Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 5

< 4 May	6 May >

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poetical Dictionary[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for book (or even author) provided or located in a search. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasoning. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, nothing to say this book is notable at all. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not shown to be a notable book. Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of book and author notability. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:32, 11 May 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) 00:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Oklahoma earthquake[edit]

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

This article is written like a news event like one would find on Wikinews or in the New York Times. WP:NOTNEWS clearly applies to this article. Furthermore, there are no reports of damage to the area nor any injuries. Mike moral ♪♫ 22:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mike. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to be anything particularly noteworthy about a 4.0 quake that didn't cause any damage or disruption, or even much attention from reliable sources. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Events-related deletions and Oklahoma-related deletions. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT. There was very limited coverage of this quake even in Oklahoma. This article noted that it was the strongest Oklahoma earthquake in 12 years, but it doesn't seem to have had any in-depth news coverage or lasting impact, even locally.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable earthquake, and part of what looks like a trend to create new articles as soon as an event appears on the USGS website [1]. I'm not against such events being mentioned in a general article about quakes in Oklahoma, Texas, etc. or the region they are in, but there are more efficient ways besides creating a new page every time the earth shakes. Mandsford (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm totally for deleting this. Okiebradshaw (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Half the time you cant even feel the earthquakes that happen here in Oklahoma and it not like anybody is hurt or killed because of them.--Steam Iron 19:19, 7 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli military order 1650[edit]

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

This topic is not notable and the article is being used as an attack against Israel. Nearly all of the information in the article is in violation of WP:NPOV, down to the very name given for the IDF (changed to IOF). Furthermore, nearly all of the information in the article is WP:OR with no WP:RS. Even if the topic were notable, by the time we removed all the violating text there would be no article left. Breein1007 (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Breein1007 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator is incorrect when he/she says the page has no reliable sources. Page has 4 at the present moment. Yes, the page needs more sources, but not grounds for deletion. I also see no POV statements in the artcile as well. Nominator needs to re-read the policies he/she is quoting as I am afraid they are misinformed about them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has a vendetta against me based on past events. This user is incorrect in saying that I said there are no RS, which I clearly didn't say. Furthermore, anyone who says there are no POV issues with this article clearly is not well enough informed about the article to make such a judgment. Calling the IDF the "IOF" is the tip of the iceberg in this article. The user needs to reread comments more carefully because there is obviously an issue with comprehension. Breein1007 (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I am not getting in a pissing match with you. You want that, go bother someone else. I can comment on any AfD I wish whether you are apart of it or not. Move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever the WP:POV issues, there are a lot of solid references; I've added three.

On the contrary. There are hardly any sources at all. You added some, but they all deal with reactions. All of the information that the original editor created the article with (ie: everything except the reactions section) is unsourced. Let's not forget the big problem that this topic lacks notability. Breein1007 (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huuh? If Amnesty International and Haaretz think it worth their attention, that looks like notability to me. Lack of sources for the first part is not a valid reason for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable, though not always referred to explicitly as "1650" (just a few examples of coverage: Euro-Med Human Rights Network, BBC, Xinhua, Amnesty International, Haaretz, Gulf Times). Tiamut^talk 08:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Tiamut: If you would please (if you haven't already) please add those sources to the sections needed for them on the page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey there NeutralHomer. I'll add the articles not already cited in the article to the talk page for now, as I don't really have the time to get into adding details from them myself right now. Tiamut^talk 16:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it is more of an effort to avoid POV when talking about an order that has a legal effect on a particular class of person (for instance Executive Order 9066), POV problems can be fixed. The order itself is certainly notable. Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Sources indicate notability, and plenty have been added during this debate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a reasonable topic for an article and POV/RS problems are fixable. Zero^talk 08:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons in the deletion request were given as lack of notability and POV. Since the order has been covered quite extensively in RS, the notability reason clearly fails, IMO. As to POV, it's routine editing to make sure all significant viewpoints are represented, no deletions are needed. Breein doesn't identify which viewpoints wouldn't be represented in the article, the correct place to discuss POV issues is the talkpage. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ONEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NN and speculation. Is WP a dumping ground for every military order? This seems like one of those things that people hear about and comment, but don't really know what is inside. In this case, an NGO did a press release, some news organizations picked up the story, some VIPs commented about it and then it went away. Only valid article if future events show it to be relevant. --Shuki (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is true that most orders given anywhere are, indeed, one event which quickly expires upon the report that the assigned task has been carried out, what is referred to in this case is what would be described as a "standing order" similar to a change in regulations. Mandsford (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some WP:RS that discuss the order: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. See e.g. the last two, Le Figaro has returned to the same topic which makes it already less of a one-off. --Dailycare (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's clearly notable and it's been covered extensively by RS. I added a bit of information about it to the HaMoked article last month when I saw the article in Xinhua so I'm pleased to see someone making an effort to create a detailed article. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - it is not inherently a POV fork, and it is, at least now, well-sourced with continuing coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 10 May 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) 00:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Eritrean Civil War[edit]

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

There is no reliable source anywhere suggesting Eritrea is experiencing or has experienced a third civil war. B-Machine (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments here. Parsecboy (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS? Yeeeeeer outta here! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Worth a mention, but not a merge and certainly definitely not as a redirect, in Eritrean civil wars. There are ten cites to things like this [2], which seem to be RS to me about incidents of post-war violence, which is inevitable in any conflict. However, as others have pointed out, there is no reliable source that indicates that anyone is calling this a "Third Eritrean Civil War", or even another war at all. In the absence of such a description by others, the writing an article about a brand new war is pure original synthesis. Mandsford (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this edit the article was moved from 'Eritrean Civil War' to 'Third Eritrean Civil War' by BobaFett85 (talk · contribs), who is a sockpuppet of the indef blocked editor Top Gun (talk · contribs). Top Gun was blocked, for among other things, for widespread original research. On the basis of their edits, I suspect that the creator of this article, Jersay (talk · contribs) (who has since also been indef blocked for disruptive editing and sock puppetry) was another Top Gun sock - it is a characteristic of Top Gun's socks to continue work on the same articles. As such, no word of this article can be trusted and it would be best to delete it. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think that this can be speedied under a G5, since the article's creator and the contributors are all on the "no fly" list. I always thought that it was part of the procedure to put a PROD tag on an article first, and then going through the nomination process if the tag were removed. In any event, if an attempt had been made to notify the article's author before the nomination began, I think that he would have been spotted as a sock right away, before we went through all this discussion. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I advised the nominator to bring the article to AFD; we knew the author had been indef blocked, so there was no point in trying to contact him/her. Given the likelihood of the connection between Jersay and Top Gun, I'd agree with you wrt this being speedied. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete It may be that some of the info can be placed in otehr pages, but there seems to be no RS refering to this 'war'.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford. I'm sure these individual events took place, but calling it a war smacks of synth. No source seems to describe it as part of a war at all. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. If indeed there is insurgent activity, it's not a civil war--DAI (Δ) 12:44, 8 May 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) 00:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crank (performer)[edit]

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

This biographical article concerning a living person cites no reliable sources that actually back up the claims it makes, and has been so tagged since 11 April. I believe its purpose may be promotional. —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: most definitely it is promotional. Also, it seems to be a copyvio of this site (link is a Google Cache) unless that was a mirror of Wikipedia. Goodvac (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kipley J. Lytel[edit]

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

Individual who does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY or any other relevant notability guidelines. Claritas (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable individual whose importance would seem to be somewhat overstated in the article. Two other issues are the first reference returning nothing on the man, and to the third, I can't find the original Forbes article it's supposedly seen in, though my search was relatively brief. KaySL (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programming languages by category#Curly-bracket languages . Consensus appears to redirect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curly bracket programming language[edit]

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

I don't see why we should have an article about programming languages that use a particular set of delimiters. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm broadly with Sarek. "Curly bracket programming language" doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic for programming languages, and usage of the term "curly bracket programming language" in reliable sources seems to be rather lacking. But, wouldn't it be reasonable to place a redirect to List of programming languages by category#Curly-bracket languages here?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't be an unreasonable thing to do... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You happy to withdraw the nomination and redirect it instead, Sarek? Cos if so we can close this.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd like to wait a bit and see what other people think first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to block (programming), in which case off-side rule should get the same treatment for consistency. It seems to be a valid categorization in some rather non-academic sources, e.g. [3] some "for dummies" books, but there are hardly any sources that get into this level of detailed trivialities. The main issue with this article is that contains spades of wp:or, and I don't think there are reliable sources making even half the comparative observations or inferences made in this article. There was also an associated category for this article, but it has been deleted: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_2#Category:Curly_bracket_programming_languages. We still have an article on Off-side rule; perhaps there was a category as well, can't find it now. Both these articles treat the same topic: the syntax for blocks. Pcap ping 02:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete, or merge and redirect per Marshall and Sarek. David V Houston (talk) 01:30, 13 May 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) 00:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The legend of the copper cattle in the Summer Palace[edit]

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

Violation of WP:V and WP:NOTABILITY. I can't find any verification of this story through the internet - a google search [4] yields two results. Possibly a hoax. Claritas (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree with nominator--can't find anything at all. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without a source, it's not even worth mentioning in other articles. Mandsford (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies related to Israel and Zionism[edit]

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

WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, violates WP:LISTS by not having a lede, and many more. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 19:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 19:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 19:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV pushing and coatrack. Editor created similar template for same POV reason. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_5#Template:Controversies_related_to_Israel_and_Zionism -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything listed can be found in news articles with the word "controversy". The first thing on the list has three major news papers which talk of it, easily found. [5] Look at those article summaries please. Is there anything on this list you don't believe is controversial? Dream Focus 20:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, the ARS misses the point by carping about sources. This is a poorly-conceived synthesis of criticisms that seems a little pointy in its creation. Tarc (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it pointy to list all the controversies Israel has been involved in, in one place so its easy to find one's way to the various Wikipedia articles about all of these things? Dream Focus 03:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete total POV pushing. Yossiea ^(talk) 20:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since everything related to Israel is controversial to somebody, the list is potentially endless. Why not include every Israel-related article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are news sources and books published calling each item on the list a controversy, then isn't that enough? Dream Focus 03:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This list is at best useless (per Malik), at worst a POV-push (per Avi and Yossiea). Rami R 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:ATTACK. Poliocretes (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOV. Breein1007 (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - While the subject matter may have merit, there is nothing to salvage from a bare-bones list of other articles, a template that will also soon meet its demise, and an awkward title. Tarc (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Tarc and Malik Shabazz. I'm not convinced that an article of this kind is an unsalveagable coat-racking attack job. Let's face it: Israel is a controversial country. But the qualification criterion for inclusion on this list - "controversial" - makes the inclusion of material almost impossible to verify. Open to changing my mind if someone can produce something better out of this. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about calling it notable aspects about Israel which have gotten a lot of negative press? Or Wikipedia articles concerning aspects that have gotten much negative press, thus making them controversies? Dream Focus 03:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, Avi and Malik Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—the article, like the template that was created at the same time, is inherently WP:OR and WP:NPOV, not to mention WP:ATTACK. What are the inclusion criteria? Why does there need to be a list of controversies related to an entire nation? "Articles" like this must be removed immediately from Wikipedia, and I believe it even fits WP:CSD as an attack page. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No articles on countries I checked had a Criticism section, including Israel. There must be a way to organize such information. Countries' governments will never be accountable without organized information on their controversial activities. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keep !votes miss the point. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Complicated, weak keep. While I think such a list or template could be useful, a country recognized internationally can not be inherently controversial. On the other hand, there are clearly related articles dealing with critics of Israel, its foreign policy, and Zionism. Furthermore, I do not think the consensus here is that WP:ATTACK would apply to a nation or concept; we typically only cite it for BLPs or institutions. WP:LIST is still evolving; it has been more strictly interpreted than it was 3 years ago. WP:CSD does not exactly apply either. So you have a really hard case here. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 10 May 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) 00:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Element Keepers[edit]

