Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< 11 July 13 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-Home Automation[edit]

E-Home Automation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy delete removed. No indication of way the company is notable. Reads more like an advert. noq (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Right now the article does read like an advertisement, but it's notable and I could find enough Google hits proving so. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I removed the csd; the company is notable because, among other reasons (and as its sources state), Intel and Microsoft have partnered with it to produce its products; it is also (check sources again) the largest Arabic company of its kind. Yes it sounds promotional; but it's a work in progress. Once we firmly establish notability, I believe we can include more information about the company and that will balance out the section of products and services, thus making it more neutral. Fleetflame 00:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A little more than 400 hits "e-home+automation"&hl=en&safe=active&start=450&sa=N on the web, and even fewer "e-home+automation"&cf=all in the news. And it still reads like an ad. Mandsford (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After working with the user via IRC help channel, I am confident that there is (just) sufficient RS for N; I've removed the spammy parts, and more sources have been added.  Chzz  ►  14:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The arabic Newspaper is very notable (Al Itihad) in the middle east at least. The company is providing over 2,700 homes with Energy saving systems in Algumeira alone and another contract is in the works for Al Nachil. Certainly notable.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability seems established in the article. 72.58.249.204 (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manned mission to Venus[edit]

Manned mission to Venus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

really not notable - nominated for PROD but deleted on spurious unsourced grounds. The article it self says that no credible proposals for it happening are known. An equally valid entry could be made for manned mission to mongo noq (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...but didn't back that claim up with any sources. I also wonder if her wanting to retain the article is because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (i.e. Manned mission to Mars, which is well-sourced). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there was anything sourced it could be added to the Venus article. But I'm not seeing anything worth including. Maybe the BBC show as trivia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Observations and explorations of Venus#Proposals and merge any useful content. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only serious discussion of such a mission is fully covered in Manned Venus Flyby. Sci-fi stories and computer games are not an adequate basis for a speculative article. andy (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I was referring to a personal conversation with the Swiss ambassador. The Soviet Union had planned a mission and I suspect the People's Republic of China may plan a mission in the future. Her Imperial Highness (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Swiss ambassador to where? If not the Moon then he or she can't really be seen as a reliable source! In any case the Soviet Union did plan a mission which is fully covered in TMK. The PRC may plan a mission to anywhere it likes but it hasn't got round to Venus yet AFAIK. More importantly neither the Apollo or TMK mission plans was for a landing, which would require technology that is even nowadays many decades away from being feasible and would have been lunacy in the 1970s. The article which is the subject of this AfD is an unreferenced, unverifiable fantasy (a bit like the Swiss personage's pronouncements). andy (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Manned Venus Flyby. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete The JPStalk to me 10:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laser assisted skin healing[edit]

Laser assisted skin healing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article appears to be more of an advertisement than a genuine encyclopedia article. The editor who created the article is a public relations agency that was blocked for spamming. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to redirect, feel free; if anyone wants to transwiki to Wiktionary let me know and I'll userfy the content for you. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K/D[edit]

AfDs for this article:
K/D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod (whose tag was removed by the article creator without reason) about a non-notable video game-related neologism. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tan | 39 18:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Entertainment Group[edit]

Evergreen Entertainment Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Resonate: A Guitar Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Resonate: the movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aside from the first article reading like an advertisement, I can't find any sources of its existence. A simple Google search for "Evergreen Entertainment" basically pulls up info for an unrelated movie theater company. In addition, the article claims Resonate: A Guitar Story as one of its releases, but I found only one Ghit for that name: Wikipedia itself. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Evergreen Entertainment is a registered, incorporated California LLC.
2) The description of the company is no different in context than others in the industry, such as Image Entertainment.
3) "Resonate" is being released on Monday July 13, 2009, with the media campaign for same starting next the same day, after which you will be able to find a considerable amount of press outside of Wiki pointing to the company and the documentary. Hawkmoon70 (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC) — User:Hawkmoon70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
But where are the sources to back up any of these claims? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California State would be the holder of the Certificate of Incorporation. Would the UPC-issuing company suffice for the third party requirements/verification for the DVD being released? Or would you like a letter from Evergreen Entertainment Group LLC? Additionally, the DVD has been registered with the Library of Congress in the U.S. and the National Library of Canada for copyright purposes. Hawkmoon70 (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC) — User:Hawkmoon70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL and fails WP:RS. That the company might be incorporated is all very well and good, but incorporation satisfies no element of Wikipedia policy or guideline. Nor does a letter from the company satisfy notability criteria. Despite Hawkmoon's assertions, the release of a documentary does not guarantee media buzz, and in any event, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. When (and if) such independent media buzz which satisfies WP:RS exists, then articles may be appropriate.  RGTraynor  06:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the Wikipedia regulations is that the Notability Requirement is met by the stature of the performers in the film, not by the reception or media coverage of the film itself. That said, the film is notable in that it contains performances from, and interviews with, musicians representing over 125 combined years of performing experience in an established idiom, that in itself is the subject of serious cultural inquiry and scholarship.Hawkmoon70 (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you reached that understanding, since the language of the criterion you cite is clear: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." (emphasis mine) To address your second point, one of the key elements of notability is that, as WP:NRVE holds, "Notability applies to individual topics, not a topic's overarching classification or type. For instance, the notability of a parent topic (of a parent-child "tree") is not inherited by subordinate topics, nor is notability inherited "upwards", from a notable subordinate to its parent. If a topic is notable, there must be verifiable evidence that it independently satisfies the general notability guideline." The notability of a subject does not confer prima facie notability on a film about that subject. A film about a certain kind of music doesn't become notable just because it has performances from, and interviews with, musicians with 125 combined years of experience in it or, as to that, 1125 combined years. This film, as does any other, must fulfill criteria set forth in WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. If you have evidence that it does, feel free to present it.  RGTraynor  02:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete The JPStalk to me 10:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Konzack[edit]

Lars Konzack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Massive Wikipedia:Conflict of interest problems. Article almost entirely written by Lars Konzack himself (with a bit added by some Danish IPs, possibly Mr. Konzack as well?). No references or apparent outside notability. Fails WP:PROF by a large margin as well as the more general notability guidelines. Mr. Konzack is an associate professor who, like almost all professors, has published some, but that's it. Google and Google scholar confirm that he's been published, but that's it; other hits are self-published items like his blog. Was PRODed, but deprodded by a new account which only offered "notable" as the reason for deprodding. (Also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mauppie is a spinoff article that was also deleted.)

Though this is technically out of scope, I will add that I have read one of Mr. Konzack's journal papers. I was not impressed, and do not expect that the secondary acclaim WP:PROF requires will be forthcoming in the future. Escaped Quaternion (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2009 (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 The JPStalk to me 10:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jiggly Ball[edit]

Jiggly Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day. No demonstrated notability of a game that was likely invented recently and possibly by the original editor. No sources whatsoever. —C.Fred (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - the article does not meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valerio Capello[edit]

Valerio Capello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability. has been AfD in it.wiki: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pagine_da_cancellare/Valerio_Capello/2. His name is not mentioned in the "references" linked in footnotes (excepted his own home page). An lavish propaganda seems to have been made in order to keep this article's italian version Invitamia (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. His website is actually linked from the websites in the footnotes: see for example the link to his website ("Elf Qrin home page") within the series of articles on "La Repubblica". Same for the Blue Box page of the Jargon File (follow the link "other colors"). I can't tell about Italian magazines, but it's true that he published on 2600 and translated Freedom Downtime into Italian. His text "Being a Hacker" is a classic, although less popular than Mentor's "Conscience of a Hacker". --Eltener (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His website is actually not linked from "La repubblica" --Invitamia (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is. See the column on the right side. It seems a script on La Repubblica's website is broken, though, so that clicking on any external link on that page returns "Not Found". --Eltener (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete The JPStalk to me 10:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High Noon (band)[edit]

High Noon (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable band fails WP:MUSIC. Alleged association doesn't confer notability on this band. BigDunc 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

|}

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

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angiosplice[edit]

Angiosplice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Company's only verifiable claim to fame is a small award they won--in a competition organized by Cambridge students. After pruning the article (there were some references, but they were to journal articles on the topic, not to anything remotely related to the company) it became clear to me that there was no verifiable claim to notability here. No results whatsoever in Google News, Google Scholar, or Google Books. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

I am new to wikipedia and may have missed its purpose, if it does breech your terms of use I will remove the article myself today. I personally feel a new company aiming to cure cancer and save sight is a company that the public deserves to know about. I also understand that these claims need to substantiated.

I fear Drmies has misunderstood AngioSplice's 'claim to fame'...and indeed the novel scientific basis of the company. As an academic independent to AngioSPlice I should try and explain.(I must tread carefully for legal reasons)

Dr Nowak is a co-inventor on a patent originating from the work done at Bristol university on the discovery of a completely new growth factor: VEGF-A165B and the therapeutic manipulation of the splicing machinery that switches these pro to anti angiogenic isoforms. An anti angiogenic isoform of VEGF-A in itself was a large scientific discovery; the ability to manipulate the ratio of pro to anti was even bigger. This is reflected by the impact factor of the related journals. Dr Nowak has worked with this team for five years and intends to continue his research at Cold Spring Harbour Labs in NY. This work which forms the corner stone of Angiosplice's IP estate and its two lead drugs stems from these publications in over 5 world recognised journals (two of which Dr Nowak is PI) including the Nature papers referenced. They are DIRECTLY relevant to the company. The most relevant publications (which I think Drmies is looking for) have not been included for obvious reasons, you can not publish novel art until a patent has been filed, and AngioSplice has several. AngioSPlice's Scientific advisor board includes KOL: Academic and Clinical Professors in pharmacology, molecular biology, ophthalmology and Renal Medicine from world class instructions including the Universities of Cambridge, MRC LMB, Bristol and Imperial College and The SABs are PIs on all the referenced and other relevant papers DIRECTLY relating to the company.

In addition the patent application and the journal publications predate the founding of AngioSplice Ltd. so it is not surprising the company is not acknowledged in these papers. Further papers due to be published in 2010 will be funded by and acknowledge AngioSplice.

It is true AngioSplice was acknowledged by the University of Cambridge as the best technology company to spin out of the university in 2009 (Several previous winners are represented well on wikipedia), this is however not its claim to fame. A better reflection of its success would be the level of interest from some of the largest life science VC companies and seed investors (Interest, for obvious reasons that can never be released into the public domain) this relationship has enabled AngioSplice to proceed to pre-clinical pilot studies with two of its leads drugs at labs spread across three continents.

Sadly as a Cambridge colleague, not involved directly with AngioSplice I am not the best person to tackle Drmies statement. But I am sure the founders would be very interested to know Drmies academic interest and business pedigree. May I suggest contacting Dr Harmsworth King or Dr Nowak directly, their emails can be found on www.angiosplice.com.

