming of a corporate chairman, or being named to the National Agri-Marketing Association Agribusiness Leader of the Year honor roll would not be the sort of coverage that confers notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Would even qualify by German wikipedia standards: over 1K employees, over $400M revenue, etc. [76] It's been around since 1955, so there's plenty of coverage. Pcap ping 11:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Clearly notable. • Freechild'sup? 04:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Large, old company. Sources show up easily from google. See for example this search. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:50, 19 January 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 Despite the valiant efforts to find adequate sourcing for this article, it does not seem to meet the standard of the notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kabooza[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to locate multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. The "awards" cited in the article appear meaningless and do not provide narrative evaluations. The TechCrunch article is not of sufficient depth. The BBC mention is extremely brief and only in passing. Attempts to locate further significant coverage were fruitless, leaving the ArcticStartup article as the only source of sufficient depth. The topic thus fails the "multiple sources" part of WP:N. Cybercobra (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo ^talk 07:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Cybercobra (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Cybercobra (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story. Which is clearly not the case in the BBC story. ArcticStartup reports on start-ups from that area as matter of routine coverage. Here's a sample of companies covered in their current front page: Absolicon Solar Concentrator, Rightware, Voddler, Metallkraft, Moozement, Canatu. So, the sole article on this company there falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Pcap ping 15:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Do Not Delete~~. The Intresting thing about BBC is that they refer to the large global backup survey that is the largest of its kind published on the web. That is notable. Also there are several other sources but I have not found any in English. There are several newpaper articles and tv coverage but it is not available on the Web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backupexpert22 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC) — Backupexpert22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Wikipedia does not require sources to be web-accessible or in English. But they should be reliable (and for proving notability, significant). --Cybercobra (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Since it is a Swedish company I checked online coverage in Swedish, and the Google hits that are not their own marketing or press releases are, just like in the case of BBC, quotes from their backup survey rather than cover the company. Seems to fail WP:CORP. Tomas e (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found several more articles and a review of the service in Swedish media. The largert daily newspaper wrote about it in Efter kraschen. The leading Computer publication write about it here. It was mentione on the largest TV channel Svenskarna är dåliga på att göra backup på sina datorer. Finns det risk för att vår historia (the video in not online anymore). There is also a Kabooza review from the largest publishing group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoman365 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again references where the survey is mentioned, only the last reference from IDG briefly reviews the services provided by Kabooza; this would be the only one that adds anything new. I still think that WP:SIGCOV has not really been fulfilled. Tomas e (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's more, the section of the IDG backup comparison on Kabooza is only about a paragraph in length. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Accoding to WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Here it does definately comply with the very heavy competent sources. Backupexpert22 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC) — Backupexpert22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - By " few or no other edits" I guess you mean that I am new to adding value to Wikipedia. This is much harder than i thought. Kindly Backupexpert22 (talk) Backupexpert22 (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep' The sources from Photoman seem to possibly be enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See User:Tomas e's above comment, which seems to be accurate as far as I can tell. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (again with more sources) I have found even more articles about kabooza and also their often refered study. More articles at Business2Press about Kabooza entering and Yahoo Exiting the online storage space. Killerstartups also has a short article about Kabooza and its product. There is also another article on Kaboozas product and about the backup behaviour survey on PC users neglect backup needs. Photoman365 (talk Photoman365 (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given KillerStartup's tagline "We review 15+ internet startups per working day.", they don't seem at all discerning. Your last link appears to be from some communications firm's blog and thus not a reliable source. The Business 2.0 Press piece is merely 1 paragraph and thus not of sufficient depth. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No persuasive case for notability has been made. Sources are either passing mentions or unreliable, as CyberCobra and Tomas e argue above. Ucucha 20:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Year 2070 problem[edit]