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

Unsourced, non-notable student film project. ALI ^{nom nom} 19:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. --Morenooso (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, poorly-written, and attempts to incorporate irrelevant material in the form of the production company run-down. KaySL (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As much as I'd love to see this "film," it definitely doesn't belong here. Not until it's picked up by 20th Century Fox or something. AlexHOUSE (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon. Let it be released. Let it be screened. Let it win awards or gain reviews. But as it stands, it misses out on WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 9 May 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) 00:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard-stroke-slowness[edit]

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

Seems like a very specific technical computer problem and solution, tied to one specific hardware implementation - as such, it appears to be unencyclopedic and a breach of WP:NOTHOWTO -- Boing! said Zebedee 19:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Since the page is unsourced, it may also be in violation of WP:NOR. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO - useless article, nothing worth keeping. PleaseStand ^(talk) 01:05, 11 May 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) 00:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CONNEX Assistance Middle East[edit]

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

Speedied twice last year. Company with no Web coverage, no reliable sources can be located. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any decent sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:47, 11 May 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) 00:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knubby Awards[edit]

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

Award series, major claim to fame is that the founders have a webcomic series on Joystiq, but notability is not inherited and this has no non-trivial coverage of its own to stand on. 2 says you, says two 18:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom sums it up well. Wikipedia does not serve to cover every silly reoccuring trope of every webcast. A brief mention may be in order on the main 2P START! page, but even that is bordering on fansite territory. Badger Drink (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 May 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, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deloris and Geffory[edit]

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

Appears to be about some non-notable amateur YouTube stuff done by a couple of kids. -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Yaron K. (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when the best sourcing available is a facebook page... -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 6 May 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 deleted as a blatant hoax. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misaria[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character in a spin-off of the Star Wars franchise. ALI ^{nom nom} 17:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it's a hoax. It would better fit CSD. ALI ^{nom nom} 17:56, 5 May 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, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hellcats episodes[edit]

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

List of episodes of a TV series not scheduled to air until next year. No references, no available content. The plot summary of the pilot states, "TBA." 'Nuff said. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL with no prejudice against recreation once there are at least two episodes for which the plot summary could state something other than "TBA." Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom, WAY too early for this. Series hasn't even aired yet and isn't guaranteed to do so. You can't have a list of episodes without episodes, and really such a list would not be approrpiate to split untli there are at least 10 episodes in the series. As there is not even one, delete. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite all the text, the article is actually devoid of any real content -- 17:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 9 May 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. Merge or move can be discussed at the article's talk page. Shimeru (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social netvetting[edit]

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

wp:neo TheDude2006 (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Speedy delete; tag added. — Timneu22 · talk 16:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G1 was declined: not nonsense - there is meaningful content. Should have tagged with WP:G3. — Rankiri (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why wasn't it just changed and deleted, then? — Timneu22 · talk 21:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I wasn't the one who declined it. — Rankiri (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Neutral/Rename^{(per Fences and windows)}. WP:NFT, WP:NEO. Unsourced. Zero Google results. — Rankiri (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ I swear, unsourced neologisms need to be included in CSD criteria so we don't have to go through these longer processes. ALI ^{nom nom} 17:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to vetting or move to another, more widely used term per sources found by User:Fences and windows. Nice job. ALI ^{nom nom} 11:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Notable concept, but we're just not in the business of giving names to concepts. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Vetting per Cybercobra. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Joal Beal (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a non-notable term. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename per comments made by User:Fences and windows below. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wait a second. We don't have an article on this topic, which is a notable one. The title is poor and the content almost non-existent, but don't we build on rubbish stubs rather than deleting them? It's been called "Cyber-vetting" or "Facebook vetting" and another neutral term might be "Social network vetting" or "Online vetting", so we can change the title thus negating WP:NEO. It has been written about in the media a lot, e.g. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. We can at least add a section about this to Vetting or Background check. An stub like this can flag up a gap in our coverage and therefore should be welcomed and improved on rather than being deleted. Wikipedia would have died stillborn if this kind of rush to deletion had existed from the beginning, and no wonder it's stopped expanding so quickly when we stamp on stubs like this instead of improving them. Babies and bathwater. Fences&Windows 21:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a stab at writing this, merciless editing welcome. I don't favour a merge, but it'd not be a disaster. I don't think the lack of a nice agreed on term for a topic should decide whether we have an article on it, but "cyber-vetting" seems to have caught on. That or "online vetting" would be fine, as they also capture the nuance that this practice of vetting online is not wholly restricted to social networking sites. Fences&Windows 23:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I note that "cyber-vetting" is only used by 2 of the sources you listed. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that's true, but if you do a search for the term "cyber-vetting" you'll other reliable sources using it. The first instance I can find was in The Spectator in May 2007,[22] and the term is used by legal professionals:[23]. Btw, there's a book due out in December by Routledge of internet vetting:[24] Fences&Windows 14:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the sources found above. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 21:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per above, although, rename it, as suggested. David V Houston (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vetting since there doesn't appear to be an agreed-upon term for this yet. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to withdraw this AFD. I see the sources and now agree that this term is notable. TheDude2006 (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, an AFD can't be closed as withdrawn once other people !voted to delete. Regards So Why 13:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable per above. Hopefully F&W's great work demonstrated the importance of WP:BEFORE to those who rushed to !vote "delete". Regards So Why 13:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kataxenna[edit]

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

Nonnotable "glamour model"; promotionally written article repeatedly recreated after speedy deletion. Fails WP:ENT, one role in nn film. Zero GNews hits, zero GBooks hits, no reliable independent sourcing. Virtually all refs/links supporting article are published by article subject, otherwise self-published, or fall into standard categories of unreliability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In what way is the article promotionally written? Speedy deletion was too hasty before introduction of added sources. WP:ENT failure is extremely debateable due to subjects involvement in latex glamour industry, style of modelling and crossover into film(albeit a sole one that received press coverage). As for sourcing, sources no more or less reliable than general standard of many articles throughout Wikipedia. Also after one single day how can editors improve upon the quality of the sourcing and overall article? Dcnailed (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, with the exception that it's not really promotionally written, merely non-notable and the references dodgy. KaySL (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcnailed (talk • contribs) 14:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of independent reliable sources supporting notability (which is why it's been A7 speedied 4 times). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiable, reliable, third-party sources which show notability. This article fails in all ways. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:13, 9 May 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. obvious hoax DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cinco de jamon[edit]

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

Madeup holiday. Possibly a hoax. Article had been proposed for deletion ({{prod}}) but that tag was removed by an independent editor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a hoax. Joal Beal (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:V, WP:RS and meets or exceeds WP:HOAX as its one citation does not support this article's supposition. A fifth of ham should be sliced soon. --Morenooso (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like an ad for the ham company whose mention I will spare here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently a joke article made to coincide with yesterday's Cinco de Mayo celebration. "Jamon" is the Spanish word for "ham". Author seems to have passed up the opportunity to mention putting "mayo" on a ham sandwich, and making sure to wash one's hands in the "sink-o" before eating. I know, I'm not funny either. Mandsford (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford. Hoaxalicious (pun intended) article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:24, 6 May 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. Non-admin closure as both articles were speedily deleted independent of the discussion. Claritas (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Srimad Goswami Bhakti Swarup Tirtha Maharaj Srila Gurudeva[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of a religious leader of questionable notability, would fundamentally need a rewrite to become encyclopaedic. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Claritas (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I am also nominating the following related page per WP:GARDEN.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Reposting... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sri Srimad Goswami Bhakti Swarup Tirtha Maharaj Srila Gurudeva has now been deleted (twice) as a copyvio but we still need a decision on the other nominated page, Gaudiya Vaishnava Association. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I have taggged this article for speedy delete "because it does nothing but promote some entity or product and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:14, 7 May 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, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message of Faith[edit]

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

unremarkable radio program. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Only references provided are from primary sources. Contested prod RadioFan (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Could not find any 3rd party sources with significant coverage; searched on-line and the journal database Academic Search Complete.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:29, 6 May 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. Snowballed. An essay which WP:OR issues. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PROFESSION VS COMFORT[edit]

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

Reads like a personal essay, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH to me. Completely unreferenced, and no notability shown. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur, and the article appears to be a cut and paste from an article or essay somewhere else. (GregJackP (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete it's an essay based on someone's personal philosophy. Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; also apparently addressed to a "professional organization" with employees: The terms profession and comfort are connected to each other. Without one another is incomplete. It is more likely life without food or water. If someone tries to imagine any professional organisation where its employees interests are not preserved then it can be said that such organisation will not sustain with success., in either way any professional organisation where its employees are only busy with their comfort, leaving behind the professional activities then it also can be said that such organisation will not sustain with success and reputation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete corporate motivation should be hosted on their own websites.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Andaman Islands earthquake[edit]

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

Unnotable, "run of the mill" type earthquake. no major property damage, no casualties, and no significant coverage of it beyond the usual initial news blip. Prod removed by User:Vanruvan with note of "remove dated prod - WP:NOTPAPER" which does not address any of the notability concerns. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm glad that nobody was hurt. It was a 6.8 undersea quake located 90 miles from the nearest land, and fortunately did not create a tsunami. Wikipedia has a lot of people who are interested in earthquakes, but who have never gotten together as a community to talk about criteria for distinguishing the notable from the non-notable, or to talk about a place to put information on those events that are not notable by themselves. As with WP:AIRCRASH, what happened was that a template was created that could be filled out for any event, with no regard to significance, much as we have a biographical template to plug in details about any person in the world. The existence of a template doesn't mean anything... other than that there once was an editor who created a template. If they ever get organized, the earthquake people should consider grouping events by region, so that we could have a page that's reserved for activity in the Bay of Bengal. The airline people got their house in order in 2009, and so can the earthquake people. Mandsford (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all that notable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Relatively big earthquake but with no lasting impact.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am the author of this article and I would like to request deletion. Justmeagain83 (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTPAPER. The concern should be whether the article is verifiable, and it is. This is not like a single-event newstory that is just a blip on page seven. If a geographical region has a history of earthquakes, even if just one, is noteworthy. I want to know which regions of the world are stable or otherwise. This article, and others like it, are the starting point of what may become a comprehensive collection of earthquakes. I suggest that this earthquake article, and others like it, be organized in a way similar to articles on asteroids which keeps the stubs on minor asteroids, but also keeps lists and larger articles for other notable asteroids. There is no need to delete this article as it adds to wikipwdia's value as an on-line resource of encyclodedic information. Vanruvan (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it is notable if a geographical region has a history of earthquakes, and I'd support the creation of a page about seismic activity in the Bay of Bengal or however anyone wants to define the area. I wish that there was an earthquake project where people who are interested in such things can come to an agreement about how to organize them in a manner where the information doesn't keep getting deleted. The current system-- filling out the tired old infobox and then running each event by the critics-- clearly is not working. In addition, writing articles about the region, rather than the year the event happened, would offset the problem of recentism. I think people write individual shake articles only because there is no other place where the information can be mentioned. Other projects have been saved simply by "thinking outside the infobox". I have faith that somebody will lead the earthquake articles in a new direction. Mandsford (talk) 16:18, 11 May 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, this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and this debate entered snowball country some time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Stories[edit]

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

WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR. Incidentally, editor is claiming ownership on the talk page. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a violation of WP:NOT and a fork of Creative writing. Claritas (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think any speedy criteria apply here.--Rockfang (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. I agree with Rockfang in that none of the CSD would seem to apply, however WP:SNOW may apply. Codf1977 (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are other wikis where something like this might work, though I can't think of one off the top of my head. Wikihow, maybe? The tone is not encyclopedic - it's a how-to. There are no sources, it's just the opinion of the author, who offers to review suggestions before deciding whether to incorporate them into their article (!). Don't see how we can keep this one, though I agree that none of the Speedy criteria apply. I believe the title should be Redirected to Fiction writing, or some similar target, since redirects are cheap and it's really not that unreasonable a title. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete tag added. "Writing Stories something fun." This is patent nonsense and should be deleted. No need for AFD. — Timneu22 · talk 16:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to all, speedy certainly does apply here: "consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. Also, this is a "how-to" article of no encyclopedic value. There's no way this isn't speedy. — Timneu22 · talk 16:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. While I agree that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia and will almost certainly be deleted as a result of this discussion, the text is coherent, just poorly written. Poor writing is specifically excluded from the patent nonsense criterion. WP:HOWTO is not a criteria for speedy deletion either. Actually you probably meant WP:NOTHOWTO anyway. Speedy declined. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete, please. No purpose is served by dragging this matter out.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom that it's a combo of OR and how-to. I agree with the comments that this doesn't fall into a speedy category, but as S Marshall said, I think we're at least close to the point where SNOW could reasonably be used.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Writing process. Although no merger should be carried out, so deletion is OK to. Taemyr (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - This is very obviously a how-to guide and we don't like them. I also doubt that this can become an article of encyclopedic value. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Major League Baseball players from Europe#Slovakia. The merge has been performed; all this needs is a redirect now. Tim Song (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball players from Slovakia[edit]