I hope this addresses some of the concerns and helps Drmie understand some of these more complicated topics. bw Brad Keely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.118.176 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 12 July 2009

  • Mr. Keely (and as it happens I am a "sir," but please don't think only humans of the male persuasion edit Wikipedia), we look for verifiable information supplied by sources in print or on the internet. None of those could be found. The organization's intentions, whether good, evil, or indifferent, are irrelevant in determining notability. If the company becomes notable in the future, that is, if the press starts reporting, if book studies appear that tout the company's products, etc., at that time notability will be easy to prove. I would refer you to WP:N. If things cannot be published because they are still in development, it would stand to reason that it is too early to claim encyclopedic notability. Thank you for your commentary, Drmies (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If sources can be supplied which back up the statements made by the company's website on their "novel approaches," I might retract this vote. I cannot yet find any sources of such, though. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry--we don't have to contact the company; the company needs to be notable. If the novel approach is notable, that should be apparent from, for instance, media coverage. The notability of VEGF-A is not in question here, see Vascular endothelial growth factor A. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir (btw its Dr Keely, but who really minds in cyber space!!) I have made amendments to the references, that to me and my colleagues seem to offer a simple straight forward case of notability for ANgioSPlice and VEGF-Axxxb Just to clarify it is the antiangiogenic isoform of VEGF-A (already notable) called VEGF-Axxxb that is newly notable (I notice there is no wiki page), I find it strange the editors prefer referenced media coverage (Drudge, news of the word, Hello and such)as apposed to peer reviewed scientific journals. Perhaps Wikipedia should remain a fount of knowledge on chicken fried bacon and claw boys claw and leave science to the scientists. We appreciate how tough your job must be and are grateful for your feed back, some interesting aspects of wiki that we weren’t aware of and shall pass up the chain. bw James, Arjun and Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradkeely (talk • contribs) 01:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank your for your interest in my work. Further response on talkpage--this is no longer relevant to the AfD discussion. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A deeply unhappy delete. Dr. Keely is absolutely correct that "a new company aiming to cure cancer and save sight is a company that the public deserves to know about." I wish him the best of luck in developing a cure and publicizing his efforts. But Wikipedia is not a billboard, and User:Drmies' nomination appears well-taken. I just don't see evidence that Angiosplice "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources [that are] ... reliable, and independent of the subject" as WP:COMPANY requires. I would strongly encourage User:Bradkeely to find and add such coverage to the article, if it exists, because I would truly love to change my vote.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simon, I hope you will believe me when I say I didn't nominate this lightheartedly or haphazardly--I simply was not able to find any sources in the usual news outlets, books, and scholarly publications. There is plenty of stuff, as suggested above by Bradkeely, on the therapy and its potential, but not on the company, except for that single Cambridge award. Of course, as a fan of Karl Popper, I will be more than happy to be proven wrong, and I'm sure you tried! Drmies (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely - I didn't mean to suggest that the nomination shouldn't have been made, you're absolutely right as to notability.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We are few of us scientists, and our grounds to debate or challenge the science involved are close to nil. The criteria to decide if a company is notable or not, however, are well-established and fairly straightforward. This company fails of those criteria and the article fails to satisfy WP:V. It is not enough for the article's proponents to debate how important this company might be in this particular scientific field. What they must do to save the article is come up with sources that satisfy WP:RS on the company (not on the science involved), and to that end, I strongly recommend that they read up on appropriate Wikipedia policy first.  Ravenswing  07:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Many thanks guys, I greatly appreciate all of your advice. Out of interest if two USPTO patents were included, (one pending and one granted) owned by AngioSplice with IP covering the list of publications and research previously mentioned would that reflect Notability? Or would the patents have to be written up in the The Times or the Daily Enquirer as the ‘next great cure’? bw brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradkeely (talk • contribs) 09:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Patents are self-published: the entire contents of the specification are written by the inventor('s legal team). Unlike a magazine or newspaper, the patent office has zero discretion over whether or not the patent application is published. The inventor or his/her assignee can even have the patent published if the application is rejected (a strategy that is popular for sabotaging the competition by creating prior art.) Therefore, they're no more useful for this purpose than a company's own website or press releases. The patent (or anything else written by the company) would have to receive some outside notice (such as fr could be wrong)om one of the newspapers you mention). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the article: "The AngioSplice™ approach promises to produce ..." They have no product yet. The award in the article is the essence of triviality. Two patents that are not yet exploited commercially is meaningless for notability. As for their derivatives of the growth factor: There are 6 published peer-reviewed papers on the altered growth factor listed, not all by them. Checking in Scopus, that's essentially all the present literature. It would justify an article on the subject--except that the material is already in the VEGF article, as part of the section "alternative classification." A number of different isoforms are listed there--it is, as they say, a very promising field and they are not the only people working in it. Details on these can be added, based on the literature. At some point, that page will undoubtedly have to be split as this line of work develops, but which ones will get the emphasis is altogether unclear at this time. There is no reason but their optimism that theirs' will be of practical or scientific importance. It's easier to decide about the company: like any other start-up, it is not notable till it actually has a product in some stage of formal testing or has attracted significant published interest in it as a company. Not yet. DGG (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I met this group at a funding event in Cambridge (and must admit have interest in second funding round) and took the opportunity to start adding to wikipedia (something I've wanted to do for a while), I've added a few other completely off topic pages, which I hope were ok... ). I understand all of your points. Infact I often wondered how you policed an open access encyclopaedia and have been very impressed by this dialogue. This peer/ editor review method makes very much they sense. (I would only suggest having editors vet pages in their specialist topics). I guess my child like naivity was my down fall, a company like this, which from my own experience contain rather bright individuals doing exciting stuff but more importantly not horrible hard headed business men but scientists, who (without wanting to sound too Charles Urban just want their work to help people , I thought I would start, and try, (but most likely fail) to present them well online to the public and cancer sufferers across the world.

Once again many thanks and I hope to speak in the future RE better crafted articles bw BK

PS Is it now my responsibility to delete the page (Sorry for my ignorance)

    • I restored the page blanking. Usually we let these debates run once they get started, and blanking the page makes it harder for people to see what the discussion is about. An administrator will do the actual deletion if that's the outcome of this discussion. Gigs (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, Brad, Wikipedia's wise policy is not to restrict editors from vetting pages outside their specialist topics. Partly, this is out of our lack of ability to vet the qualifications of editors - as you can well imagine, many people claim expertise they wholly lack or is based on a brief internship or a college course. More importantly, it's because our rules aren't dependent on any such background. I don't remotely pretend to comprehend the science here, but that's not at issue: it's whether this company meets the consensus-based criteria for verifiability and notability. That much any literate person with a decent amount of skill at research can do. In any event, please do read through WP:PILLAR and the attached links for a grounding in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and good luck with your future articles.  Ravenswing  09:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I agree great company but notability not met yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.5.166 (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this actually means keep; the ed seems to be unfamiliar with our practices DGG (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. FYI to quote Drmies 'the small award' that angiosplice won, five thousand sterling may be a small amount of prize money. But it was awarded by the university of Cambridge to recognize AS producing the best technological application/ company from the entire university in 2009. The university of Cambridge is consistently ranked second or third in the world.(Is that not notable??)http://www.topuniversities.com/university_rankings/results/2008/overall_rankings/top_100_universities/] (edit by 131.111.213.50}
Notability is not inherited. The University of Cambridge is notable, but that does not confer ipso facto notability on persons on whom it bestows a degree, a prize, or an award.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that award is not to the best technology company, but the best new company of that particular year start by CU people--essentially an internal award. Their emphasis on promising new companies, but ours is not. Ours is on the ones that have achieved their promise. DGG (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't have the coverage to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KNOB (defunct)[edit]

KNOB (defunct) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not very notable [mad pierrot][t c] 21:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KNOB (defunct) has a link to it from every Wiki page of every Los Angeles radio station at the bottom. My historically minded associates and I think we should flesh out the otherwise dead ended links with information about the stations we have worked at and have inside knowledge of. For example, I was Chief Engineer at KNOB for four years.

I assume the Conflict of Interest comment had to do with the link to my personal website page about KNOB (FM), so I have removed that. As to relevance, I would think any 79,000 watt radio station in Los Angeles would be sufficiently significant to merit an article. Paul Sakrison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phsakrison (talk • contribs) 21:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Licensed broadcast radio stations, including defunct ones, are considered to be notable. Plus, according to this Los Angeles Times link, it was the world's first all-jazz radio station, which is pretty notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to KLAX-FM. KLAX is a direct descendant of KNOB and if the 2 articles were merged together neither would be incredibly long. User:MrRadioGuy What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 03:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect' per MrRadioGuy provided verifiable sources are aviailble showing the evolution of KNOB to KLAX.--RadioFan (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article meets notability threshold with multiple reliable third-party sources. Licensed radio stations are generally notable and notability is not temporary. That said, this information would be better serve readers as part of the History section of the KLAX-FM article so a merge and redirect at some point after this article is kept is an excellent idea. - Dravecky (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Dravecky. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, followed by merge and redirect. Can't say any more or say it any better than Dravecky did. Mlaffs (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After reading the arguments and considering the matter further, I believe that the station does meet the criteria for inclusion (I know of multiple local radio stations that have their own articles). The merge and redirect sounds like a good idea to me. [mad pierrot][t c] 02:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepKNOB was "the most celebrated all-jazz station on the West Coast and the nation's first exclusive jazz programming outlet" per Billboard Jun 18, 1966, page 22, "Jazz Beat."[1]. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Media, licensed full power broadcast stations which originate a portion of their programming have been found to be notable in previous AFDs. No merger is appropriate in this case. Edison (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a separate article, don't merge. KNOB is independently notable as the "world's first all-jazz radio station" with a history as a family-owned station spanning 3 decades, and was recognized by national media (e.g. Billboard) as a pioneering station. KLAX-FM is not really a "descendent" of this station; Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. bought the license(Los Angeles Times), and changed the format to Spanish and the call letters to KSKQ-FM, making it a sister station to Spanish language KSKQ AM 1540. If anything, the present KLAX-FM is really a descendent of KSKQ (AM&FM), not KNOB. It may have gotten the license and transmitter from KNOB, but shares little else with this historic station. DHowell (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Pastor Theo (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X Committee[edit]

X Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article discusses a conspiracy theory that only appears in one publication and one webpage of the LaRouche movement, and perhaps in some even less reliable sources. A chunk is copied verbatim from the LaRouche publication.[2] The article has been tagged for notability since May 2009. I PRODded it, and the creator responded by merging it into Views of Lyndon LaRouche, which didn't address any of the problems with the material. The "Views" article has already been the dumping ground for articles on other obscure, non-notable theories of the LaRouche movement, and adding this doesn't help the article, so a merger is not a good option unless the material is substantially improved. I think it's better to just delete it.   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Im finding it difficult to find any reliable sources that can be used with the article. As for a merge Im inclined to agree that it would be difficult to merge into Views of Lyndon LaRouche without improvement in POV. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability. I considered transwiking, but it's too much of a made up one day descriptor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - This is a relevant article providing valuable added information to Wikipedia. Please stop the overzealous policing and deletion of Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, this meets each of Wikipedia's Five Pillars which explicitly states they are the only five rules, rendering all other arguments irrelevant.Aliveatoms (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of sources. There may also be WP:BLP issues with the names mentioned on the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete The JPStalk to me 10:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footballers Wives Franchise[edit]