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

Notability not asserted for theoretical problem. Only links are to unreliable web postings. Reywas92^Talk 01:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of good sources and solid info, even that tells us if this is a real problem. How about a new article on "year problems" in general? Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That'd be Time formatting and storage bugs, which I suggest this be merged to.--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing but baloney. smithers - talk 02:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no google/google scholar hits for this problem. I checked the article references and they concern the Year 2038 problem. It seems the article creator misunderstood the unix clock problem. redirect would not be appropriate, in case a year REAL year 2070 problem turns up ^_^ RayBarker (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, misinterpreted article, but it's still just a variant on the millennium bug with no sources, so my vote is the same. RayBarker (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put under Millenium Bug. It's a variant of that bug. (^_^) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oddly enough, neither one of the sources refer to a "year 2070 problem". In fact, the article itself refers to 2068 and 2034 as things that "might" be misinterpreted, and says that computer programs "might" be written based on an "assumption" that may or may not happen. If keep, let's have articles about the "year 2068 problem" and the "year 2034 problem" as well, because it makes just as much sense. Mandsford (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both time formatting and storage bugs and Millenium bug discuss the problem already (dealing with two digit years and "windowing" as a workaround for Y2K bugs). I would see if there's anything that can be salvaged from the article and then redirect to one of the two; I would suggest "time formatting and storage bugs" because although this is indeed one type of Y2K problem, it is not actually tied specifically to Y2K.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source says "Y2.07K bug". The second source mentions year 2068. The article did not mention the "year 2034 problem". --ilgiz (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere... there's also a Year 2080 problem... since IBM designed the PC to startup with January 1, 1980 as the default date, and the Year 2100 problem... since some people modified the two year dates to measure after the Y2K probem... Perhaps an article 2-digit year rollover problems ? 70.29.211.138 (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A bulletin from Dallas Semiconductor[77] explained that the company's RTC initially had only 2 digits for the year. This implied the year 2000 problem which could have been exposed by MS-DOS's trimming of unusual RTC reading to MS-DOS's default date of January 4, 1980. The bulletin did not mention any issues related to year 2080. The year 2069 issue stems from the choice of the 2-digit roll-over boundary by The Open Group. So the name of the article is misleading as it was taken literally from a single mailing list posting.--ilgiz (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As being similar to a vast number of potential "problems" (Year 32K anyone? which is a vastly bigger problem, to be sure) No need for article, no specific notability, hits WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:TRIVIA. Collect (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this; there's nothing worth salvaging here, and the Y2K- and system time-related articles already detail the issues inherent in using a two-digit year representation with an arbitrary cut-off date. Even a redirect from this title would be silly, because ??70 doesn't seem to be commonly used as a cut-off date. (The first second of 1970 is the commonly-used Unix epoch, but Unix doesn't handle time in a manner susceptible to two-digit year bugs.) Fran Rogers (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of reliable sources indicate that much of the article is Original Research.--Pink Bull 00:40, 27 January 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 - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Eden[edit]

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

Unnotable summer camp - prod removed with no reason nearly a year ago and no improvement or additional references showing notability have been added in the meantime Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this summer camp. Joe Chill (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in terms of news published on the Internet covering the camp in any detail, per a Google News search. A Google web search also turns up nothing significant. The only coverage of the camp I can find is by the local residents, who populate a small village. A Google Books search does turn up a few books that mention the camp. Due to the unavailability of the text, it's not clear how much the camp is covered in some of them. However, looking at what was available for free, I did not see any coverage of the camp beyond the short history that is in the article now, and no significance beyond the fact that it's a camp in Michigan is asserted in what I've seen. Therefore, I'll have to conclude that the article should be deleted, based on a lack of reliable sources covering it in enough detail to show notability. Tim meh 22:43, 25 January 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 to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kermit Scott[edit]

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

No notability for allegedly being a namsake for a fictional character. According to #73 here, it is only a myth/rumor that Scott is the namesake. Reywas92^Talk 01:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked around (GoogleBooks, GoogleScholar, etc) and he does not seem to have been notable as an academic. Other than that, looks like a straightforward WP:BIO1E case. Nsk92 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BIO1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. There are credible sources which back up the claim that he was the namsake. CNN. The article is well cited, noting the arguments for and against the claim. Completely aside from the Muppets, Scott had a career as a philosophy academic at a number of reputable institutions, including Yale University and Purdue University, during his career as a professor. Academic records from decades ago are, generally, not always available on Google, etc., which can explain a lack of online records. He also co-founded at least two nonprofits as a counselor.Scanlan (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. If that fails, then merge to the frog. 7triton7 (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. An interesting news story is not neccessarily encyclopedia-worthy, but it may have meet the WP:BIO regardless.--Pink Bull 00:38, 27 January 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 as vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs) 19 January 2010

Strepulsion[edit]

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

WP:OR. Defender of torch (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:OR, WP:N. Indecipherable gibberish with no context and no meaningful content. No indication of notability. Google shows no signs of notability for the subject: [78]. — Rankiri (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleting per WP:BOLD and WP:SNOW. Pure, unadulterated vandalism. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:12, 19 January 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. Tone 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alpesh Patel[edit]

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

No sources provided for notability. Has an IMDB entry, but films he's had major involvement with don't appear to be notable in any way (can't find any Rotten Tomatoes reviews, etc). No indications of any major awards on imdb. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anyone can get an IMDb entry. Its a user-generated site! JBsupreme (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, not just "anyone" can get an IMDB listing. Informmation on cast and production is verified by IMDB staff before the information is added to their database. However, I belive the article can be sourced to meet Wikipedia's requirements. Am on it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cna't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and further cleanup and source. Though this filmmaker is not notable for his industry work as a film editor, his own projects win awards and receive coverage. More to do, yes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The edits that have been done since the original article have improved it greatly. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search shows three hundred results do to this being a common enough name. He is featured in one news article I found [79] He has contributed to enough notable works in his filmography, to be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I believe the requirements for WP:entertainer have been met. Dream Focus 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The topic is covered in detail in reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CREATIVE is best here: The person's work... has won significant critical attention; particularly given the awards for his screenplay Blind Ambition. Wine Guy Talk 11:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per assertions of notability and awards and comments of those above. -- Banjeboi 15:16, 25 January 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. Tone 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peekko[edit]

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

Delete. This subject appears to lack non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [80]. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I can't find proper sources to back an article. If the extension gains in popularity (and coverage), an article might be appropriate at a later date. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the WP:WEB test andyzweb (talk) 06:45, 21 January 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.