Neither of the two players on this list was born in Slovakia. Slovakia did not exist as a nation when they were born. They were both born in what was known as Czechoslovakia. Linhart's hometown is now part of the Czech Republic while Valo's is now part of Poland. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are few enough MLB players who were natives of Eastern European nations [25], or for that matter, European nations east or west-- 85 from the British Isles -- that they can be grouped from one region. Slovakian pride notwithstanding, this has problems as listed above, and, being an easy quote from baseball-reference.com, it doesn't take into account whether the person really was "Slovakian" by ethnicity or location of their birthplace. I imagine that some of the natives of Austria-Hungary might be from towns in what is now Slovakia, but there are other ways to organize this. Mandsford (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The list is extremely small at the moment, as are a couple of other similar lists, such as List of Major League Baseball players from Russia (to name one at random). In the various player lists from European countries, I count 177 players total across 13 lists. Would it be possible to merge these lists into one larger List of Major League Baseball players from Europe, divided by country, and leave redirects where the country lists are now? That would seem more useful to me as a reader than a two or five-item list with little hope of imminent expansion. Of course, that doesn't solve the problem of players being born in different countries than those existing in the present, which is apparent throwing the Baseball Reference site for a loop. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would make excellent sense to me. The titles of the lists would still be in existence, but they would be redirecting to an article called "List of MLB players born in Europe" rather than "List of MLB players born in ----". Mandsford (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - You've obviously only glanced at their birthplaces. Valo was born in Rybník, Levice District in Slovakia and Linhart in Zborov, Bardejov District in Slovakia. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 08:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously believe every unsourced thing you read on Wikipedia. Where is the source that says that they come from that Rybnik and that Zborov. The source only says that they came from towns of the same name in the old Czechoslovakia. For example, where's the source that suggests Linhart came from that Zborov and not Zborov (Šumperk District) in the Czech Republic? The source doesn't say that. Regardless, neither was born in SLOVAKIA they were born in Czechoslovakia. Slovakia as a nation didn't exist when they were born. Kinston eagle (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other such lists to List of Major League Baseball players from Europe per Giants2008. I would gladly perform the merge should this article be kept to do so. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the page has now been merged into List of Major League Baseball players from Europe#Slovakia. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for you to do this and it did not solve the problem that these players are still listed as being from Slovakia while there is no source stating that they are from Slovakia. The source only states that they were from Czechoslovakia without any indication as to whether they are from that area that is now Slovakia or from what is now the Czech Republic. Thank you for making this an even more muddled mess than it already was. Kinston eagle (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can just rename the article/section to List of Major League Baseball players from Czechoslovakia?--Pink Bull 04:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merge to List of Major League Baseball players from Europe#Slovakia as a good compromise. Cunard (talk) 05:36, 13 May 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, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AutoAnything[edit]

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

I can't find any significant discussion about this web business in reliable sources independent of the company itself. All I can find is press releases and passing mentions, which do not count towards asserting notability. This page has been speedied five times in the past so I would suggest salting if the consensus here is to delete. Them From Space 09:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, unambiguous advertising. Even if this is a notable business, it would be better to scrub this text and start over: one of the largest and fastest growing online retailers of custom automotive accessories and performance parts. Family owned and operated, AutoAnything has been in the automotive industry for over 30 years. Their business model is primarily B2C, with focus on the car, truck and SUV markets. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Highly promotional; no affirmation of notability. The list of references shows nothing but press releases, and Google News doesn't seem to have anything of value. See [26]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. All the significant coverage of the business appears to be press releases which do not establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:02, 6 May 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 with no !votes to delete, so WP:SK ground 1 applies. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Westernised Chinese language[edit]

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

Given that this is the English language Wikipedia, an article about errors in the Chinese language (albeit committed by English-language speakers) that you have to read Chinese to understand does not seem appropriate. -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will probably withdraw this nomination - see below -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - see below -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We already have articles Chinese language and Barbarism (linguistics), and perhaps information in this article could be merged to one or both places. The topic could be an encyclopedic one, but the current article has no references. If notability can be established, then the article belongs in the English-language Wikipedia, in the same way that the English-language Wikipedia has articles on places where English is not the majority language. I would be interested in seeing an article about the varieties of spoken Chinese found outside China - that of the ethnic Chinese community in Jamaica, for example. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, good point - as it is aimed at native-English speakers, I guess it does actually belong here. I'll probably withdraw my nomination, but I'll leave it for a little while to see if anyone else has anything to offer regarding notability -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I was mistaken to nominate this article for the reason I gave, so I withdraw my nomination - I'll leave it to others to decide if there is any notability issue that needs addressing -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:55, 5 May 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, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Buck[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of satisfying either WP:Notability or WP:Politician. References are largely to reports that he has received backing for his election campaign. The external links given are selected in an entirely promotional, spirit. The whole article looks very much like electioneering. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - candidates are not inherently notable according to WP:Politician. Claritas (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this stage he is a candidate to be a candidate. That's a long way from WP:POLITICIAN. District attorney is an important office, but for a county of this size I do not think it sufficient to make him notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and it looks like the page was created by an editor known for doing a bit of self-interested promoting. Publicus 15:16, 11 May 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 Internet Brands and Wikitravel - there is a consensus that these two are notable and no consensus that notability is overridden by the COI issues.

The result of the discussion on the remaining articles is No consensus. As is often the case with mass AfDs, minimal time has been devoted to the individual merits of each article/notability of each individual topic. There is no consensus to delete on COI issues alone, thus the result can only be no consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CarsDirect[edit]

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

See:

Wikipedia_talk:WPSPAM#Internet_Brands_spam_on_Wikipedia - huge list, note that on all the articles they contain multiple links to their own site, this is for black hat SEO reasons. One way they add in yet more links (with google friendly descriptions) is by citing themselves ( Internet Brands ) or the site they own as sources for the articles repeatedly!
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Internet Brands

This is part of a longrunning astroturfing campaign by this company with edits by them going as far back as 2006, looking at the contributions of even only the most obvious accounts used by them (LuvWikis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), LoveWikis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and CellarDoor2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), no telling if editors who have also been adding positively to them are part of the company, as they may use personal accounts too more inconspicuously, which would make sense.

This seems to be part of a semi-professional whitewashing/blackhat PR/SEO operation (I say semi-professional cos of the amateurish way they haven't really tried to hide what they are doing: [27] though even so, the operation still seem to have remained undetected for *over 4 years* by anyone on Wikipedia) and should be dealt with zero tolerance if you want to discourage this and other corporations from manipulating Wikipedia to suit their owne ends in the future.

The fact that they remained undercover for over 4 years without anyone catching them makes me worry how many other similar PR "campaigns" are being quietly waged here, especially if others are smarter and don't create accounts specifically for doing it. For Wikipedia's sake to protect it in the future this needs to be stood against and to not let them get away with this, or others will take heart thinking "it's ok, as long as we don't get caught"... If they aren't already. Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles have been part of the same PR manipulation Online reputation management operation, for the reasons above:

I think this will be a test case of whether this kind of rather sociopathic manipulatitive behaviour from corporations with money to gain by whitewashing Wikipedia will be tolerated, if this operation is deemed to still be mostly a success it will mean many marketing agencies taking heart that they are safe in doing these things and pave the way for more similar operations to happen in the future. This has been going on for over 4 years without anyone raising the alarm... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[28] - google "internet+brands"+wikipedia, over twelve thousand results...
- Their official website links to Wikipedia as the official description (makes sense given that they basically owned the articles with their shill editors):
- internetbrands.com/the-company (backup at internetbrands.png in case they try to wipe that evidence too)
  - These ones did too , but have been quickly hidden trying to not draw attention to what they have been doing now they've been caught I guess:
- At the bottom of the Facebook page and on the Related tab (next to the Wikipedia tab) there's a guy posting bragging about how they bought another website, "Gordon Bengston" which has a link to their website, which says it all really: "Gordon Bengston & Internet Marketing -- Brute Force SEO eMarketing Tips and Trends", facebook groups include "Profit Optimization Group", "specializing in Website Design and Development, Search Engine Marketing, PPC, and Email Marketing. YOUR customers are now searching for you on Google, you need to be there!" and "E-Marketing Systems - Getting Your Business a Presence on the Internet".. the Wall seems to be same content copied over from twitter.com/GordonBengston

apparently pyramid schemes are also ran by these people, check out the abhorrent "testimonials" from professional spammers...

Another page on the guy's site talks about "OWNING google results"...

And another link from the Facebook page says "Internet Brands - Freelance Writer" ... Guess I found their team and explains why it's so amateurish, looks like they are just roping in people from work from home scams which would seem to fit with their amoral black hat sociopathic tactics everywhere else... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked these links to Gordon Bengston, there appears to be no true link between this seo and internet brands.

I suggest you check again, Anonymous-for-fear-of-reprisals: Gordon Bengston posts on Internet Brands facebook a_man_alone (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea taking a screenshot! That may well actually be Gordon posting here trying to cover his tracks rather noobishly, the IP that message was posted from is Internet Brands PR using valletta.dreamhost.com (check contribs) webhosting shell as a proxy, see: http://robtex.com/ip/69.163.239.12.html --118.122.88.5 (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Articles have either been cleaned up or are in the process of being so. Nominator does not give adequate policy based reason for deletion (many articles start off as spam that are cleaned up). If there are concerns about notability of some of the individual articles then they should be renominated individually with a valid rationale. Quantpole (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it", WP:IAR - You really have to try look at this from their point of view, this is a success if their material stays up, and no doubt they are already having emergency meetings on how to "deal with" Wikipedia in a more "effective" way... You have a rare opportunity here where they have gave themselves away so plainly, in the future it will doubtfully be so easy, especially if they get away with it this time... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not delete articles to get revenge on people acting inappropriately or to act as some sort of discouragement. If the subjects of the articles are notable then they are kept because that is a benefit to our readers. There have already been many articles connected to Internet Brands deleted because they did not have evidence of notability. I admire your zeal for dealing with this but at the moment I'm afraid you are going about it the wrong way. These articles will have plenty of people watching them now to remove spam. I suggest you do the same. If you suspect that people from the company are editing the articles again in a spammy way then you can raise it with an admin. It is likely that the spammers will be blocked now. ~~There really is not a lot more to do. I can guarantee you that this deletion debate will not succeed, and I suggest you withdraw the nomination.~~ Quantpole (talk) 09:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Striking as a bit patronising and it is obvious that many other people agree. Quantpole (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Internet Brands / Delete the rest - The majority of pages are promotive and smack of being spammy, but the parent company of Internet Brands is notable, and with a bit (lot) of housekeeping is a reasonable addition to Wikipedia. a_man_alone (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Internet Brands, delete the others or rather Redirect all to Internet Brands, they can get a brief coverage there. References seem to be very inflated:

lots of inflated sources in these articles

A quote of the founder in an interview of someone else is passed as an interview to the founder of the website and used to source that the website has been "written up in the New York Times" (NYT interview in the Crafster article[29]),
website gets mentioned once as one of the websites specialized in the field,
appearances in lists of "50 best websites of X in year Y" or "Website of the week",
source doesn't talk about the website but about how the users of the website talked about something else (Washington Post source in DVDTalk[30]),
a listing in "9 Sites for Fitness and Travel" gets passed as "A PCWorld award" (PCWorld source in FitDay article [31]),
source that quotes anonymous posts from the website but doesn't cover the site itself (Times article in Professional Pilots Rumour Network article [32],
"Favourite Site of the Week" footnote in Dvorak's article (Forbes source in Professional Pilots Rumour Network article [33]], etc.