Footballers Wives Franchise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a copy/paste of three other articles, Footballers' Wives, Footballers' Wives: Extra Time and Football Wives. It offers nothing to describe any franchise, and there's simply no need for it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a merged article under a non-notable name. Merger discussions should take place on the relevant article talk pages. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per ChildofMidnight. Iowateen (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prog-rock opera[edit]

Prog-rock opera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is built completely on original research and duplicates much of the material already found in the Rock opera article. Or in some cases contradicts the cited material in the other article. No references to be found. The only Google hit for the term directs to Wikipedia. Page should be removed or re-directed to the Rock opera article. Fair Deal (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Recommend DRV for the original discussion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood: Original Television Soundtrack - Children of Earth[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Torchwood: Original Television Soundtrack - Children of Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm renominating this article, due to absurd interference in the last AfD by a trolling IP which caused a verdict of "no consensus". Please read completely through the previous nomination, and then help to form a workable and true consensus. Hopefully the waters won't get muddied this time. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 19:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Close- Let me see if I can translate nominator's first part. I didn't like how the last one went so I'm renominating it the same day the old one closed. Did I get that right? The previous AFD closed TODAY. If you did not like the outcome, then DRV is in order, not re-nomination the same damned day. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and take to DRV if you want. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that this would be less hassle. Also, DRV tends to mean, "I think that the closing admin cocked this up," – and I don't want to do that. I don't think the closing admin did. I think that that trolling IP did. Sorry to put you to so much trouble, Umbralcorax. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 06:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's no trouble. Don't take it personally, I just think it's problematic to relist an AfD like this. You can recommend a reopening or relisting at DRV and see what happens. I think that's the best approach. What notability there is is pretty marginal, but at least it's not a horrific spam article or a mess of some sort. Anyway, have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DRV takes situations where nothing was deleted? I thought it was exclusively for situations where someone alleges that a completed deletion should not have taken place. Nyttend (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus. However, the article's advocates are strongly urged to beef up its referencing to prevent a return bout. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Verna[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bill Verna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 5. Neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 20:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wrestled in main event matches in several countries for 20+ years; cited as an influence in shaping British wrestling; discussed in several newspaper articles and featured in a journal that is held in the libraries of many major American universities; championships held demonstrate that he competed at the top level of his profession, all of which combines to establish notability per WP:ATHLETE. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well refed to reliable sources in several countries. WWGB (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Sources at 2 & 3 fail WP:RS (both are hobby sites). Further evidence of Straits Times content needed. Was it a full report or just a result? If it was the latter it also fails WP:RS and doesn't prove notability. Other sources seem okay, but I lean towards a narrow fail of WP:N. All European Title's notability not established alongside the other title for which an attempt has at least been made. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 08:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable per various championships held and extensive career. –Moondyne 03:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Adrian Street article places Verna in a large group. Needs individual praise. Wrestling Heritage is a fan site. Proof required for pass at WP:RS. Back up required also for the site hosted by Geocities as that also needs help under WP:RS. I'll see if I can get ahold of the Straits Times archives to confirm Rick Doodle's query. No opinion at present. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Rick about the hobby sites and I am yet to see any newspaper from the time period concerned provide enough coverage to be reliable which pushes out the Straits Times refs as well. Without those the article fails the notability test. Oh and the Adrian Street reference is no proof. GetDumb 08:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by decltype. Canley (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Curran[edit]

Mark Curran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO, no reliable sources and appears to be a hoax article. snigbrook (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwaan Sabir[edit]

Rizwaan Sabir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:BLP1E violation. Along with his "co-conspirator", this deserves maybe two or three sentences in the University of Nottingham article. There are no reliable sources on which to write a biography. This is the description of an event. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @838  ·  19:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as BLP-1E violation or rename and rewrite to address issues involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename . This is a major case with academic freedom implications. DGG (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an appropriate title for an article about the event and the legal and academic issues involved? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. This event had no implications for academic freedom: Rizwaan Sabir is a student and under UK law students do not have academic freedom. For a full discussion of the case, refer to www.academicfreedom.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.23.174 (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Note: This manual is not a classified document. British and American counter-terrorism officials chose to publish this manual. I agree with DGG that this article should be kept because of the free speech and academic freedom aspects. There is nothing mundane about this case. I have noticed what seems to me to be a disturbing trend, in {{afd}} related to the "war on terror", a push to describe as "not-notable" all instances where security authoriites have trampled on traditional rights, as if the population of westernized industrial democracies had decided to ignore Benjamin Franklin's advice that "those who sacrifice liberty for security, will get neither..." Some {{afd}} participants act as if trampling on traditional freedoms was so routine, mundane, run of the mill, that it was never worthwhile to cover these incidents. No, the populations of westernized industrial democracies have not agreed to sacrifice personal liberty for security. Geo Swan (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bargn Farmaceutici Phils. Co.[edit]

Bargn Farmaceutici Phils. Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:N. I am tempted to speedy for WP:A7. Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for letting me know.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a paste from an existing website with no indication of compatible licensing. Created redirect to previously existing article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imam al-hussain[edit]

Imam al-hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There already is an article for Husayn ibn Ali. Favonian (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In that case, it would seem like the best thing to do would be to redirect to that article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a copyvio notice to the page (although it looks like it will not last long anyway) TheSmuel (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio from http://www.al-islam.org/kaaba14/6.htm (G12). I've already added the speedy tag. A redirect should probably be made after deletion, as suggested in the nomination, but there is no "safe" version to go back to. Physchim62 (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mad doctor who magazine[edit]

Mad doctor who magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Web-based fanzine, seems not to meet WP:WEB criteria, no links to third-party coverage by reliable sources given. A quick search for mainstream media coverage finds nothing. The Anome (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Author is clearly related to the "publication" and has made articles about himself and (if I recall correctly) his "magazine" in the past. This is more COI and self-promotion. He can probably be blocked for having an improper username. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What improper username might that be?  RGTraynor  07:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is called "Mdwm" which is clearly the initials of "Mad doctor who magazine". This breaks the rule of not naming users after products or organisations. Of course, if he hadn't tried to promote his product then we would probably never have noticed and it wouldn't have done any harm, but he did, and he hasn't contributed to anything else on Wikipedia, even the extensive range of Doctor Who articles which you would think he would have an interest in, which makes me think the account exists purely for promotional purposes. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independant sources, self-published, and first issue isn't supposed to be released until November. Edward321 (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 18:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

<--Relisted-->

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 19:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artillery Duel/Spike's Peak[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Artillery Duel/Spike's Peak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Artillery Duel/Chuck Norris Superkicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Artillery Duel/Ghost Manor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested PROD. This game does not appear to be notable. The only source I could find was [3]. It even asserts non-notability by saying, "It is a exceedingly rare game." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Ban[edit]

Rolling Ban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Appears to be original research. No Google News, Books, or Scholar hits for "Rolling+Ban"+fish or "Rolling+Ban"+fishery. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

#!/bin/bash#######################################################################################

I am not certain that I understand the precise reason for the deletion suggestion. I am new to this entity.

The article details an approach , it is not research.`

It is a subject of significant import.

Any elaboration would be most appreciated.

Thank you. 

    ArchbishopDamaskinosWasRight
###################################################################################################
###################################################################################################

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchnishopDamaskinosWasRight (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I checked this out when nominating Levelism (AfD discussion) at AFD. The same applies there as here. There's no evidence to suggest that this is a real, documented, peer reviewed, and acknowledged part of human knowledge. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levelism. Searches analogous to the ones I described there met with the same lack of results in this case. This article also fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monoboarding[edit]

Monoboarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only source is fan-based site that does not indicate notability; no independent, verifiable sources. Violates WP:SPAM; WP:N; WP:V; WP:MADEUP mhking (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monoboard (snow sport) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment - Also adding Monoboard (snow sport) to AfD due to identical content and identical reasons for deletion. --mhking (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, a wealth of good sources exist, and the article could be easily improved, and I don't think comes close to a candidate for deletion. google search shows a wealth of articles in high-profile publications, including some written in Powder Mag. Articles and videos covering monoboard, monoboarding. This is above and beyond what is required to establish notability: detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources, found with very little effort.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.91.66 (talk) date— 71.160.91.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sockpuppet vote indented and struck Cheers, I'mperator 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Very strong Keep The article passes WIKI SPORT standards. Whether this sport is practice by millions or only by few is a new sport and developing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.81.242 (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)— 71.106.81.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sockpuppet vote indented and struck Cheers, I'mperator 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The World Monoboard Organization is an independent, verifiable sources reconizied in 7 countries in the World USA, France, Switzerland, Italy, United KIngdom, Australia, and Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.81.242 (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)— 71.106.81.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep Keep Keep The original page *monoboard was created in 2004 and accepted by WIKI, then vandalized many times and then change over to a page about to computer monoboard. This page *monoboard snow should be call *monoboard, monoboarding and the current *monoboard page should be call *Computer monoboard

See the history below Thanks 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monoboard&oldid=180297545 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monoboard&oldid=100928213 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monoboard&oldid=36736447 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monoboard&oldid=270467802 2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monoboard&oldid=35767902 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.200.243 (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Monoboard (snow sport), Redirect Monoboarding to Monoboard (snow sport) - the winter sport is known to some winter sports enthusiasts. The very advert-like content at the moment is clearly unsuitable, but I don't see a problem in getting rid of that in favour of a better article if you give me a chance to do so. As for the original Monoboard article, it should never have been "usurped" by the current stuff about circuit boards, but it has now (twice!) and someone is pretty keen on the circuit board stuff. The way this kind of thing should have been dealt with is by the creation of a disambig page, which is exactly what I'm going to do right now. Astronaut (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a disambig page at Monoboard which will hopefully stop further arguments there.
As for the referenceing in Monoboard (snow sport), I have looked but what links exists probably I fear qualify as reliable sources - they are either enthusiast's sites, or the sites of companies with products to sell. There is however a Monoboard article in French which has been around for quite some time. Astronaut (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:What about Monoski, Monoskiing? I think that this discussion should consider those pages as possible redirect or merge targets, or for comparison. They're just as poorly sourced, but they are not as messy or promotional.Synchronism (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is monoskiing and monoboarding really the same? If so then there is a serious disagreement between the articles about who invented the sport and when. This just shows why verifiability matters and all four articles fail to make the grade. The only RS reference for monoskiing is as a paralympic sport with a seat fitted to the ski, this doesn't do anything to demonstrate notability for it as a non-paralympic sport. If monoboarding and monoskiing really are the same thing then I have no objection to the monoboarding articles being redirected to the monoskiing ones. I don't think anything is worth merging though. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is much more than a minor semantic difference. I can believe that snowboard technology is being used for monoskiing, but I doubt that there is much of a technique difference, save maybe the uses of poles. It seems to me to simply be a stylistic difference.Synchronism (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If monoboarding is the same as monoskiing then redirect to that, if not then delete both. No proof that this is a notable sport under this name. No RS references. The articles seem to focus on a small clique of people who are both the board makers and practitioners of the sport. The WMO is probably also the same people. It doesn't look like any sort of official sporting body. If this sport receives wider acceptance and recognition in the future then maybe it can have an article then but not based on what we have now. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Shorn of all the sockpuppets and SPAs, I neither see nor find any evidence of notability, reliable sources or anything else along those lines. That the promoters of these "sports" have worked their club into a few websites (23 total Google hits, which isn't working at all hard at it) doesn't translate into any recognition or notice by the media (zero Google News hits).  RGTraynor  07:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources and promotional tone.Synchronism (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mullah Allawi[edit]

Mullah Allawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A biographical article of someone supposedly born in 1811 that shows that person in a photograph wearing sun glasses? That piqued my interest. Two of the reference links are duds, the third links to a sports news website. The article as it stands is relatively long but has only one edit in it's history.