Some of them, Wikitravel and FlyerTalk, seem to have enough independent coverage to report their purpose and size, but that's not all. No independient sources covering them --> no notability of their own --> no article --> no need to discuss by separate unless a source showing notability is given. Their current sources don't seem to show that notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution here is to delete any articles where all significant edits are by the COI accounts. If other members of the Wikipedia community then decide to create redirects or even new, properly sourced, neutral and non-promotional articles, then fine. Any edits by WP:SPA accounts should be treated with suspicion, of course. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (without prejudice to recreation) - I think it is clear that Internet Brands see their WP articles as a marketing tool and have engaged in a plan to distort the articles. I support the deletion of all the pages so as to remove any hint that anyone with a WP:COI has distorted them in anyway. The pages then, as per Guy, that meet WP:ORG etc. can be recreated by unconnected editors. Codf1977 (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These seem promotional in nature (and as such fail inclusion rules) there seem to be huge COI issue (meaning it may be impposible to edit them in a way that makes them NPOV).Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them. I reviewed the "sources" on several of the articles and found them to be inflated, as described; the appearance of these "references" seems to me to be fairly clear evidence of gaming the system. The entire situation seems to call for a "nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" approach. I would salt all of the articles against re-creation as well. We need to really tighten up and clarify the barriers for entry for online businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep and continue neutral editing, screening out any which are actually non-notable. The subjects of at least most of these are notable, and it is possible to edit the articles appropriately. The spammer may not be able to edit appropriately, but other people can do so. Upon seeing these articles, I did what i usually do, which is remove the spam. I think I have succeeded for the most part: I removed undocumented praise, removed minor details, removed duplication, especially of statistics; I made sure the name of the site was mentioned only once in the article, I removed all but a single mention of the parent company, removed excessive internal linking to all sorts of obvious things, removed internal and external links to related sites and the parent company, removed unnecessary see alsos. I rewrote parts that were unnecessarily expansive,& trimmed the infobox as well as the article. The only thing I have left to do is to check whether all of the references are substantial, and then remove all but the most important of them. (I only stopped at that point because it was already 5 AM where I live). And I warned the spammer not to interfere with my removals. . I think I know how to do this sort of thing--I've done it before dozens of times to substantial groups of spamming. This is very substantial, but no worse that others.

If,as suggested, we remove every article where there is substantial promotional editing, we will lose coverage of hundreds of thousands of important subjects. There is no policy even permitting this or to reject COI editing, and it goes against the policy that we are here to build an encyclopedia. --I think essentially every article on every nonprofit and profit-making company, most products, and a great many individual biographies, has been so contaminated to some extent. Do we really think I need to do the work over again? I will, if necessary, but it seems a ridiculous waste of effort when there's a base to go on. What more would we remove or change, anyway?

if, as suggested, we remove everything where some of the sources are inflated, we'll remove about half of Wikipedia. almost all of the articles involved do have at least one or two good third party source for their importance.

There is no basis in policy for removing them , so it would have to be IAR. How it helps the encyclopedia to remove articles that are improvable and already improved, is something I do not understand. I think it reflects more of an over-reaction to the fact that we failed to detect this for several years. I agree with the nom that this is a test case: it is a test case whether we edit initially unsatisfactory articles, or just remove them. I've devoted most of my work for my time here to improving them -- not just articles unsatisfactory from spam, but articles unsatisfactory for lack of sources or incompetent writing, or failure to adequately show the notability, or contaminated by POV. As i try to rewrite at least one a day, I must have done over a thousand substantial rewrites by now, besides probably ten times that number of less drastic but substantial improvements, but the community does have the power to repudiate my approach if it chooses. If it think patrolling to remove spam from articles useless, I will stop doing it. Given we have anonymous editing as a basic principle, I continue to feel the best protection we have against spam is to edit it out, the same as with other problems. Incremental editing is the basis of WP. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an important difference between an article that has experienced some promotional editing, and one whose entire history is promotional. In the latter case there is IMO nothing to be lost by nuking the article and waiting until someone without a vested interest comes along to create a new article. The intersection between genuinely significant subjects and subjects which have no coverage on Wikipedia before the PR agency comes along is, in my view, small, but some of these were started by and are largely the work of people with no obvious conflict of interest - ePodunk for example was started by Alansohn who is clearly not a spammer. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The appropriate response to misconduct by spammers is not to delete the articles they've edited, but to ban the spammers and fix the articles. If the subjects of these articles are notable, and the articles can be brought into line with NPOV using verifiable, reliable sources, those articles should remain. This proposal is like napalming a village to save it from enemy infiltration. I hate spam as much as anyone, but let's not cut off our own nose just to spite someone else's face. If you want to "make an example", how about showing how wikis can reach NPOV constructively, even in the face of self-promotion? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikitravel I'm a wikitravel admin (as an unpaid volunteer & completely unrelated to Internet Brands I'd like to add), and I just tried to give the article a read with the most neutral glasses I was able to put on - and while it certainly suffers from quality issues, I genuinely fail to see anything that would count as blatant self promotion or spamming. As a Webby award winning website [34], with just under 100.000 unique daily visitors [35] and 270 google news hits [36], I'd also like to think we meet the notability guidelines.

If there are any specific issues with the article, I think most of the Wikitravel team would be happy to discuss this on the appropriate talk page, and work out an acceptable compromise for all - nearly all of the gang of regular users over at WT, are after all also Wikipedians. Sertmann (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wikitravel~~Comment~~ The top two editors to wikitravel seem to have a financial stake (therefore a COI) in the site suggesting that, at the least, a rewrite is in order. However, it does seem that it is independently notable so I'm reluctant to support deletion of that article. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to keep wikitravel. No sense in throwing out the baby with the bath water. (Though I empathize with kittin's frustration below, the article itself seems more or less fine and the topic needs to be covered.) --RegentsPark (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you're referring to as the "top two editors", but AFAIK nobody in this discussion has any financial stake in Internet Brands. Obviously there's a "COI" in the sense that Wikitravel users such as myself like the site (surprise, surprise!), but this seems rather irrelevant -- personal likes or dislikes are, fortunately, not AFD criteria. Jpatokal (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, you and Evan Prodromou are the top two editors of this article. I assumed that you and the Jani Patokallio mentioned in the article as founders of wikitravel press are the same person. Ergo the financial stake (in wikitravel, not IB). --RegentsPark (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This AfD is patently ridiculous: virtually all the websites in question are well sourced and easily pass the notability guidelines at WP:WEB. If there are concerns about IB making promotional edits, then the correct response is to identify those responsible and go clean up the articles in question. (And oh, COI disclaimer: I've been using Wikitravel and Flyertalk long since before IB bought them, but like most users of both sites, I have an, um, rather emphatic dislike of the company and its policies.) Jpatokal (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep (and carefully renominate individually if specific properties don't meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB). Finding the COI editing was a good catch, but some of these are clearly notable nonetheless (e.g. Internet Brands, a NASDAQ-listed company that recently underwent a $100M IPO), others are almost certainly notable (e.g. Wikitravel, Apartment Ratings). A mass-nomination like this doesn't allow the time or convenient procedure to sort out which if any of these are (a) non-notable, (b) have no significant usable content, and/or (c) are beyond repair. The lede of the parent article, Internet Brands, together with the "businesses section" are enough to stand alone as a start-class article, so that one certainly isn't deletable. Of course we'll need to police the self-interested editing but that's a different issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: New evidence tracking down some of the IPs has been found by MER-C which has been posted on both of the See: links at the start of this debate (Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Internet Brands and Wikipedia_talk:WPSPAM#Internet_Brands_spam_on_Wikipedia) where for at least some fo their edits they have been stupid enough to actually do it from the corporate internet as well as home, so it shows up as "CarsDirect-com" (Internet Brands' name before they changed it to be more media-friendly) in the IP... for example we know know that 100% they started and wrote most of the Internet Brands article even back then and that's why it exists at all, it's just meant as a big google-friendly advertisement for them as mentioned before, their claws have been in this stuff from the very start:

Internet Brands previous revision from 38159510
Internet Brands previous revision from 67833422
Internet Brands previous revision from 69394667
Internet Brands previous revision from 69394788

Which is why I say delete all, some of them are maybe worth recreating but they should be done without bias, by neutral parties if they are worth having at all (ones obviously not important should be protected against recreation to stop what they would "sensibly" do later in putting the stuff back in when attention has died down)

If they are to have articles, they should have them like everybody else - in a natural way that reflects whether people without a financial gain are actually interested in having articles about these websites, not the situation we have now where these website are given undue space simply because they have existed for a long time and had lots added to them (mostly BY them): Remember they have been manipulating these articles for more than 4 years in some cases... look at the accounts' contributions, look at the IP ones too...

The fact is they have gained unfairly by doing this and leaving the articles there would be letting them have their reward of having articles that are unduly large compared to other companies' still - the manipulation needs to be undone and started afresh like everybody else has to. If people can get away with it simply by hiding for a long time - years - then they will. It probably won't be long til some kind of media picks up on this (some of the edits by them with the "anonymous" cars direct IPs are pretty hilarious) because of them being involved with vBulletin before, what I am saying basically is if you want Wikipedia to have a future you need to show people like this that the behaviour won't be tolerated, or they have no reason not to just become more sophisticated (or pay better goons) and come back later.

A lot of the other IPs will be people employed by the company to edit here too, as on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Internet Brands page I found evidence showing they are employing people via work at home scams as "Internet Brands Freelance Writer"s to do their dirty work, which means they wouldn't have the cars direct in their IP (and in future this will only get worse as they now know how to not get caught if nothing is done to prevent them coming back later once peoples' attention inevitably turns away from them) --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this - my Delete All (above) was not because the subjects are not notable, because some clearly are - it was to protect the reputation of WP, these articles have been badly contaminated and in my view the only way to ensure that they are free from that is to start from scratch. This sends out two very clear messages, firstly if you engage in a cause of action to manipulate an article about you or your organisation you can expect to be blocked and the article removed and secondly to the wider community it says that WP can be trusted as a source, if we discover an article that has been manipulated we will delete it and start it again. Codf1977 (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even spammy articles contain information that is useful. There are far better alternatives to deletion of notable subjects, especially as many of these articles weren't started by the spammers, so we would be deleting other peoples work as well. In this case we have an experienced editor who is willing to work on the articles to ensure they meet wikipedia policies. Deleting the articles would hinder that work. We absolutely do not use deletion of articles to 'send messages' about spamming. If the article is notable, NPOV and the rest of it then it should be kept, and maintained to avoid spam coming back. Quantpole (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kittin says "(and in future this will only get worse as they now know how to not get caught" - well, I don't think that's likely to happen, there has been such a furore this time round that people who would normally not bother watching such a page (like me for example) now have these pages included in watchlists and will monitor by default what happens on them. For sure any bias still may be added by nefarious accounts, but there are enough people watching to make sure that any such info is either deleted, or amended to be suitable. However, I also agree with Codf1977 in that deletion and recreation is a better message. a_man_alone (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree that by deleting we will be removing other peoples work as well, I don't think it will hinder the work of creating good articles, but agree it will make it a little harder, but starting from a fresh canvas so to speak will ensure a contaminated free version. Ultimately I think we will have to agree to disagree, save the point that by not deleting we risk sending the message that if you do this and get found out some of your effort might be retained and all that will happen is the accounts your edit from would be blocked. Codf1977 (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is why we need crystal clear and much higher barriers to entry for articles about commercial business. "Notability" on Wikipedia is simply strange jargon if it does not relate to actual notability in the real world. The only actually notable businesses produce consumer products under famous brand names, are historically important in the development of technologies, have built famous landmarks, or are connected with historical events. No other business or product belongs in an encyclopedia: no back-office software company, none of the host of business to business service companies, and certainly none of these websites or online businesses.

The WP:GNG will never be an adequate tool for sifting out the truly notable businesses. Most businesses have publicity departments. There are dozens of analysts and trade papers that cover businesses without their ever being noticed in the wider world. And only those businesses that are known in a wider world are notable in the plain-English sense. The business of making money and pitching sales simply generates too much noise, and because of the predominance of noise over signal the GNG is not strict enough.

I remain more convinced than ever that the real solution to the problems of spam and paid editing is to erect much higher and clearer barriers to entry for commercial businesses, ones that require real-world notability in addition to GNG notability. And none of these businesses enjoy that kind of real world notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree to a large extent, but at the moment that isn't how it's done, and a random AfD with whoever turns up probably isn't the best place to discuss it (but I'm going to anyway!) I don't happen to think the problem is with the GNG though, I think it is more in terms of what is taken as being 'significant coverage'. The main problem in what you've said is the phrase 'real world notability', as that is always going to be in the eye of the beholder. Is 'real world notability' purely about the numbers of people who have heard of something or does it take it account how much people have been affected by whatever it is? A cheap, straight to DVD horror film may have been heard of by several thousand people but is unlikely to have made any difference to their lives, yet a company that has been going for 50 years and employs 50 people may have been heard of by fewer people but will have had a far greater impact on the lives of the people who have heard of it. The GNG are purely an approximation to real world notability, but it can be defined more easily. I just think we need to make it more stringent as to what is counted in terms of sources to establish notability, and I also think that many of the specific notability guidelines are a complete waste of space (particularly those in regard to people, where if anything there should be a raising of notability requirements not a slackening). Quantpole (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep and nominate individually. AfD is not a brute-force tool to be used for punishing spammers. There is no criterion under WP:DEL#REASON that would justify removing the Wikitravel article. That article has no copyright violation, contains no vandalism, contains no spam or advertising content, etc. etc. (And before someone argues about the advertising content, what's there is purely descriptive and contains no promotional language whatsoever.) Powers ^T 16:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Carry on as normal/Procedure" --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, about the Wikitravel article requires deletion? Powers ^T 17:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has all been said already... These articles have been subject to an insidious planned PR campaign waged by Internet Brands over a very long period going as far back to 2006 (which is also the year Internet Brands bought Wikitravel) - that's just going on the ones where they've been stupid enough to edit from an IP address with "carsdirect" in it, it's been pointed out with evidence on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Internet Brands page that they employ "Freelance Writers" via work from home schemes too which means they can't be tracked down as easy. Some of the articles are maybe worth recreating but they should be done without bias, by neutral parties if they are worth having at all (ones obviously not important should be protected against recreation to stop what they would "sensibly" do later in putting the stuff back in when attention has died down).

If they are to have articles, they should have them like everybody else - in a natural way that reflects whether people without a financial gain are actually interested in having articles about these websites, not the situation we have now where these website are given undue space simply because they have existed for a long time and had lots added to them (mostly BY them): Remember they have been manipulating these articles for more than 4 years in some cases... look at the accounts' contributions, look at the IP ones too...

The fact is they have gained unfairly by doing this and leaving the articles there would be letting them have their reward of having articles that are unduly large compared to other companies' still - the manipulation needs to be undone and started afresh like everybody else has to. If people can get away with it simply by hiding for a long time - years - then they will. Anything else but being firm will give the all clear to future and other current spammers at the moment ... what I am saying basically is if you want Wikipedia to have a future you need to show people like this that the behaviour won't be tolerated, or they and other companies have no reason not to just become more sophisticated (or pay better goons) and come back later. If you think this is the only company doing this on Wikipedia you would be being a bit naive - this is why I've said a few times now Wikipedia needs to have some kind of system like dealing with vandals and stuff to actually thoroughly investigate these kind of things rather than relying on pure luck like you have here for someone to stumble across what's going on and tell you. This time Wikipedia has been lucky, if things don't change it will only get worse.

Also should be noted above user has a conflict of interest as he is one of the site's administrators and people like "Todd VerBeek" are telling people on wikitravel to come here and use their accounts for "damage control" if they have sufficient edits to not arouse suspicion, to which "LtPowers/Powers" above replied: "I think I have enough WP editing history to be considered more than just an interloper".[37].

Ok, I'm done, the sheer amount of backdoor dealings going on just makes me want to have a shower and stay away from Wikipedia, just way way too easy to corrupt anything... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Kittins just libeled me by name, I want to state for the record that her account of what I wrote over on Wikitravel is untrue. I did not suggest doing anything covert or deceptive (I had no reason to). Can this and her other defamatory personal attacks on those who disagreed with her be removed by an admin? - TVB 99.54.136.121 (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight -- you're implicitly admitting that the article content is fine, yet saying that it should be deleted anyway just to punish Internet Brands and "send a message"? <boggle>

Also, you keep talking about "COI" here, but users of Wikitravel are most emphatically not employees of Internet Brands and I, for one, find it downright offensive to be tarred with the same brush as said company's underpaid work-at-home spam monkeys. Jpatokal (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kittins has gotten so worked up over this she's quitting the project. It's hard to see why. What she doesn't understand is that we are not interlopers here; I am as much a member of the Wikipedia community as she is. Many of us who edit Wikitravel are also regular Wikipedia editors. We have the same goals -- in fact, at Wikitravel we constantly struggle against spam just like we do here at Wikipedia. There are no backdoor dealings going on. Yes, I'm doing damage control; why shouldn't I? I'm a regular Wikipedia editor commenting on a topic in which I'm interested. What Kittins hasn't done is provide any evidence that the content of the Wikitravel article was written by agents of Internet Brands, or that its current content is not acceptable. A re-written version is going to look more-or-less the same as the current version; it's just pointless busywork to delete what's there and wait for someone to recreate it. Powers ^T 00:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CarsDirect is definitely a blatantly promotional article and as such it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. If it is kept, it needs to be tagged and cleaned up accordingly. Deb (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This deletion debate and related articles need to be very carefully monitored for the forseeable future, as Internet Brands, unlike some had hoped, are still directly attempting to influence Wikipedia, and have now tried to actively sway opinion on this deletion debate towards keeping these articles: they have now posted a message attempting to pose as a neutral Wikipedia editor again like with their previous accounts, claiming they are posting "anonymously for fear of retribution from Kittins" (who it seems is not actually an administrator according to your list) which as well as posting a long and rather elaborate attack on Kittins (in a way that suggests they would quite like her to be banned), warns not "to rush to some judgements", and says that they "have checked these links" and found that there is no "link" to previously-mentioned blackhat-PR/SEO scriptkiddy Gordon Bengston, in an attempt at misdirection.

The IP that message was posted from was actually Internet Brands PR themselves, using valletta.dreamhost.com (69.163.239.12) (check contribs) webhosting shell as a proxy, see: http://robtex.com/ip/69.163.239.12.html - They are connecting to a Dreamhost shell via these subnets:

116.71.191.
119.152.106.
119.152.118.
119.152.120.
119.152.242.
119.152.47.
119.152.79.
119.153.186.

and the IPs they are using to connect to the Dreamhost shell are very similar to the ones posted on Wikipedia_talk:WPSPAM#Internet_Brands_spam_on_Wikipedia

...I believe this actually backs up the need for these articles to be deleted and protected against recreation by "uninvolved" anonymous accounts in the future like the "LuvWikis"/"LoveWikis"/"CellarDoor2001"/"Cruisemates" accounts mentioned on the WPSPAM page just linked, as Internet Brands have proved they have a "by any means necessary" approach to having these articles on Wikipedia: I can only say that you are, indeed, very lucky that their typical blackhat-PR tactics have been undertaken so utterly ineptly and was caught at all, and that they didn't instead just use a less bruteforce approach to editing their articles and act as "normal happy Wikipedia community member" accounts - this will be the next step no doubt if they are allowed to keep their articles, especially if what they have already "contributed" is not wiped clean. (By the way, please block this IP too - this is part of a Chinese botnet, such as used by these kind of blackhat SEO/PR manipulator outfits). --118.122.88.5 (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Writers needed for steady telecommuting work, Internet Brands Inc" advertisement (another lovely thing on the same site, rather depressing comments there...) --208.67.253.170 (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC) (I'm same as 118.122.88.5 by the way, hoping these I found in a blackhat SEO pool that haven't been caught by your net will be blocked [though admittedly the irony of using their own weapons against them is nice], can anyone leave a message or something on how/who would be best to submit bulk proxy IPs for blocking to directly?)[reply]

None of which is a reason to delete reliable, sourced articles on notable web sites. Where is this message regarding Kittins that you mentioned? Powers ^T 23:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it fruit of the poisoned tree. If your view holds, then corporate advertises will be free to build whatever marketing articles they like on Wikipedia. When caught, they could fall back on, " none of which is a reason to delete reliable, sourced articles on notable web sites" and use Internet Brands and you as a precedent. You're argument,imho, opens Pandora's box. (anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.53.180 (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A point that has been raised occasionally, but is continually glossed over is that the pages were created in the first place for the sole purpose of advertising. Surely, that is unacceptable. I'll concede that the articles may now be of a standard where they fail the deletion criteria, but given their origin, is that enough? In fact, all we are doing now is furthering an advertising campaign, and - dare I add - improving it for the parent company as well. That, I think, is what has galled Kittin. a_man_alone (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a case of tarring all the articles with the same brush. While it may be true of some IB articles, the wikitravel article was created in 2003, when its goals were more in consonance with those of wikipedia and well before it became a commercial site. With due respect to kittin's, I think this is a situation where the proposed solution (deletion of all IB related articles) is not addressing the main issue (how to deal with spam from IB). --RegentsPark (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitravel's goals are still in consonance with those of Wikipedia. We actively reject any attempt by IB to influence editorial content (and to their credit, they know better than to try), and we never edit with an eye toward how it will affect IB's income. The only difference between the way Wikipedia is run and the way Wikitravel is run is that Wikipedia is fortunate enough to be owned by a non-profit with extensive resources. Powers ^T 11:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'll defer to you on that one, on the face of it I don't agree. It appears that wikitravel is selling user contributions through wikitravel press (which is fairly prominently featured both on our article as well as on wikitravel) and the proceeds of these sales are flowing back to Internet Brands (as well as, presumably, to the owners of wikitravel press). In that sense, wikitravel's goals differ greatly from those of wikipedia.--RegentsPark (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just like everything on Wikipedia, the content on Wikitravel is released under a free license. Which means anyone can take the content, package it, and sell it. Wikitravel Press is really not very different from PediaPress in that respect. Note that according to that linked article, Wikimedia receives 10% of the sales of PediaPress books. Better delete the Wikipedia article, then! Powers ^T 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am not arguing that the wikitravel article should be deleted (quite the contrary actually). However, since you insist, there is a difference between wikipedia and wikitravel - Wikitravel is owned by a for-profit corporation while wikipedia is entirely non-profit. Therein lies the difference between what wikitravel press does and what pediapress does. (And, if I may add, that is one probable reason why wikitravel press is prominent in the wikitravel article and site while pediapress is not in the wikipedia article.) The goals of the contributors may largely be the same, and I have no argument with that, but the two organizations have very different goals. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that's enough. Origin doesn't matter; what matters is what's in the articles now. Powers ^T 12:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of IPs doing strange things, 118.122.88.5 (talk · contribs), 125.64.94.6 (talk · contribs) and 208.67.253.170 (talk · contribs) have repeatedly deleted slabs of this discussion and even made the bizarre allegation that I am 24.11.100.80 (talk · contribs). I'm not even going to try to sort out who's who here, but readers may wish to view the article history and figure it out themselves. 23:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The first one is CarsDirect. Clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD, shows over two thousand news results! [38] The Los Angeles Times and others do mention this. So that's an obvious keeper. So I don't trust the nominator has even gone a token search for anything on the long list of things nominated. How about you nominate each thing individually, after doing at least a brief two second search for them, to avoid wasting everyone's time. Dream Focus 05:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why marketers love Wikipedia. You plainly - and rather hypocritically - have not bothered to read any of the discussion. Barely anyone seems to ever do anything but take things at face value... it's hopeless. I bet Internet Brands/CarsDirect are rubbing their hands with glee reading this. --208.67.253.170 (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second 208.67.253.170's comments - unlike most AfD's this is not about notability, this is about the the manipulation of an artical for comicial reasons by the subject. IMO the best way to deal is to delete and start again. Codf1977 (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came to Internet Brands looking for information on the owners of vBulletin and found this AfD request. If had been deleted out of spite or punishment I wouldn't have found it. I recommend documenting the company's bad behaviour, watching the page and banning anyone who edits it out for vandalism. Bitplane (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I (and others) are not saying that the artical should not be re-created - just delete and start again. Codf1977 (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there's nothing wrong with the content currently present in, say, Wikitravel. The recreated article would be virtually identical, so the deletion is pointless. Powers ^T 13:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with something in an article, you edit it. You don't try to delete it, saying they should start over again. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Dream Focus 14:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Focus. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 19:41, 10 May 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, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Sixsmith[edit]