All of this raised my suspicions but none of it warranted a speedy delete IMHO so I'm throwing it out for an AfD instead. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The same user also created الملا علاوي, which this might be a machine translation of. Since this article's kind of incoherent, it might be wisest to wait and see if anyone at pages needing translation can work out who this guy is, whether he's real, and whether he's notable. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 17:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arabic original moved to Mullah Allawi/Arabic.  Andreas  (T) 12:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Mullah is a title in the Islamic clergy, and normally not an actual first name. So it would be interesting to see if there is a person named Alawi to whom this could be redirected. Even if it is not this person. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detele No sources cited, no ghits, and a confused mess of an article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as incoherent and unsalvageable. If this person is notable, then we are better off with a blank slate than whatever it is that currently present. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 18:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Shada[edit]

Josh Shada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Actor who has only appeared an very minor roles. Searching gives no news hits and nothing particularly of note in a general search. Quantpole (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the current body of work does not satisfy notability nor is there coverage about him that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not yet notable. General announcement (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to FA Cup 2003-04. BJTalk 19:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur v Manchester City (FA Cup 2003-04)[edit]

Tottenham Hotspur v Manchester City (FA Cup 2003-04) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod for a non notable sporting event. Whilst the game may have been thrilling, and gained coverage as all games do, I'm unable to find any support in independent reliable sources for the claim of notability and no coverage after the event. Nuttah (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge I think the article should be merged with this instead of a delete SparksBoy (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unless the notability can be sourced why does this game deserve expanding compared with the rest on that list? Nuttah (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A single game in the early stages of the competition really doesn't need its own article, regardless of the score or the drama of the match (and I'm not just saying that as a Spurs fan who'd prefer to see that sad story disappear under the rug!). --BlueSquadronRaven 21:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to FA Cup 2003-04 - Yes, it was a thrilling match, and, yes, no-one could see that Man City would turn around a 3-0 deficit with 10 men away from home, but I can't see how it's any more notable than, say, Chelsea being knocked out by Barnsley in the 2008 competition. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to FA Cup 2003-04. Possibly not worth its own page but it is certainly well out of the ordinary and certainly merits its own section in the target. Plenty of reliable sources; this and this is a good start. TerriersFan (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They are match reports, and I could provide similar for any game involving a Premiership team. To establish a level of notability for even a merge - giving this game greater precedent in a seasons worth of games - surely we need a level of coverage beyond that weekend. Nuttah (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a quick search round finds Hereford_United_v_Newcastle_United_1972. I'd say the refs at the end of this are what's needed here. Coverage down the line rather than a match report. Nuttah (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I quote from the Guardian "This may well be as great a comeback as English football has ever known" and Kevin Keegan "They'll talk about this game long after we're dead and gone" .If you find similar comments in another match report then please feel free to add that match somewhere. In the context of the target this is clealry well out of the ordinary and well worth some coverage. In my view this should never have come here but simply merged. I would add that WP:N (though compliance with WP:N is not needed for a merge) requires substantial coverage in reliable sources which this game has. There is no requirement for "surely we need a level of coverage beyond that weekend". TerriersFan (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is a guideline, not a hard and fast. In terms of sporting coverage, such as football involving Premiership teams (and lower) where match coverage is guaranteed, it is reasonably common consensus the 'notability' needs more than a number of match reports. Nuttah (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is not a notable football match by any stretch of the imagination. It's not a record scoreline for the competition, nor - I'm sure - is it a record comeback. – PeeJay 22:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Early round matches can be notable, but this one doesn't strike me as such. Put it this way, if you were writing the article on the history of one or both of these clubs, would the match gain a mention? No way. Compare to Bayern Munich v Norwich City and Hereford United v Newcastle United 1972, both of which would appear in one club's history. Delete. --Dweller (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dweller, non-notable match. GiantSnowman 08:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to that season's FA Cup article. As much as it brings back memories for me, and was the most notable FA Cup match of the decade for either club, mentioning the nature of the comeback in the season's FA Cup article would be sufficient. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Peru earthquake[edit]

2009 Peru earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Peru has had at least 4 earthquakes of around this size this year already, and this one is non-notable because it occurred at a depth of 200 km. Basically it means the shaking felt on the ground was not as significant as it would be if it was a shallow quake. So far only 'minor' damage has been reported, and since Peru has a long history of deadly earthquakes, this one would meet the criteria for WP:RECENT. RapidR (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep As I disagree with WP:RECENT and this article could be useful in the future. I see no reason to delete SparksBoy (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Peru is frequently hit by earthquakes of this size (once every couple of months or so), and they all cause panic and affect many hundreds of thousands of people, but 'people were affected' just simply means that people felt some of the shaking, it doesn't have to mean they were all injured or became homeless as a result. You could have a big thunderstorm that affects 5 million people (or the amount of people that noticed the rain) but it doesn't make it notable. So far this year there have been 4 earthquakes of similar size in Peru: A 5.8 on 2nd Feb [5], 6.1 on 9 Feb [6], 6.2 on 15 Feb [7], 5.8 on 26 March [8], and they all 'affected' lots of people, so I don't know whats notable about this one. RapidR (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its hard to say if its notable when its just happened and theres very few sources available at this time regarding it. I would like to see if any come to light about its impact before deleting it. Especially that it might just be remade shortly. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh, this is yesterday's news. I'm not sure where it was said that this was a 6.1 quake, but it was a 5.3 [9] with "no immediate reports of damage or injury". Maybe you can get some sympathy from the admin who thought the July 2006 Sulawesi earthquake was big stuff. Mandsford (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS.—Kww(talk) 03:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:N ("Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability"). I see no evidence that coverage continued beyond a short burst. - Biruitorul Talk 19:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:N--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Delete the the gazillion pop-idol or 2nd rate footballer articles too :))--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too short, only 3 sentences. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Clear consensus here reveals that these articles are irredeemable original research—and while it's not within the realm of speedy deletion, the presented topic doesn't have any potential to be neutral or encyclopedic as it stands. JamieS93 Only You Can Prevent Drama 22:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orissa's Top Private Engineering Colleges[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Orissa's Top Private Engineering Colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research about the engineering colleges within one University in Orissa. Author put it best at the end of the article - "All content of above is sole view of the author.Though all care is taken to be complete and factual the content may be not completely actual.Author bears no responsibility for the realness of the content." PROD was contested, so it's here. Strong Delete SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages because as they are versions of the above page; although I'm doing this a little late, I don't think this is a problem as the two people who have voted delete here so far have also tagged the articles for CSD/PROD and I don't think we need to go through the cat and mouse game of waiting for the author to remove PRODs once more. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC):[reply]
Best Engineering Colleges in Orissa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Best 20 Engineering Colleges in Orissa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • I still see it as spam. The use of "top" in the title (and "best" in some of the author's other articles), the inclusion of contact details and puffery, and the lack of much actual encyclopaedic information all seem to prove it, so my recommendation remains to "speedy delete" however if this is really not possible then my second preference is "very strong delete". Note: The author has made a few other very similar articles and my recommendation for them is the same. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Back in the day before my hiatus, 9 out of 10 WP:NOR cases could be solved by a rewrite. However, in this case, as judging by the title, this article's purpose is to examine what the best engineering colleges are, which is fundamentally a purpose which violates WP:NOR. Otumba (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Just noticed two more articles have been nominated under this umbrella. !Vote Delete for the other two, on the same basis as my first !vote. Otumba (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EyeBuyDirect.com[edit]

EyeBuyDirect.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article on a minor e-commerce company, propped up by passing mentions in local and trade press (and a press release). No evidence for actual impact or notability. Calton | Talk 14:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as the article stands, it seems nothing short of a wikipediaized publicity effort, with a press release space on Reuters. Hard to see why this article would be encyclopedia-worthy. Some of the statistics could perhaps be appropriate in a article concerning trends in eyewear. As such, not notable, slightly spammish. Casimirpo (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. The article even mentions their use of viral marketing and Facebook. 81.178.67.229 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Independent news coverage establishes notability per WP:CORP. The company is by far the best known online optical prescription retailer. Owen× ☎ 08:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Please consider these references that could be included in the article:
    Wall Street Journal [10]
    Internet Retailer [11] [12]
    Kiplinger [13]
    The owner of the site contacted me and asked for help. Because they don't understand how to participate here, I am posting this on their behalf. I will direct the site owner to read WP:BFAQ. Jehochman Talk 12:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Jehochman! I've added the four refs to the article. Eventually we'll have to trim the list down, but for now it's okay to over-cite. Owen× ☎ 13:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Internet Retailer articles seem like copy from a press release, the rest seem like small mentions in more general consumer articles. Aubergine (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. blatant attack page/hoax Closedmouth (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Williams (Serial Killer)[edit]

Robert Williams (Serial Killer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probable hoax (if so, may be attack page). No relevant ghits for "Robert Williams" "Charley Reeves" or similar. WP:CB? If consensus = hoax, I propose speedy under G3. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Author's user name is Rjwilli, but I can't decide what sway this puts on the article. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Almost certainly a hoax/attack: cites no sources whatsoever, and none can be found on Google News. Hqb (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 17:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Farms (fresh farm market)[edit]

Royal Farms (fresh farm market) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I actually created this page myself as a split from Royal Farms (now Royal Farms (convenience store)), after I found that article was about two different companies. Someone put a speedy tag on the page, which I requested be removed. So far, I have found no notable sources about the company, but given that the article Royal Farms was previously about two separate companies, I feel this should be discussed prior to deletion. My point-of-view is neutral, as I know little about this company. Hellno2 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 01:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania–Slovakia relations[edit]

Lithuania–Slovakia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lithuania doesn't have an embassy in Slovakia. lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mainly multilateral (esp as both are recent EU members) [15]. A Slovak business delegation visited Lithuania in 1997 but not much else has happened since then. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Because there are no independent, secondary sources that directly discusses these countries' bilateral relations in any kind of detail, this topic fail WP:GNG and Wikipedia shouldn't have a standalone article on it. This is closest thing I could find to an appropriate source, but I would not call this 121-word blurb in depth coverage. This 126-word article doesn't cut it either, and nor does the combination of the two constitute direct, in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Yilloslime TC 18:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. No sources and both smaller countries in area and population. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 23:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Fletcher[edit]