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

Would appear to be no more than a moderately successful amateur angler in NW England and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. In addition, the article has obviously been written by a friend or relative and reads like a personal account instead of an encyclopaedia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find any significant coverage. The sources provided in the article only make passing mention of him. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some anglers are notable, but I don't believe this one is. If I'm missing it, post the sources and info please!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:53, 10 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of books on bullying[edit]

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

Article was originally created to tie in with the now deleted List of fictional bullies. The idea of listing fictional books that feature bullying or have bullying characters is discredited as being OR and POV - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional bullies. The current content comprising a list of non-fiction books on bullying and workplace bullying, is duplicated in those articles thus making this article redundant.--Penbat (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bullying. Regardless of whether this at one time included "fictional books that feature bullying or have bullying characters", very few bibliographies are stand alone articles, since Wikipedia is not a directory. On the other hand, bibliographies are welcome as "further reading" in any article. As a bibliography, it should be moved to an existing article, if not the one about bullying, then to something else. Mandsford (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you misread my sentence "The current content comprising a list of non-fiction books on bullying and workplace bullying, is duplicated in those articles thus making this article redundant." Content has already been merged to bullying and workplace bullying thus this is a simple delete.--Penbat (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understood that sentence fairly well. It's the rest of the argument that I couldn't fathom. I'll confess that I don't understand what the prior history of the article has to do with the question of what to do with it now. I read (or maybe misread) that part several times and I still don't get it. Mandsford (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To give a long list of fictional titles was the primary reason why the article was created in the first place. But the idea of listing fictional titles was later discredited just leaving behind a relatively short list of non-fictional titles which can be (and already have been) listed in bullying and workplace bullying.--Penbat (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with Nom as these lists are already merged into the main articles.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 6 May 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, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who wants to be a millionaire season 1[edit]

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

There isn't any need for individual season pages, especially for an international franchise like Millionaire. This would result in thousands of unneeded content which could easily be condensed into their main pages. Furthermore, this is totally unwikified, and the creator has a habit for introducing irrelevant and unimportant content. GSK (talk ● evidence) 06:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the contribution from any new editor is appreciated, game shows simply are not episode TV and the shows do not form part of a storyline. Although sets and hosts will sometimes change, the format remains the same from one "show" to the next. Describing a particular season of Who Wants to Be A Millionaire is like trying to describe a year's worth of CBS Evening News. Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. The information fits easily into the main article. Changes that occur throughout the years are summarized there. Sancho 16:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. — Timneu22 · talk 16:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing here that can't be fitted into the American WWTBAM page. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nom and Mandsford have already said it well enough. A game show does not need a season page or even episode lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TVEP and AnmaFinotera. There's not enough verifiable information independent of the show itself for this season to warrant its own article. Since the show itself is a game show, it's highly unlikely that this would ever happen. Cliff smith ^talk 21:39, 10 May 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, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sexton[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable person who does not meet the requirements at WP:Athlete. 4meter4 (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no professional level or even amateur combat-style competition in hapkido, so an article on a hapkido practitioner would have to demonstrate notability in some other way. This doesn't do it. The 8th degree black belt claim is not referenced (should be deleted, actually), and Steve isn't on this list of the main Sin Moo Hapkido article: Sin_Moo_Hapkido#Sin Moo Hapkido senior masters (7th+ Dan.). It's also a copyvio of this: http://www.stevesextonhapkido.com/ Sancho 16:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate ^t/_c 08:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject might be notable if he is well known for his instructional books or videos, but he only appears to have produced one 3-disc set of DVDs and I see no indication that it is a notable educational resource (e.g., in authoritative reviews). Janggeom (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find sources that show me he passes WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 14:31, 11 May 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, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin and the Shitpunks[edit]

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

This article cites only primary or extremely trivial independent sources. Web searches return trivial results (concert dates, mp3-hocking websites, etc). I stated on 26 April that I intended to AfD the article if this issue was not addressed, but no effort was made. The article was apparently created by a band member, suggesting this is just self-promotion. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It reminds me of the scene from Wayne's World where there's mention of a band called "The Shitty Beatles". "Are they any good?" "They suck." "Oh, so it's not just a clever name." In this case the band may not suck, but there's no indication that this is about anything other than a band with what some would describe as a name that's clever (most people would probably say unimaginative or lame). Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. And their name isn't clever either. The Dead Kennedys is a clever name. It's rather offensive without using any profanity. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 6 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose De Venecia IIII[edit]

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

Serious problems at this time. 'delete UtherSRG (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is so confused I can't even figure out who the subject is related to and how, much less what actual political offices he has been involved with. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He is notable to the news because he is running for senator in the Philippines. - Gabby 03:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then can you clarify who this article is supposed to be about, then (preferably by adding citations to those news articles you mention)? Like Metropolitan90, I'm really confused here. Isn't this the son of Jose de Venecia Jr.? And he has the same exact legal name as Joey de Venecia? And this "IIII" (four?) is a nickname or what? Is that supposed to be III? cab (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This doesn't seem to be the Joey de Venecia running for Senator. Unsourced, possibly not notable outside of being related to the former house speaker. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The real article is at Joey de Venecia. –Howard the Duck 01:58, 11 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010 Biobío earthquake[edit]

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

Non-notable event. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and there is already a page that has an AFD on it on the saem subject [[39]].86.159.144.112 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2010 Biobío earthquakes. That article is more complete. Dream Focus 13:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS Mike moral ♪♫ 20:02, 8 May 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. Reasonable shape, notability doesn't seem to be a problem. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behenein[edit]

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

Very incomplete. Should this be a speedy? delete if not speedy. UtherSRG (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the state of the article when I AFD'd it was quite different. I withdraw my delete vote.keep - UtherSRG (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's not a deletion rationale. It's a verifiable article about a television show. ~~No idea whether the show itself is notable,~~ but the producer is: [40]. cab (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Sodabottle and the newspaper sources I added to the article. Appears to pass WP:N. And again, "incomplete" is not a proper deletion rationale: WP:NOEFFORT, WP:UGLY, etc. are all surmountable problems given that reliable source coverage exists. cab (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable soap in Star Plus. Has had enough coverage - Screen Weekly, DNA, Indian Express. It is a new soap and as Hindi soaps in one of the popular Hindi channels in India, will get reams written on it. --Sodabottle (talk) 12:28, 5 May 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. Not being special is not a reason to delete, nor is being heavily traveled a reason to keep. But in the end, there are enough reliable sources to show its notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benning Road[edit]

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

Non-notable road. Dough 48 72 03:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or merge into the list of DC's streets~~. This one is not notable on its own. Imzadi 1979 → 03:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's major enough to have a Washington Metro station - Benning Road (Washington Metro). And the Washington Post has given significant coverage to it, calling it "heavily traveled." [41][42] And there's even now going to be a streetcar line on it.[43] All evidence of a significant street. The nom needs to explain why they think an article should be deleted. --Oakshade (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to me that lots of streets have underground stations, that does notm make them notable. Your popst links only establish that it exisits, they are not significant coverage indication that this road is any more improtant then say London road rayliegh. Nor can I see why the street having a tram line makes it notable. I might be wrong but I thought to be notable a street had to have something about it that made it special, not just a bit ordianry.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, notability is not about being special it is abot being covered in reliable sources.

Its actualy about reciving significantcoverage in RS to establish notability (IE it to recive more coiverage then any other street might). I see no coverage of this kindSlatersteven (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a common misconception about notability on Wikipedia. There is no requirement to show that a topic is special in some way. We cover all prime-ministers, not just the special ones. We cover all species, not just the special ones. What notability requires is that the sources tell us something about the topic so that we have material for an article. That's what we have in this case and so there seems to be no great difficulty in putting an article together. Per our editing policy, we keep such material once we have made a start and so deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we cover all human beings, not just the special ones? All the musical ensembles, not just the special ones? There's absolutely nothing in WP:N that backs up your seemingly idiosyncratic view of street notability. Badger Drink (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case in that we should cover ALL roads and not just the special ones, we mind as well create an article for 3rd Street in Wyoming, Delaware. Dough 48 72 15:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a D.C.-area native, I can, without a doubt in my heart, say that many roads around here are heavily travelled. There's nothing particularly special, unique, or historic about Benning Road. Having a Metro station that happens to be on it is far from significant - in fact, the name of the station actually says more for the lack of signficant landmarks nearby than anything else. D.C. subway stations are usually named for local landmarks ("Gallery Place", not "7th, 9th, F, G, and H streets"), the fact that they couldn't find anything more interesting to name this station speaks volumes. Benning Road is mentioned in the occasional local traffic report, as it's part of the route one would take to get from the Beltway to the Atlas Theatre district (H Street) via I-295, but this is far from notability. As Benning Road lacks any distinguishing features, an article would necessarily be nothing more than a travel guide of sorts - fine for WikiTravel, but not an encyclopedia. Badger Drink (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a citation to a source which covers the character and history of this place in detail. There are hundreds of sources to be sifted through and I see no evidence above that any of this work has been performed as required by our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidance of notability. I see lots of trivial referances. You new referance is a book about Washigton, that does not establish that street is any more bntable thgen any other street in washinigton.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial" is defined by WP:N as a "one sentence mention." The scope of sources about this road are way beyond "one sentence mentions" and are primarily about his street. Not every street in Washington has received the coverage this one has. --Oakshade (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Slatersteven. The sources only confirm that the road exists - the same could be said of pretty much any and every given road in the world. Mere existence does not satisfy WP:N. Badger Drink (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any given road does not have as much coverage as this one has. Certainly, many roads have as much coverage as this one has and are just as notable. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If thousands of similar topics pass WP:N as this one does, then we can have thousands of articles.--Oakshade (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Oakshade says, if the Washington Post calls it heavily trafficked, then its notable as streets go. Dream Focus 10:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several congested roads in my area that do not have articles. Dough 48 72 18:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My knowledge of D.C. roads is not great and I was a bit on the fence because I know it has tons of busy roads. However, I did some digging and have started a history section to the article. The road has a history as an important eastern route in and out of Washington. (Also, if someone has access to this via a library Local roads scholars give streets' history, I would appreciate seeing it, because it appears to mention Benning Road).--Milowent (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has plenty of sources to support its notability, and it seems to be a pretty well-traveled road. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many roads in major cities attract significant coverage in reliable sources, so we can have articles about them, per the general notability guideline. In this case the hundreds of sources found by the Google News, Books and Scholar searches linked in the nomination clearly amount to the level of coverage required. Some editors don't seem to understand that this is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records or the National Enquirer, so we don't cover only the exceptional and the sensational. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the sources now present in the article. Novalid reason for deletion has been given in the nomination or the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this road is not particularly notable for being heavily trafficked (We would have an article about over half of the roads in DC if that was the case), the introduction of a streetcar line, as well as the multiple sources found seem to demonstrate notability. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:06, 10 May 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, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Pal PF-3300[edit]

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

Non-notable product, no references offered and none found on Google or Google News; original research. This has twice been nominated for WP:PROD deletion. Also note Old Pal Tackle Box. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My mistake; this had been prodded only once before my second nom. Old Pal Tackle Box is currently nominated for a WP:PROD deletion.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI, Old Pal Tackle Box has been speedied; it's the second time I have had to remove that "essentially-the-same-as-this-one" article, which the author created after creating Old Pal PF-3300. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy tag on this one, as A7 does not apply. DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no indication of any notability. Had the producers of Emergency! chosen this box specifically for a specific reason (and if that fact could be verified), there might be notability, but failing that, there is none. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that this product meets notabilty guidelines. Zero references included. Appears to be pure original research. If there were an article in a fishing magazine on the use of this tackle box on the TV show or in EMS in general, it would be a different story but that does not appear to be the case.--RadioFan (talk) 12:21, 5 May 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, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Weil[edit]

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

NN musician/magician. Original author refuses speedy, and doesn't provide verifiable and reliable sources. delete UtherSRG (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —UtherSRG (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete via db-band. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO in general and WP:MUSIC and WP:ENTERTAINER in particular. Nancy ^talk 11:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : since db-band is disputed, I'll quote my edit summary from my nomination - no reliable sources found via Google; nowt on Google news. There *is* a (possibly notable) Tom Weil but he is USAnian and a lot older (found via Google). Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 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.