Sally Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another for the barbie; non-notable fictional character with all the usual fancruft issues. note ridiculous fansite "references". delete. Jack Merridew 14:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the character is notable and there are several refs I quickly found ([16], [17], [18]). The article as it stands is a load of tripe, but the notablility of the character is, I think, warranted.  florrie  14:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that the character's departure from the program after a long tenure resulted in multiple articles in national newspapers appears alone to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the GNG, as well as supporting the inference that further coverage exists. There's a Google News hit less than a week old, profiling another Australian actor, which presumes that its readers are familar with the Fletcher character, and many other Google News hits (even screening out the many other folks with the same name). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This character is one of the originals, dating back to 1988, well before the popularity of the internet so there may be many more books or news articles about it that we're not aware of. A very refined Google search resulted in 4,500 hits, including [19], [20], [21] "Ritchie's emotional departure from the show attracted huge coverage in Australia, making it onto several news shows, and even earning a 24-page supplement in the TV Week. Her final episode on April 3 in Australia drew in 1.5m viewers, which was unprecedented for an early evening soap in Oz", [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Google News search pulls 109 hits, there's an indepth interview with the actress here, and there are a few Google Books hits. Yes, the article is poorly written, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today's Sunday Herald Sun features an article on H&A and Sally, coincidently. It says Kate Ritchie most famously played one of the foster kids for 20 years, and it's Sally who "symbolises the show’s 21 years on television."(Luke Dennehey - "Party on the Beach" page 24, 12 July 2009, Sunday Herald Sun) There's also another piece in the same newspaper that gives H&A's Top 10 Moments. Sally's departure is one of them: "After 20 years, Kate Ritchie leaves Home and Away in one of the most talked about episodes of Australian soap history".("Top 10 Home & Away Moments" page 24, 12 July 2009, Sunday Herald Sun) Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep long time character in a major series is usually notable . In this case, there are clearly the references to show it, as above. The nom could have found them, too. DGG (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She was a character in Home and Away for ten years. Jack, not a good nomination. Fences&Windows 00:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Twenty years — and the article sucked; still does. The notability is Kate's, not Sally's. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Crap article≠delete. Sally does have notability, some of the refs provided above prove it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; nowhere in deletion policy does "the article sucks" appear as a valid criterion to delete. As far as the notability of the character goes, it doesn't transfer by definition to the actress playing the character any more than notability is transferrable the other way around. Keep.  RGTraynor  07:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, twenty years. Jack, did you even try to look for references? Coz I found these in two minutes:[37][38]. Fences&Windows 04:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Editors have shown several sources exist and needing cleanup is never grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is very hard sometimes to distinguish lines between notability of a character from notability of the actor or the show but I think in this case Sally is a notable character and there are a significant number of sources available to support an article. So I would keep the article but rewrite and source and remove the fan crufty OR type material. Sarah 04:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but article needs help badly. Orderinchaos 12:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable character in a notable work of fiction. Dream Focus 18:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-oid[edit]

-oid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pure dictionary definition with no hope of making encyclopedia article

  • The article name is invalid; article names in encyclopedias are supposed to be nouns or verbs (and not even adjectives), so it violates WP:MOS, whereas affixes are valid articles in wiktionary.[39]
  • The topic is invalid as well, the topic is supposed to be an underlying concept and not purely a word or purely lexical- that's what dictionaries do, and do it far better than we can here.
  • The article contains a simple list of words that happen to match a particular lexical pattern- again, dictionaries do it much better, and are usually more complete as well.

This is a textbook case of Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is a dictionary entry with no realistic chance of recovery. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Topic is well-covered at WD. Cnilep (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are articles about other types of morphemes (-nik for whatever that's worth). Looks like the compatible content should be merged into List of Greek words with English derivatives and then the article redirected there. A dictionary can contain this info better, and redirecting to the list would help people get to it.Synchronism (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that I'd be more comfortable voting to delete this article if it were co-nominated with similar articles in the Category:Affixes. Consistency is important.Synchronism (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF and feel free to nominate for deletion any other articles (or group of articles) you don't think belong on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware. "Per nom" (WP:PERNOMINATOR) is also an argument to avoid . My !vote is to merge and redirect, if you'd like to address that.Synchronism (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to where?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Greek words with English derivatives, where it would make a valid list entry that doesn't already exist. There is only a small bit of content to be merged, but deletion is an unnecessary step towards putting it there. Synchronism (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the other stuff may be salvageable, but a lot of it isn't, and a lot has been deleted in the past as well by others; but yeah otherstuff.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by KillerChihuahua. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Vanderloop[edit]

Adam Vanderloop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was tagged for speedy under A7, nn. Article makes claims of notability including record breaking. Submitting here for community decision. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because Adam's claim to fame hinges on his membership in the National Wiffleball League which seems to have no notability at all:[reply]

National Wiffleball League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. This is an organization so it qualifies as a speediable article under A7. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Simply not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Organization is a prime example of WP:MADEUP, even if the make-up date is six years ago; individual's notability hinges on organization. Majorclanger (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete (A7) . Ruslik_Zero 17:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brenton Radio[edit]

Brenton Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pretty sure this is a hoax. Gordonrox24 | Talk 13:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:G3 or WP:A7?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 13:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think A7. But nonetheless, surely I'm hoping consensus here will be to delete. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 13:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde + Hyde Architects[edit]

Hyde + Hyde Architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

declined speedy. looks like spam. fails WP:ORG, no third party coverage in gnews [40]. LibStar (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azwan bin Ali[edit]

Azwan bin Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any references to back any of this info up. Either non-notable or not a real player. Gordonrox24 | Talk 13:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. BJTalk 19:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–India relations[edit]

Estonia–India relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

neither country has a resident embassy. if total trade is less than 31miliion euro, that is a minute fraction of India's trade. a real lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mainly multilateral [41]. LibStar (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep [42] has a wide scope of information on ties between the countries. A look at that would prove without a doubt the ties between the countries is extremely notable. India is a county that has economic relations with a lot of countries, so what really is the point of saying that by comparison it's trade with Estonia is negligible ? a real lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations: Again, I recommend this link mentioning various agreements and other information. --Roaring Siren (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that source is a primary source, you need to provide evidence of independent third party coverage. for notability to be established there must be significant coverage, not 1 government website as per WP:GNG. 1 govt website is not wide coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
also just because it has a relationship does not automatically mean it needs a bilateral article. LibStar (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A simple google search for "India Estonia relations" reveal numerous hits from relibale sources and I have included many of them in the article. Did you even bother to search for sources ? Just looking at your statement :a real lack of coverage of actual bilateral relation. --Roaring Siren (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't a valid argument. I could do a Google search on Estonia Seychelles relations and it doesn't prove notable relations. I still stand by my comment, your google search shows mainly multilateral sources, ie Estonia, India AND another country. there are very few third party sources that cover ONLY Estonia and India and no other country. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. No one—including me—likes deleting pretty, content-ful (as opposed to contentless) articles, but this is really a non-topic. Quite simply, there are no independent, secondary sources that discuss this topic directly or in depth, and therefore, according the notability guidelines this article should be deleted. Sure, the Indian and Estonia gov'ts have a lot info on this topic on their websites, but these sources aren't independent so they do not establish notability. And sure, there are a handful of 200 to 300 word articles in reliable, third-party sources that talk about meetings between these governments, but I would not call this coverage in-depth, nor does it directly address the topic of these countries' relations. The article as it is stands looks nice, but on closer inspection it turns out to be a synthesis of primary/non-independent sources. Yilloslime TC 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What position is it advancing? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any valid content should be in a single country article - not in a non-notable permutation and combination exercise. Collect (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Yilloslime. The article is a collection of trivia, not an in-depth overview of relations, and neither are any of the sources anything more than coverage of individual events, not the topic as a whole. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep very much to my surprise--when I saw the article title, I thought this would be a clear delete, but then I saw the sources and checked the article, & it's very much otherwise. The two sources that Spacemanstiff highlighted above show that the bilateral relations between the two countries are enough for two leading newspapers to write an article specifically about it. For those who like to base things on the GNG, that fulfills any possible interpretation of the GNG. For those who prefer common sense, if the trade between two nations is important enough for them to go to the trouble of making treaties about t it, their relationship is notable. Often common sense and the GNG do agree, even in disputed cases, and this is one of the examples. DGG (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is both reliable and notable, but needs more of the independent sources.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE not quoting as policy but as an argument to avoid. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DONTQUOTEESSAYSASPOLICY --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as I said I was not quoting as policy. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think there's barely enough to meet the guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor relations between the countries simply don't seem notable......no matter how I twist it. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once again, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s excellent edits have improved this article to demonstrate its underlying notability. DGG makes excellent points above. Even ignoring the common sense view that relations between countries that are documented to exist are inherently notable, here, independent 3rd party sources demonstrate notability. [43][44][45].--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent edits? Oh, you mean his dump of uncontextualized factoids. Well, I guess if all you're interested in is article counts... --BlueSquadronRaven 16:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BlueSquadronRaven, what you subjectively term "factoids", I call sourced factual information of some importance (it's a matter of two countries' foreign relations covered by the international press). I suggest you reread our policies regarding notability as well as our policies regarding civility. There should be no personal attacks here, and your criticism of RAN's edits as a "dump" is unfounded. Pointing fingers at each other and saying "your edits are worthless because I don't agree with your philosophy of inclusionism/deletionism" will make this a much harder discussion than it has to be. Please stick to policy and assume good faith in the future. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you refer to it as "a the common sense view that relations between countries that are documented to exist are inherently notable", I respectfully disagree. (I won't harp on the fact that your assertion ends up implying that anyone who disagrees doesn't have common sense). Pedestrain, mundane functions are not inherently notable to me. Countries agreeing on things like tourism or exchanging sports teams is simply the functions that governments do. For one of these articles to be notable to me (and I have voted keep), there needs to be something beyond the run of the mill, mundane stuff that happens every day. There needs to be significant agreements, events etc. Just agreeing to honor visas or relax some tariffs doesn't get there to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a debate for somewhere else but it should be debated. I do think that these relations are inherently notable, in the same way populated places are assumed to be inherently notable. For one reason, it's unfriendly and offensive to call someone's hometown "un-notable" and the deletion of these articles raises the same issue. However, I'm not just talking about relations between populated place here. Ask any political science professor and he or she will tell you that the nation state is the building block of modern political science. Bilateral relations (including conflicts, trade, immigration, cultural ties, etc.) between nation states are the glue that creates the subject. I think that's worthy of inherent notability. We disagree about this. You call trade agreements "mundane", I call them "important". I hope this community reaches a consensus on who is right someday soon.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that some of these get kept and some (probably more) get deleted, I think it is evident that there is no consensus that basic governmental interaction is inherently notable. While find that to be a "lack of common sense" (which is an opinion and I'm ok with opinions in AfD's), I submit to you that the editors look at each one independantly and make a determination without a bright-line rule in place. I think that is a good thing. These should be debated and people allowed to express their views and arrive at a consensus. I think that trade agreements can be notable, but that this is not the case here. For example, NAFTA is a trade agreement that wasn't even bilateral, but had a great affect on the relations between the US and Mexico and the US and Canada. So making the blanket statement that I don't think trade agreements are notable is really a falsehood. This trade agreement was a standard, boilerplate "we'll sell you stuff and you'll sell us stuff" thing that I don't find to be significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, India and Estonia are two countries that publish materials on relations with all countries with which they have relations; we've deleted plenty of both, despite such pages, and besides, they fail WP:GNG. Second, part of this is fictitious: the Republic of Estonia has only existed since ca. 1920; an Estonian visiting India in 1680 or 1805 simply is not a function of "Estonia–India relations". Neither are Estonian films showing in India. Third, the article, being about a topic no independent sources have actually bothered covering, strains to make itself look important, but cannot mask the fact that "Indian investment in Estonia is small-scale ... Estonia has no direct investment in India". Of course, the Estonian side has "expressed desire [sic] to improve economic ties" and to "open it's [sic] own embassy", but everyone does that - it's thoroughly boilerplate. Finally, we have the usual trivia - ok, the Indian foreign minister went on a junket to Estonia once, and Estonia backs some Indian initiative at the UN, but see WP:NOONECARES for that. I'm not being facetious, either: no one, outside the respective foreign ministries and Wikipedia, has actually paid attention to this "topic". Neither should we. - Biruitorul Talk 15:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we go by your theory,the US and UK had no relation before 1776. It also seems to have evaded your attention that Indian languages were taught in Estonia as early as the 19th century and parts of the Indian epic 'Mahabarata' were also translated into Indian languages. This is stark evidence of cultural exchange between the countries. And if the previously stated examples of non-primary sources detailing the relations between the countries aren't good enough for you, please do remember both are non-English speaking countries and therefore more sources might exist in the native language of the two countries. Estonia does not have it's own embassy in India, but has two honorary embassies. Correct me if I'm wrong,but I don't think there exists a policy that prohibits articles about relations of countries that do not have resident embassies. Nor does minor volumes of trade qualify relations as "unnotable". --Roaring Siren (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. This is not a question of "my theory", it's a question of what reliable sources have to say about the subject. In the US-UK case, well, a number of works, among them To the Webster-Ashburton Treaty: A Study in Anglo-American Relations, 1783-1843; Restoring the Chain of Friendship: British Policy and the Indians of the Great Lakes, 1783-1815, and Great Britain and the United States: A History of Anglo-American Relations, 1783-1952 do consider that, yes, Anglo-American relations as such began in 1783. Oh, sure, it may well be appropriate to mention in a background section that one was a colony of the other prior to that, but actual relations didn't begin until Britain recognised American independence. That's not my opinion; that's scholarly consensus.
2. That languages of a British colonial possession were taught in a Russian possession is interesting, but has rather little contextual relevance on relations between the Republic of India and the Republic of Estonia - unless, of course, sources can be adduced attesting relevance.
3. Do see WP:BURDEN - the "more sources might exist" argument (i.e., "maybe some day some strapping lad from Lucknow will scour his local library for mentions of Estonia, and graciously translate them for us from the original Urdu") is a convenient way of dodging the responsibility that "keep" voters have, which is for them to demonstrate notability conclusively during the AfD discussion.
4. There's no such thing as an "honorary embassy"; those are honorary consulates - i.e., offices where not much happens, not even the granting of visas; see also WP:NOTDIR for that. And volume of trade is notable to a relationship if its notability is validated by a secondary source discussing that relationship (which is of course not the case).
5. No, no such prohibition, only one on relations lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which ... is the case here. - Biruitorul Talk 19:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent job on expanding the article to satisfy notability with appropriate sources. Alansohn (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not one of the independent sources actually addresses the topic of the article. The Indian government website lays bare the unimportance -- less than 600 Estonians even visited India in 2004. Note that they haven't bothered to update the website since July 2005. Must not be too important of a relationship even in the Indian government's eyes, much less anyone elses'. Fails WP:NOTE and the effort at rescue that came up with exactly ZERO sources addressing the subject makes that VERY clear. Drawn Some (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As always you appear to be looking for the word "relation" and ignoring the concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I've asked before, just who defines this "concept"? If it's independent sources, point to them. If it's Richard Arthur Norton, let me point you to WP:NOR. - Biruitorul Talk 03:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We define the concept (we could call this article "Estonia-India relations", "Estonian-Indian relations", "Estonia-India links", "... diplomacy", "... contacts", etc.) It's an organizational issue as much as a definitional one. The sources clearly show that the thing, whatever you want to call it exists in the form of diplomatic visits, trade, and treaties.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete India and Estonia share relations that can be at best described as nominal. Not notable enough for a separate article .This sounds more like an assertion of non-notability than of notability:India was Estonia’s 34th import partner and 37th export partner.--Deepak D'Souza 06:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every country would like more trade and more agreements with every other country in the world. Naturally, government web sites list trade arrangements and agreements, and local news sources sometimes give brief mentions to government press releases, as is done in the references. But no secondary source discusses relations between these two countries, so the relations are not notable. The references do not satisfy WP:GNG. For example, the interesting reference 3 is titled "Estonia and India Consider Combating Pirates to Be Essential", but turns out to be one of a number of announcements by an Estonian embassy (in Sweden). The essence of the story is that an Estonian delegation visited India and discussed various things (mainly trade). Since piracy was news at the time, the politicians agreed that it was bad and should be combatted – no substance. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I would be perfectly happy to accept all Foo-Boo relations (rather than having these repeated afds with the same contestants struggling over the same ground) and this one seems particularly well-sourced. Move on. Occuli (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Foreign relations of Estonia. utcursch | talk 12:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's too much information to merge without losing a lot of information. Now with notability established, I think it's time we cancelled the nomination for deletion. --Roaring Siren (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nice try to change my mind, but I'm convinced it should still be deleted. please don't use arguments to avoid like WP:LOSE and Wikipedia:AADD#It_contains_valuable_information. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic satisfies the general notability guidelines, as evidenced by the numerous secondary, reliable sources. Per DGG, basically. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Alefbe (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per sources added in the article. Could meet notability guidelines. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 23:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Hoyland[edit]

Charlie Hoyland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

might as well toss a few more on the barbie; non-notable fictional character with all the usual fancruft issues. a fictional kid of various fictional ages due to being afflicted with Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome. delete. Jack Merridew 12:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A long and detailed plot summary / character biography that only a dedicated fan would be interested in. It cannot be re-written to meet WikiProject Soap Opera's notability standards for characters or WP:Notability as the subject has not received real-world coverage in reliable independent sources, so cannot satisfy the inclusion criteria. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, the article is unsourced and unlikely to be reliably sourced. Best suited for a Neighbours wiki or fansite. I am not generally a big fan of the word "cruft" as its definition seems to be "detail that I don't like" but in this case the article is clearly fancruft. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor character; no real-world significance. –Moondyne 03:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge afggre that it is not possibly worth a separate article--that is no reason why there should not by a paragraph in a merged article, and a redirect. There is no rational argument against a redirect. I notice none of the people above seem to disagree--all they have done is argued, very correctly, that it should not be a full article. DGG (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete character page without potential for real-world context. The JPStalk to me 10:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Jacobs[edit]

Scott Jacobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article reads like an advertisement; more accurately, it reads like a resume for a job. "Scott Jacobs" is a well established [sic] painter... really? Why? Give me a source! Also: he "is one of today's most sought after [sic] artists". Prove it. Further, all the red links in the "work has been featured in" list are of articles that were once deleted, where only this article points to that link, or both. This is easily a promotion page that has no business on WP. Timneu22 (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references listed are both primary sources, as the gallery pointed to in ref. 2 also seems to belong to the artist. If anything, once verified, could be incorporated into the Harley Davidson article. --Deadchildstar (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nn...Modernist (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, All the links that I found were to sites trying to sell his painting. Nothing that discusses him or his paintings. nn. A new name 2008 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator did not correctly specify an appropriate edit summary in the article when nominating for deletion, per WP:AFDHOWTO, I have now rectified this with a dummy edit. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 18:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of third-party references and failing WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly. One of the two "references" is to the artist's own web site, and the other is to a promotional site for Harley-Davidsons, the subject of his art. Nothing at all from any 3rd party source. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No objective sources. JNW (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems like no one else is going to point this out so I guess I will. Scott Jacobs also has a published book: "The Motorcycle Art of Scott Jacobs" ISBN 0963733621 and according to "American Motorcyclist" he is indeed a licensed artist [46] and his paintings are on display in the Motorcycle Hall of Fame Museum at the AMA headquarters. [47] Scott Jacobs is also listed in the photo credits for "The Harley-Davidson century" ISBN 0760311552 [48] The only reason I'm mentioning this here is it seems no one else has bothered to do any checking. I removed the prod from this article originally [49] after the nom prodded it others without any rationale or edit summary. [50] --Tothwolf (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand "no one else has bothered to do any checking". I thought that it was clear from my post above that I had done some checking, and the same applies to Deadchildstar's post. A new name 2008 explicitly says "All the links that I found...". Perhaps a more important point, though, is to wonder what the purpose is of giving those links. I guess to establish notability. However, all they establish is that Scott Jacobs has had some pictures published and displayed, which is what you would expect of any professional artist, notable or not. Giving a link to a web page about a book which used Scott Jacobs's pictures is not evidence of notability: giving a link to a book about Scott Jacobs's work would be a big step in the right direction: that is what "third party" sources means. Nobody so far has shown the existence of any third party coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I WP:DGAF. The only reason I left a comment here is the obvious uninformed "Delete" me too combo pile-on above. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My comment wasn't an uninformed "me too" - I clicked on every link for about two pages worth and found no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Deadchildstar (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My part in the 'pile-on' yesterday was the observation that there didn't seem to be any objective sources supporting notability, hence the vote to delete. All references and external links are to the subject's website. JNW (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found above as well as [51] and significant coverage found here. Looks like enough there to establish sufficient notability. MuZemike 07:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here are 3 more sources from the second page of a Google search: [52] [53] [54] --Tothwolf (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that you can google him does not alone make him notable. The one source above, from the Salt Lake City *local* ezine, tells me that he sells his paintings on cruise ships - this actually supports him being *non-notable*. The other links here - one to an amazon page - only confuse the matter. It would seem he's a commercial artist who is allowed to paint the Harley logo. There is *no* coverage that states that this is a notable feat - it only implies that Harley Davidson wanted the advertising. The other link isn't about him, he has a trivial mention. The other sources are for Cycle News - not art. And the press release from his gallery is a primary source. I can find no *third-party coverage* that states that his art is notable and why. Deadchildstar (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thats an interesting interpretation. I think the fact that he was the first licensed Harley Davidson artist and established their fine art program means he more than meets the guidelines for inclusion. Those facts are backed up in the refs mentioned. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, going back and re-searching and looking at the new sources in the article do not change my mind that he is a notable painter. My original recommendation to delete was not an "uninformed me too". It was based on looking at the information that I could find. The information did not indicate that he is notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National board dental hygiene examination[edit]

National board dental hygiene examination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an advertisement for an examination guide. Favonian (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In addition to the nominator's reason, no relevant articles link here. Timneu22 (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Linux malware. BJTalk 19:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doze4[edit]