Corentine Quiniou[edit]

Result: Keep (non-admin closure) as their is significant coverage on the article's subject and is notability is inherent. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

First of all the article seems to be supposed to promote her because the main author User:Socoglio did no contributions in other articles that are not referring to Quiniou. He also uploaded many images of her on Commons [44]. The same user wrote as well articles about her in French and in German Wikipedia, but nothing else there, too.

In addition to that Quiniou does not correspond with Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes because she is an amateur car racing driver who did not compete in professional racing series. She already won some amateur races like Classic Endurance Racing and Rallye Aicha des Gazelles but in races with stronger opponents like Dakar Rally or 24 Hours Nürburgring she only managed position 49 and position 100. The article tells she finished third in her category at 2009 24h Nürburgring, but you have to keep in mind that only three competitors in her category (SP4T) finished the race [45] and Quiniou finished on position 100 overall [46]. An interesting fact is that Quiniou was disqualified in Rallye Aicha des Gazelles for cheating by manipulating their satellite tracking device and setting back their odometer, and there is suspicion that previous years' results were similarly tainted [47].

So I think Quiniou is not notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia, and why should we give Socoglio the opportunity to abuse Wikipedia for promotion? --79.246.182.163 (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am properly formatting and listing this AfD for for this anonymous editor. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep, looks like she can meet the guidelines for general notability, there's a fair amount of press about her Also, I would argue the public accusation of cheating would enhance notability, not diminish it. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,Socoglio desperately tried to keep the information concerning the accuses of 2010 edition of the Rallye Aicha des Gazelles out of Wikipedia (see the page's history). I'm just wondering - just a few days after Socoglio's desperate attempt there is a a deletion discussion going on triggered by an anonymous IP Adress - who's behind that? My opinion is that the public accusation not only enhances the notability. So please don't delete it. I'm just thinking of posting a few sentences into the german edition. --Konuzelmann Thomas (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC) — Konuzelmann Thomas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Just a general comment, but the article could stand to be cleaned up, and the pictures scattered around. Now Socoglio needs to be told and or warned not to remove information for whatever reason because that can be seen as vandalism. Wikipedia is not here to promote the positives of article subjects, but it is here to let the reader know about the negatives of the subject as well. I left a message on Socoglio's talk page about this AfD going on. But as we can tell, Socoglio has not responded to this as of yet. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'll try to give it a copy edit sweep in the next couple of days, assuming it's still here. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plus formatting the references would be good. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Darkwind (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link on the article to here is broken. And I've begun adding references, I'm not done yet, but please take a look sometime in the next few days. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The external links can be moved into the appropriate spots in the articles as references. I have been moving around some of the pictures in the article and not sticking them in just a gallery. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there are enough references to establish notability now. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Socoglio has again tried to delete the cheating allegations on the 3rd of May. By the way he deleted the issue on the German page as well. In the meantime it has been restored again. He hasn't touched the French page yet.--Konuzelmann Thomas (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article and linked above show clear notability. This looks very much like a textbook case of the law of untintended consequences, by which an article started for the purposes of promotion is no longer wanted by the creator when it has been edited by others to give a more balanced view of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 8 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr James Ross[edit]

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

Contested BLP prod - no references listed. GregJackP (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Added {{unreferencedBLP|date=May 2010}} tag to article. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Coverage not spectacular (at least not in sources GNews can find), but I think the fact he has been touring internationally to conduct (and got media coverage for it) sways it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and move to James Ross. MiRroar (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to act on MiRroar's suggestion to move the page. It turns out that there are many other articles on people named James Ross so I moved this one to James Ross (conductor). I went bold on this one because there should not have been the "Dr." in the article title to start with.DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I agree with the other "weak keep" votes above in that the coverage for Dr. Ross is not spectacular but there is probably enough to give us a serviceable stub article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - his academic work alone would not qualify, but I guess he barely meets WP:MUSIC as "won or placed in a major music competition" -- although it would be great to have an independent source for that claim. To be honest, as someone who is fairly knowledgeable about classical music, I would not personally consider him notable on the basis of his claimed achievements; but he seems to meet the letter of the criterion and life is too short... Grover cleveland (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but rename -- He seems to be at the beginning of a career as an academic musicologist. "Co-author" is too grand for a contributor to a volume of academic essays. I suspect the English Historical Review is a difficult journal to get published in and points to significance. Rename to James Ross (conductor), as we already have one on another James Ross. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep references added, makes a good enough claim of notability to me. —fetch ·comms 01:20, 9 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montezuma's treasure[edit]

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

No reliable sources seem to mention the topic. Challenged for sources, the author began creating fake sources. See [[48]]. SummerPhD (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. — Rankiri (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We don't need "sources", we need "reliable sources". - SummerPhD (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep - Gets ghits but nothing reliably sourced as a major newspaper account or university archaelogy dig. If WP:RS sourcing could be provided, would change to Keep. --Morenooso (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

- Comment - That's the problem: nothing verifiable. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to WP:V, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. From what I see, the story of Montezuma's treasure is largely a myth, and the fact that this myth was substantially covered by numerous seemingly reliable secondary sources is more than enough to satisfy WP:N. Unless you're arguing that that we should ask for evidence of existence of all mythological places and creatures, be it paradise or unicorns, please explain why exactly you find sources like Chicago Daily Tribune, The Pittsburgh Press, The Reading Eagle or The New York Times^[59] unreliable. — Rankiri (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I need is one reliably sourced citation to the article to change my vote to Keep. --Morenooso (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please let WP:CONSENSUS develop by letting regular editors state their views. --Morenooso (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news search link at the top of the AFD, and you get 55 automatically. Click the one for Google book search and you get 554, although not all of those are nonfiction of course. Its gets plenty of coverage in the news though. Dream Focus 20:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To all: Say there are x billion Google hits and that some of them must be reliable, non-fiction sources is not the same as supplying significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If anyone would care to provide reliable sources for the content in the article (the article itself would be a great place to do this, I'll close the AfD myself. At the moment, the article carries two sources, both of which are completely bogus. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There, added some. The first page of Google news hits had various results. From a construction worker that found part of the treasure, to a guy who claims to have found a letter from two people that knew where it was at [60](article is to the right of where the link brings you too, so scroll over to see it), and plenty of claims of various Arizona legends. A published book centuries ago by a Spanish Conquistador speaks in detail about the treasure. Its a real thing, no one doubting this part of history, and gets plenty of coverage in many places, I finding some articles from the late 1800's even talking of it. Dream Focus 03:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new citations introduced into the article by Dream Focus --Morenooso (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We now have the beginnings of an article on a different topic. I've sectioned off the original article and tagged it as a hoax (for the moment, the two hoax sources are also there). I'll give a couple of days for any objections, delete the hoax section and hoax sources (that is: the entire original article) and leave the new material as a sourced stub. Objections? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to the first part. There is a book mentioning it [61]. Easy enough to find with a quick search for "Montezuma's treasure" and the location "Montezuma's Head" Dream Focus 16:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more information about that. [62] and if you read through one of the links [63] you'll find under References to this book From other books, listing two more with titles that indicate they might have additional information here. Not every book is digitized, and only older books are likely to talk about things like this, since people aren't as interested these days, and anything to write about it has already been done by others. Dream Focus 16:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or worst case merge. There's enough reliable info here to establish its importance. Enough to write an article? Maybe, maybe not. But deletion is not suitable. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The actions in placing tags on the article smack of WP:OWN re this nomination and refusing to let the community decide consensus on the article. --Morenooso (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I in no way am refusing to allow consensus to determine the fate/future of this article. I was merely making clear that the sources that had been added sourced the new material and none of the old. The article's creator added completely fabricated sources for the article. The article now has a source that there is a legend. I would be removing a large chunk of unsourced info from the original creator and the false sources. I have no objection to anyone adding reasonably sourced material. Anyone who wishes to restore any unsourced material I have removed may certainly do so, and we can discuss the issue. I, for one, am inclined to doubt the good faith of an editor who creates imaginary sources in defense of an article they created. (Please note that editor's similarly situated articles, Red Jack's treasure and Wolf's treasure. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:08, 6 May 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, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf's treasure[edit]

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

No reliable sources seem to mention the topic. Challenged for sources, the author began creating fake sources. See [[64]]. SummerPhD (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a pure hoax. -72.145.66.32 (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly a hoax and/or made up. The only related results I can find on Google is the article itself. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to establish notability on google news archives. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:09, 12 May 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. withdrawn per WP:SNOW and recent improvements. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Angus Steakhouse[edit]

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

No indication that this restaurant chain meets notability requirements. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Morenooso (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Verifiable reliable citations have been introduced into the article. It receives ghits and is a large chain of restaurants spread out throughout California. --Morenooso (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking on Google news search I see 222 results. Some of them talk about this notable enough to be mentioned in the news 222 times steakhouse as going out of business. Dream Focus 21:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see why it was nominated (piss-poor condition article). Thanks to Morenooso for the improvement/rescue job.--Milowent (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. there are high quality reliable sources that can easily be found, like this one. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A fairly old and reasonably well known chain of restaurants. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK criterion 1.2: Nominator advances a position other than deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable fertility rate[edit]

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

Merge with Total fertility rate. This page is loaded with WP:OR and WP:POV, with the lead including phrases such as "Birth rates are often too high" without ever defining the subject. Even the section that supposedly defines it isn't really clear. This subject doesn't justify its own article, and would work much better as a sub-section in the main Total fertility rate article, with some cleaning up. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 00:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close' This isn't WP:PM, and what is being asked for is not deletion. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 6 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Braun[edit]

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

I can find no evidence to verify this person's notability: in Google News, Books, or Scholar, and nothing but Wikipedia mirrors in a general web search. Oo7565 (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G4 being a sufficiently unimproved version, having any name, of a page previously deleted via a deletion discussion. (Previous AfD can be seen here.) Also note that the primary contributor to the page appears to be a friend of Lori Braun, from statements on pictures they have uploaded, and the pictures appearing on the page appear to have an insufficient free use rationale. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is sufficiently different from the previous version to survive a G4. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:29, 8 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Smith (preacher)[edit]

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

Smith doesn't appear to be notable. All of the sources are either to his church's website [65] or YouTube/Google Videos. A search of the Google News Archive returns one link with the name of his church [66] and current news returns no hits [67]. It would appear this is just a controversial, though marginal, local figure with a biography that likely can't be sourced with reliable, third party sources. AniMate 06:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Controversial, perhaps, but really just an ordinary pastor. No significant covergae from independent sources. St Anselm (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tens of thousands of hits on YouTube and Google Videos plus extensive and animated blog contents make the notability quite quantifiable despite the disinterest of individual editors. If he is just a "local figure" in Atlanta, then why is he showing up in televised venues in Fort Lauderdale, Saint Louis, etc. and being criticised by people whose bios are in Wikipedia? Sorry, but if people want to read about this guy, keep him. Rammer (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the sources? You'd be amazed at the number of people who get tens of thousands of hits on YouTube and Google, but without reliable sources backing up these claims you cannot prove notability. You should also read Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources?. AniMate 21:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point. Hits on YouTube are just one measure of support, albeit (for reasons cited in "Reliable Source Examples" and other reasons) inconclusive at best. On Wikipedia the article has over 1000 hits since its creation earlier this month. My vote is still to retain the article. Rammer (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's try this again. Hits on YouTube or even here are meaningless. If you cannot find reliable sources discussing this man, the article needs to be deleted. Understand that our biographies of living persons have to contain excellent sources. People liking the subject is irrelevant. AniMate 04:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, this argument is not relevant per WP:POPULARPAGE. AniMate 04:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. The entire discussion is not relevant. Many of the comments on this subject expressly do NOT like him. Many do like him. Others are just amused over the controversies he stirs. Rammer (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - There still seems to be a disconnect between what I'm saying and what you're reading. The number of hits and comments, be they negative, positive, or amused, don't matter. Similarly, the number of hits our own article has received are irrelevant. Those are arguments the closing administrator is going to ignore. Essentially, you haven't offered an argument to keep. AniMate 18:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RETAIN - This is first place I check when I am trying to find information. He is a controverial person of interest to not only me, but lots of other people (I am sure). It is a great article and gives me some, if not all, of the information I need and want. If this article is deleted, where else will I get this information? Earl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drearlmurphy (talk • contribs)