Doze4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability, no references, no indication of its importance, and no relevant google search results. Pure trash. Timneu22 (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 17:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Swan[edit]

Jerry Swan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(delete) – (View AfD)

Original article creator claims notability, but I believe the subject fails WP:MUSIC . — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: The creator of the article, and the below contester of deletion have been blocked as sockpuppets of each other. — Deon555talkI'm BACK! 15:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Easily to see it fails WP:MUSIC and trying to use his MySpace as a source of notability? — Deon555talkI'm BACK! 12:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: <Jerry Swan has notoriety through these sources, including reference to his song on wikipedia>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MUSIC
Verifiable links include.
[55]
Verifying his creation of the Traveling Acoustic Open Mic
[56]
Verifying Traveling Acoustic Open Mic
[57]
Verifying JJMC Folkgrass Project appearance at City of Roses Music Festival 2005
[58]
photo verifying JJMC Folkgrass Project --Timjones442 (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. Fails to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Unreferenced. No relevant Google News results[59]. The Southeast Missourian articles ([60][61][62]) were all written by the same reporter and take much of their information directly from Swan. I don't believe they can be seen as multiple independent sources. — Rankiri (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitz Radio[edit]

Hitz Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I was the original creator of this article two years ago, but I do not believe it at all meets notability guidelines. Hitz Radio received minor media coverage back in 2007, with the odd mention in national media (mostly due to founder Ryan Dunlop being nominated for a Daily Record award through false claims of large listener figures, millions of pounds of revenue, and so forth - despite the station running from a garden shed), but this was both very brief and barely noticeable - It was appearances in lists and so forth (an example of such is here, Jason Crombie, Terry McLernon et al did not warrant an article). There is also, as shown in the references, the odd article (with much exaggeration, as some reading up will show) on business websites, as many small businesses that do not merit articles get daily. This is not the significant media coverage required to meet notability guidelines. Furthermore, as a station it never received much more than a hundred listeners, so it isn't notable in that respect either. Despite the wealth of references, the majority are to its own website and Companies House. A couple of very brief mentions in newspapers in 2007 do not assert notability, and 36,000 hits - largely unrelated as it's not too uncommon a name - on Google don't suggest much coverage beyond that. Delete. Esteffect (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Because of significant contributions of other editors, this article does not meet CSD-G7--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 03:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There was an original AFD at the time in 2007, the article being kept due to media coverage. There were certainly a large number of Digital Spy and new users on that AFD arguing the case, and the fact that the media coverage was very brief was largely ignored. Esteffect (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that it does not justify an article but it is an interesting and amusing story which illustrates the strange world of internet radio and its UK regulation. Perhaps some parts of it could be merged somewhere as illustrative of the wider subjects? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Hitz Radio and its founder were the subject of sustained media coverage and the article is referenced by multiple reliable third-party sources. That the station is defunct is not relevant since notability is not temporary. Given its unlicensed nature, I see no reason to treat it any differently that any of the other pirate radio stations. (This is not an "other stuff exists" argument, just pointing to a body of precedent for handling articles about unlicensed stations.) - Dravecky (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The media coverage was not sustained, it was brief. As I stated in my nomination, it was mostly an award received in 2007 (a minor award by a newspaper), and none of the other award winners - save Paolo Nutini - have articles. Taking away that, there is only minimal coverage on online radio-related websites that are not major sources at all. Esteffect (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The article is cited by news reports spread across a nine-month period, coverage is in-depth and on-topic, and the assertion of notability does not rest solely on this award. Sources like The Sunday Times are hardly "radio-related websites". - Dravecky (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unlike most articles we get here on streaming radio stations, this one actually has some coverage and not an insignificant amount. Sustained coverage is not necessary, notability is not temporary.--RadioFan (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Listed for 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Anthony Wharton Gill[edit]

Edward Anthony Wharton Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obscure early 20th century academic and author. No indication that this individual meets WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Article is merely a (very) close paraphrase of very short entry in the provincial Dictionary of Manitoba Biography (the brevity of which would indicate that it is not "significant coverage"). {{find}} turns up no further relevant information. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - coverage in a paper encyclopedia is sufficient evidence to indicate notability on its own. However, if desired it is not difficult to find additional coverage in reliable sources by search for Gill+the title of any of his books. For example [63]. Additionally, I already rewrote the article to address the copyright concerns. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: can you point to any of the hits in the search you link to that amount to anything resembling "significant coverage", as opposed to mere mention? I would agree that substantial coverage in a major encyclopaedia would give some indication of notability. I do however question whether a very brief entry, in a 'Dictionary of Biography' of one of the smaller Canadian provinces, confers much in the way of status. I would further suggest that, even after your rewrite, it remains a close paraphrase of the DoMB entry. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason inclusion in a paper encyclopedia is sufficient for inclusion (IMO) is that the encyclopedia obviously had sources for their information. Thus there must exist the required sources needed to establish notability in a Wikipedia sense. (See also list of sources below.) As to the paraphrase, well these are basic facts about his life (and thus not copyrightable). I can't really change what it says without either finding more facts or removing some facts, so yes it is a paraphrase it the sense that it says the same things, but that doesn't mean it has copyright problems.

*weak delete Keep--see below. About 15 of the major canadianlibraries still have both his two novels. [64] [65]/ ] That's not a lot; it indicates he is not famous, but for notability it would be necessary to look for reviews of them, to see the popularity it his day. Dictionaries of State or Province biography are I think not generally acceptable as sole sources for notability the way national biographical dictionaries are, because they tend to be indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Gill and his works are covered by the following sources (among others). Unfortunately, only the first is available for free preview online. However, I did leave off anything that was obviously a list and it is highly improbable that not a single one of the additional sources has depth to its coverage.
  1. Unnamed country: the struggle for a Canadian prairie fiction (1977) - dedicates about a page to discussion of Love in Manitoba - IMO, the level of coverage is about equivalent to a newspaper review (which would be considered significant coverage for a modern author), only written 60+ years later in a serious academic work
  2. Canadian writers and their works
  3. Letters from a young emigrant in Manitoba
  4. Manitoba, a history‎
  5. Manitoba authors
  6. Literary history of Canada
  7. The Macmillan dictionary of Canadian biography‎
  8. Winnipeg 1912
  9. Governing childhood
  10. The Dickensian
  11. 1929 Who's who among North American authors (probably meant more to be included back then than it does now)
  12. Vertical man, horizontal world: man and landscape in Canadian prairie fiction‎
  13. The Freewoman
  14. Review of Historical Publications Relating to Canada
  15. Canadian worker in the twentieth century‎

Additionally, most of these books were after his death and a large chunk after 1990. Surely if people are still talking about his work after 80+ years he is notable. We wouldn't doubt the notability of current author whose work has been reviewed by three reliable sources, and we shouldn't treat his historical figure any differently just because reviews are more difficult to find online. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the Macmillan dictionary of CB describes him as a poet, and since he has no published poetry, I have my doubts on accuracy. That is not unusual in such works, & I am reluctant to assign notability on that basis alone. The Harrison book includes a long paragraph as one of the many books discussed, which is enough to show it is not negligible; the Ffokes excerpt specifically says his works were popular, which does help. The McGilvery note also shows that it is known as one of the representative books of its sort. However, Klinck's Literary history cite seems to be about another Gill, & The Dickenson is a mention at a conference. All in all I think you have foundenough evidence that his books were well known as examples of their kind, and were popular at the time. I changed to a keep. DGG (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looked into this one when it was prodded, didn't find too much, but was unsure. ThaddeusB's assiduous research and DGG's analysis of it convince me that this is worth keeping.John Z (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ThaddeusB ahs show that ample sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Whip Wrestling[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Irish Whip Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability has not been established. Reads like an advertisement mainly, and a bad one at that. Was deleted once before, but was recreated.--WillC 12:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages:
Irish Whip Wrestling International Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Irish Whip Wrestling Zero Gravity Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —WillC 12:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —WillC 12:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, that article is very poor...and needs a complete re-write for sure. I'm a bit torn on whether or not the promotion is notable. I've found two sources [66] and [67], but I'm not sure if that counts as significant third party coverage or if those sites are reliable. According to this, it was on television...although I'm not sure whether it was a network or local channel, which would make a difference when looking at the notability guideline for TV programs. I'm going to keep looking before I make a decision, but I wanted to write out my thoughts for other users, as it might help them make a decision. Nikki♥311 20:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per an identical discussion earlier this year in which it was determined that the promotion was sufficiently notable for inclusion. The promotion has been discussed in several reliable news sources. For example, [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75],[76], and [77]. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Neutral: I agree with the nom about how this reads, but this might be able to be saved with a massive rewrite. Strongly recommend it so notability can be properly assessed. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 08:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The coverage is nothing more than glorified press releases, fails WP:CORP and WP:V. 2 lines of K303 12:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, the promotion seems to be the most prominent promotion in Ireland, which would give it some notability. It ran for two seasons on Sky Digital, as well as having shows on both Buzz TV and The Wrestling Channel. However, the individual championships should probably be merged into the main article, as they don't have any notability of their own. Nikki♥311 01:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This seems okay but it needs sources. I agree with Nikki about the titles. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too many redlinks on wrestlers and no sources fails this on the question of notability. GetDumb 08:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Irish Whip Wrestling (the main article), and merge the championship articles into it. It had a television programme on a national channel, and User:GaryColemanFan has listed numerous mentions in reliable, secondary sources. It needs a pretty serious cleanup and rewrite, but notability is established in my mind. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-hood[edit]

-hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pure dictionary definition with no hope of making encyclopedia article - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article name is invalid; article names in encyclopedias are supposed to be nouns or verbs (and not even adjectives), so it violates WP:MOS, whereas affixes are valid articles in wiktionary.[78]
  • The topic is invalid as well, the topic is supposed to be an underlying concept and not purely a word or purely lexical- that's what dictionaries do, and do it far better than we can here.
  • The article contains a simple list of words that happen to match a particular lexical pattern- again, dictionaries do it much better, and are usually more complete as well.

This is a textbook case of Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is a dictionary entry with no realistic chance of recovery.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rayner[edit]

Richard Rayner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not explain why this author is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, and I have not been able to find anything from a google search that shows he is more notable than the article implies (i.e. not very). Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Existing content in its current form is likely unsuitable for a merge. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Cammeniti[edit]

Chloe Cammeniti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

might as well toss a few more on the barbie; non-notable fictional character with all the usual fancruft issues. a fictional baby, now fictionally in Portugal. delete. Jack Merridew 10:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm okay with only the most necessary parts being merged. There's still no point merging a bunch of overly detailed plot details though. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced. Only reference is a fansite. Even merged articles should be reliably sourced. WP:V is not negotiable. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no references, no real-world significance. –Moondyne 03:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Ramdev (movie)[edit]

Baba Ramdev (movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to show notability (WP:NOTFILM) and I'm unable to locate any RS. The user has removed the PROD without providing any references. APK coffee talk 07:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First I have created the article Baba Ramdevji (movie), but later I got that movie name is "Baba Ramdev" and not "Baba Ramdevji". So I created the page Baba Ramdev (movie). then i wanted to delete page Baba Ramdevji (movie), but it was not happening, so I have redirected the page Baba Ramdevji (movie) to Baba Ramdev (movie). As both were created by me only. I think, now there is no problem. 5 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalit82in (talk • contribs) 07:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I know, is there still confusion about the article or I have to clear gain the situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalit82in (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not added reliable sources to show why the film is notable. If you can find sources which cover the topic, the article has a much better chance of being kept.