'"KEEP"' - This article encourages me to disregard the media blitz, and realize that some of this preacher's teaching goes beyond the scope of New Testament authority, as well as binding Old Testament practices which Christians were liberated from with the death of our Savior, (Col.2:14). Neal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewol (talk • contribs) — Sewol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. More participation is needed from established editors.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable at this time. google search for the strings "pastor tony smith" and "Way of God Church of the Lord Jesus" gave no reliable sources, out of 70 hits. the Lexi show, which he appeared on, is not particularly notable (no wp article at this time, only 1 mention on WP within articlespace, and is notable for only 1 event so far). no prejudice to recreating if and when he is notable (and, if recreated, article must be npov, which means including his views on homosexuality, women preachers, etc., and criticisms of them once anyone notable pays attention to him).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability: references in the article are all to his own website and his own videos. Google seems to mostly find a Baltimore-based preacher of the same name: there seem to be no mentions of this Pastor Tony Smith. This preacher also doesn't seem to have an official YouTube identity, so it's hard to mount a notability case based on total hits, as is sometimes done with vloggers. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Clearly not notable; no reliably sources reasons verified at all! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(with some regret) Delete - NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 8 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Bootleg, Muthafuckas! Vol. 1[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/It's the Bootleg, Muthafuckas! Vol. 1

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

It was marked with a notability box last June and hasn't been touched since. Also, this rapper by himself doesn't seem very notable. ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 5 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BMW 3 Series (F30)[edit]

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

This is about a future automobile and should be deleted based on WP:CRYSTALBALL. heat_fan1 (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a project number of a new car project which is useful information. New cars are worked on for many years before being released.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.112.232.22 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Granted, but this is not information that BMW has released. It's unreferenced information, which, according to WP:CRYSTALBALL, should not be included in Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."heat_fan1 (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. This is speculation until BMW releases official information or information becomes available via some other reliable source. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not voting for keep or delete, but if the article can get reliable sources added to it during the next week, then I see no reason for deletion. Convertible Music (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This information is verifiable. (I added a reliable, secondary source as a reference in the article.) Since it is verifiable, this addresses the primary concern of WP:CRYSTAL. Manufacturers typically keep product development secret, so it is not unusual that BMW has not published anything about this model. The article remains in need of expansion. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this issue deserves a broader discussion in WP:AUTOMOBILE. The issue is that since BMW has not made any announcements related to this car, any source that can be referenced is speculating. Thus, indirectly, this article is based on speculation. In general, however, articles about cars have not been added until the car is announced in some measure by the manufacturer. Industry publications speculate that cars are "going" to be produced years in advance, some of which become true and some of which don't. I still think this article should go until BMW acknowledges it.heat_fan1 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article edited to say that the F30 "is reported to be" the next generation 3 series. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - All that has done is confirm that it doesn't belong in WP according to WP:CRYSTALBALL, point #2. -heat_fan1 (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Disagree. There is not a "systematic pattern or predetermined list" that BMW uses to internally name its platforms. This part of crystal ball is meant to stop people from writing an article called BMW 3 Series (F31) just because it is next in line. Such an article would not be verifiable. If you view the Template:BMW cars, you will see that there is no pattern. If there is such a pattern internal to the BMW corporation, then many models drop off in early stages of development (i.e., where is the E62?). This is where secondary sources must be used for verifiability. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A second reliable, secondary source has been added to the article, expanding the verifiability of this future event. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notice of this debate has been posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles to get input from WP:AUTOMOBILE as mentioned above. -- ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable published sources have confirmed that this will be the model designation for the next 3 series. I see no reason not to keep this stub and expand it as information becomes available. --Leivick (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, per the WP:CAR conventions, WP:CRYSTALBALL applies if there has been no official announcement of the model. If there are sources which suggest that BMW have acknowledged that a model codenamed F30 is under development, then that might be enough? If not, then I guess this article shouldn't exist until such sources are found. Letdorf (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cro-Magnons[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG no significant 3rd party coverage found that would allow it to pass. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is deleted, it should redirect to Cro-Magnon. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes Band:2 ([68]), Band:5 ([69]), and Band:6 (contained in the article). 218.225.52.157 (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two major-label albums and hitting the chart = passing WP:MUSIC -- we keep 'em. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep band with notable members, charting releases, signed to a major label... everything looks good as far as I can tell. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability criteria. Qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BAND criteria 2, 5 and 6 per that anon IP. The article, however, should be cleaned up to remove OR. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:18, 6 May 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) 00:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oakwood Residence Sukhumvit Thonglor Bangkok[edit]

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

Was tagged as a speedy, but none of the criteria apply. The article isn't overtly promotional in tone, and it's not about a person, organization, or web site. There being no CSD for "building, not notable," I submit the article herewith for your consideration. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no indication that this building is in any way notable. It is a recent construction so that rules out historical reasons. I can find no indication that this is an arcnitecturally significant building. The links included in the article cover the neighbourhood that the building is in, but make no mention of the building itself. My own searches turned up this passing mention as the only reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 6 May 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) 00:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gurry[edit]

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

This musician lacks notability. He has one self-published album, a web site and a MySpace page. No label, no awards, no significant affiliations or unique contributions to the art, nor significant coverage in reliable sources. The credits listed in the article are unverifiable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page. Mikal is the current stage name of Michael Gurry. I proposed the page for deletion, but it doesn't create more work to consider it here directly. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just starting out his first National tour, not signed to a major indy label. Do not "salt", as he has been interviewed recently and could make it big. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 10 May 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) 00:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Casey[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ATHLETE, as the player is amateur and never participated in the world championship. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet relevant inclusion criteria. The article is also not supported by sources, and a BLP at that. Intelligentsium 22:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Not a professional and no notable acheivements at international amateur level. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 6 May 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) 00:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Mann[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ATHLETE, as the player is amateur and never participated in the world championship. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Not a professional and no notable acheivements at international amateur level. Betty Logan (talk) 18:10, 6 May 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) 00:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belle (2010 film)[edit]

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

Film hasn't begun principle photography, hence fails WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was unable to find any verification through Google and Gnews that principal photography had begun. A project is not a film until principal photography begins and per WP:NFF, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." No prejudice towards recreation once principal photography begins and notability can be proven. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice per nom and Big Bird: no verification that principal photography has begun. Cliff smith ^talk 21:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Richardson[edit]

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

Delete - Nothing in this article seems notable. Written like an obituary or publicity piece. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I agree with After Midnight's disparagement of the style. I created the page (I can't now remember why - railway preservation isn't an especial interest) as a much trimmer stub, and a family member seems to have subsequently expanded it without providing any new references. But searching '"bob richardson" railroads' on google or google books makes me think the subject is notable, though some material might be better placed in Colorado Railroad Museum and I'd like to see it slimmed. Dsp13 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 May 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. Moved to James E. Smith (Bible scholar). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James E. Smith[edit]

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

No clear claims of notability beyond authoring a number of books and having held the post of Academic Dean in the past, neither of which meets WP:PROF. Has written a number of books, but most are self published via lulu.com. Very common name makes searching for references that might help this article meet WP:BIO especially difficult. RadioFan (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If religious groups use his writings there should be secondary sources. MiRroar (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was "Distinguished Professor of Bible" at Florida Christian College. Criterion 5 of WP:PROF says that an academic is notable if he or she The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. Now, it doesn't say what "major" means, and presumably this is different to "notable", but we do have some grounds for keeping the article here. The article needs a massive cleanup, though, starting with a renaming. He appears simply as "James Smith" on the FCC faculty page. St Anselm (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Major is open to interpretation but with a student body of 300, I'd have trouble calling this college "major". A good percentage of elementary schools in North America have larger enrollments than this college. With that in mind, this person still fails WP:PROF--RadioFan (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability. This is an individual who works for a small college - and has not make any impact on Academia. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename I have just edited his list of books into a readable form. I assume that "Distinguished professor" is the equivalent of professor (according to British usage). Both that and the extent of his publications suggest notability. However "Doc" is presumably merely Dr (i.e. holder of Ph.D. or similar doctorate). This ought not to be included in the article title. Since James E. Smith already exists (also James E. Smith, Jr., not to mention James Edward Smith and James Edward Smith (Toronto)), this needs to be moved to James E. Smith (Bible scholar) or such like and a dabpage created. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Borderline notability. Not a scholar, but an education and minister . Distinguished Professor is only significant at an actual research university, not a 300-student bible college. Not notable as an author, because his books are almost all self-published [70] ; two of the ones on the prophets however do have respectable WorldCat holdings [71], [72], so he might be regarded as an expert on that subject. Much of the article is probably a copyvio, and will need to be rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 10 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Randy Gordon[edit]

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

I removed a speedy on this, for various things that might possibly be significant are asserted, but on balance I do not find anything that is actually notable. There are wo books listed in WorldCat [73] : one a self-published book held in almost no libraries, the other a business report. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any info that corroborates the claims made in thsi article. Seems like a very bad copy/paste into WP, probably as a PR move. Non-notable, remove from WP. Angryapathy (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Blind Billy[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Claim to notability is one NN song from the 1930s, with zero non-speculative biographical info and no claim of significance. The one source establishes nothing but the song's existence, but is wrongly cited as the source for the original research which comprises the rest of the article. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPi learned a lot about this song and the artist in many of my college music classes and even in some history class i took awhile ago. It is a used valid song and artist, like a snapshot of the era and always keeps you guessing the real identity. It is a definite keeper, please do not delete and instead help add to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.21.91.230 (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Keep We should keep this article and instead of trying to delete it, i like what the anon said, we should work on improving it. There are so many entanglements here and references within the song, the variant on "man of constant sorrow" alone makes it notable, not to mention the nature of the artist and the fact that recording exist, nothing was recorded before the 1940's if it was not worth it, especially in minority markets, this is a great piece of ethnic history, as-well-as the history of the disabled.Ishmaelblues (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC -- musician with only one recorded song and about whom virtually nothing is known. Obviously an artist from 90 years ago isn't likely to make the cover of People magazine this week or anything, but we still expect some measure of verifiability, as well as some facts to verify in the first place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can find nothing on the web other than scrapes of this article or the archive.org page with the sound file on. Obviously I realise that the artist lived many many years before the internet so is hardly likely to have loads of fansites, but for there to be such a total and utter absence of any info whatsoever about him on the web points to non-notability. Nothing found in Google Books. I'd be intrigued to know exactly what the IP learned about him at college considering that all that seems to be known about him is that he probably lived in the 1920s and recorded a song.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Bengen[edit]

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

Blatantly self-promotional article. While the subject has a few references, one of which he is only mentioned in tangentially, he is not published in any manner that makes him stand apart from tens of thousands of other published individuals who are not notable. This article was originally prodded, but the template was removed without rationale. Trusilver 01:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Massive number of citations in Gnews ([74]) and some citation in Gbooks [75] seem to make a case for notability. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources found as listed above, and also sources found in Google Scholar. Meets notability criteria. Andy14and16 (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very clear notability. Even the article atthe time it was nominated showed the notability. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 10 May 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. Copyvio Nancy ^talk 16:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Green (photographer)[edit]

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

All sources are essentially promotional/primary. No independent coverage, no evidence of notability. SummerPhD (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. More than enough evidence of notability, but this is just the official bio with minor wikification/apparatus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:54, 5 May 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.