APK coffee talk 08:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am sorry to say but if you want, you can delete this. As this movie was base on the folk-deity, it was very popular. As this movie is in regional language and that also in 1963. So I can't give any online proof to show you that how much importance of this movie in Rajasthan. The movie was mad in the growing age of Rajasthani cinema. This movie was boost for the Rajasthani cinema. In my town (population is more than 15000), but you will find internet only in one or two places. That will also opened sometimes to see the exam results or any other purpose. Then how can all information can be availble online. Some can see wikipedia, but here also if like this will happen then what will be the source for the information. I am not doing mis-use of wikipedia.If you want to see the importance then you can come to Rajasthan villages and can ask them if they know about this movie. Still you can see the popularity of songs of this movie. Thanks for your support.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalit82in (talk • contribs) 11:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable film of its time.The songs of that film are still popular in Rajasthan. Please read page 349 of the book Encyclopaedia of Indian cinema By Ashish Rajadhyaksha, Paul Willemen, National Film Archive of India for more about the film. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 10:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's in Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema, so it's quite obviously notable; the article can be a valid stub until more paper sources are found, quite obviously online sources aren't going to be available for a movie released long ago in another language. -SpacemanSpiff { Calvin Hobbes 01:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - being "mentioned" is not the same as "has received significant coverage" in reliable sources (note plural), especially considering that Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema is apparently not notable enough to have an article. — 138.88.7.48 (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one of 1450 movies (released on or before 1994) to be featured in the encyclopaedia. In a country that produces over a thousand movies per year, that is remarkable and given that the reference to the paper encyclopaedia has been added, notable. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 17:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We're talking about the rather sparse Cinema of Rajasthan... an area not known for its film industry, having only produced 88 films in the 62 years from 1942 to 2004, and that Baba Ramdev was among the few Rajasthani films re-released on VCD and DVD 40 years later.[79]. Not being notable to the English-speaking world does not mean it is unsuitable for en.Wikipedia, as I am encouraged to remember that it does not matter to wikipedia that it might not written up in the New York Times or Washington Post when WP:UNKNOWNHERE suggests "Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population", and WP:CSB urges a wider view and acceptance even if something is dificult to source in English. The article may never be more than a stub, but it's an acceptable and encyclopedic stub that shares sourced information about an very early film. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is stated: "...became a big commercial success in its time, being considered a hit for Rajasthani cinema.[3][4] This was a milestone in the history of the Rajasthani movie industry". Based on my (and almost everyone's) knowledge of said industry, that's notable. Sorry, but just because Roger Ebert never saw it does not mean it's not notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belton Knapp[edit]

Belton Knapp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can find no evidence that Belton Knapp exists with either with Google or maps of the area Iccaldwell (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. Only references to Belton Knapp in Wikipedia are made by the same user, User:ElsieWright. Could be a good faith attempt to write about an settlement of local significance, or it could be a hoax. As it stands, delete as unverifiable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while there is a small group of houses and a farm ("Church Farm") at the coordinates given [80][81], I can find no evidence that this has a separate name from the very near village of Naunton. It does not look large enough for the claimed population of 85 people, nor is there a standing church in evidence. Even if there were 85 people at this location, it would be exceedingly unlikely to have any culture or significant identity distinct from that of the neighbouring village that is over 4 times its claimed population. Regarding the name, the only reference to a settlement of this name independent of Wikipedia, is in [82] which is a short fictional story. Furthermore I cannot find a pub by the name of "Green Man" anywhere near the B4068. This therefore fails WP:V as completely unverifiable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Delete as hoax. Possibly from the same fertile imagination as this tale on abctales.com. Location 12 miles east of Cheltenham and geocoords given are roughly those of Naunton, but no settlement of this name on the OS map of the area. Qwfp (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only reference to Belton Knapp I found was this fictional story [83]. I have also searched for the Green man pub (which is also mentioned in that story), the Priory Church of Saint Mary and Saint Anne and the school of Saint Anne's. I came up with nothing in the area where Belton Knapp is supposed to be. Putney Bridge (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:V. I've added an AfD notification on the talk page of the article's creator, as it might be interesting to see what s/he has to say. Deor (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Despite the wealth of detail given, the lack of any specific refernece to anything nearby leads me to be suspicious. There is a refernece to the "Parish Council", but it does not say which. If it was a parish in its own right, it would probably have a parish meeting not a parish council (on account of its low population). I have looked at OS Landranger 163, but there is a pub at SP009232, but it was called "Fox Hill" on 1st edn OS 6-inch (see this old map. It all seems to be WP:HOAX. I wonder if the hoaxer is trying to mislead us on account of a memory of the name Belas Knap. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, with credit to everyone's evidence, but particular to Thryduulf's contribution. Otumba (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable at best. Edward321 (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It's a hoax; it is absent from http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/europe/uk/england/county/gloucestershire/towns-villages.htm which is comprehensive. Saga City (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "May Festival" section, along with the references to "Warner's Green," seems to be related to this piece of fiction written by the same author as the one cited by Thryduulf and Putney Bridge above. Deor (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clever hoax; Knapp is a name and placename more associated with south Gloucestershire/Avon than east Gloucestershire, and the conversational tone, unlikely facts and complete lack of sourcing give the game away. The complete absence of this name in any sources whatsoever clinches it. Fences&Windows 22:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Neighbours characters. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Parker[edit]

Miranda Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

might as well toss a few more on the barbie; non-notable fictional character with all the usual fancruft issues. delete. Jack Merridew 10:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The Delete votes were stronger, supported by policy compared to the keep votes. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point AV-8B crash[edit]

2008 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point AV-8B crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable military accident no civilian casualties, contested prod MilborneOne (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not a lack of interest just a lack of notability - military jets crash all the time mostly like this on non notable training flights, wikipedia is not a memorial for lost military pilots. Google links just provide evidence that the accident was in the news not that it is notable not any long term notability. MilborneOne (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. Buckshot06(prof) 12:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why is this particular crash notable? Military crashes aren't fortunately commonplace, but there are enough of them that merely being a crash isn't enough to be notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crash is notable as there is not a known source for a problem. The investigation is not yet complete; once it is, I think it can be ruled whether it is notable or not. — BQZip01 — talk 17:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It is a small enough crash that there might be some sort of NOTNEWS argument but I'm not seeing that. Investigation is continuing and there will undoubtedly be further sources produced making any NOTNEWS argument pretty weak. Seems to meet WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Most military single-plane fatal accidents which don't cause any significant collateral damage don't get their own articles. This unusual crash's article was named after the pilot. I started this article because more details were available in the press than is usual for crashes of this type. The investigation has not been released yet, so we don't know if the cause of this crash will be significant or not. In short, I believe there are valid arguments for keeping it and for deleting it at this time. If consensus is to delete it, it needs to be mentioned in the Cherry Point article at least. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This ends up being a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically we need a criterion, and it seems reasonable that for a general aviation or military crash that if there is only one death and no special features we should not keep the article.~ Given the conflict between the GNG and NOT NEWWS, we seem to be using two different principles at the same time: if it is in the news it's notable; if it's only in the news it isn't. This may be the intent but we should try to get things harmonized--do we intend to discard all articles for which there are only newspaper references? DGG (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS is a dead letter. See the main page which currently reports:
  • Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Turkey sign an intergovernmental agreement...
  • Javier Velásquez becomes Prime Minister of Peru...
  • At least 43 people are killed in clashes near the Somali presidential palace...
  • At least 23 police officers are killed in an ambush attack by Maoist rebels...
  • The launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour, carrying astronauts on the STS-127 mission, is delayed after its launch pad area was struck by lightning ...
  • A series of organized cyber attacks strikes major public and private sector websites...
The Space Shuttle story seems like the archetypal small earthquake in Peru - nobody killed kinda story and I reckon our Harrier crash article is as good. Picking and choosing articles on this basis seems to be pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT which really isn't good enough. The test of notability is has it been noticed? and we should avoid imposing our own opinions on top of this. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there ever an AfD discussion you don't accuse those who oppose your view as {{WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]? You think every article that isn't a blantant hoax should be included. I get it already. But why do you keep assuming bad faith and discounting the views of everyone who doesn't agree with you as just being a matter of "I don't like it"? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also, why would only one death be not notable? How many people have to die for it to be a notable crash? WP:NOTBIGENOUGH addresses this as an arbitrary number.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly WP:NOTNEWS. Alternatively, include as an item in an article that summarizes similar accidents. ThreeE (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:N: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability". Was there any coverage beyond the initial short burst? It seems not. - Biruitorul Talk 04:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on what happens when the accident investigation report is released. If the media make a big to-do about what caused the accident, then it will add to its notability. If not, then it diminishes it. The story isn't over yet. Cla68 (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would personally be perfectly willing to eliminate NOT NEWS, and incorporate such material into Wikipedia. But we have the structure we have, and the acceptance of NOT NEWS is basic enough that I am not about to challenge it. DGG (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're withdrawing the deletion request and will start a merge discussion instead? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont think you need a merge discussion to add a summary of this accident at that list article. The section on the pilot is not really needed as it is not relevant to the accident and is a bit WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Can the conclusion of this discussion be to delete and create a redirect to the list article? MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH or WP:N Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AIRCRASH states, "Accidents or incidents to military aircraft...are not in the purview of this discussion," so bad example. The rest of the criteria are still pending, so I think we should leave them until such a time as the conclusion to the mishap is written. — BQZip01 — talk 14:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AIRCRASH has just been amended to remove that distinction Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AIRCRASH is evidently not a stable guideline. Per WP:NOTLAW, it should reflect outcomes such as this discussion rather than being prescriptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if we started taking much notice of WP:NOTNEWS we could go on a most fearsome rampage, call it a noble crusade, and wipe out reams of content in many of WP's best articles. On the other hand, we could be sensible people who have heard of WP:IAR and see that this article is encylopedic and beneficial to WP. - 91.187.64.57 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 05:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ziezideva[edit]

Ziezideva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cannot find references that verify that this place even exists. Certainly not notable. Orphan Preslav (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I too cannot find any sources that verify this exists either under this title or the machine transliteration of the title "Зиезидева". Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was about to propose this book as a printed source, until I realized that it was just reprinting the Wikipedia article (which has been around since 2005, back when IP editors could still create new articles). No trace of any other mentions. Hqb (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. BJTalk 05:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Napier[edit]

Bridget Napier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

might as well toss a few more on the barbie; non-notable fictional character with all the usual fancruft issues. delete. Jack Merridew 09:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Minor character; no real-world significance. –Moondyne 03:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Matthewedwards. Edward321 (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Matthew's excellent research. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons above Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 15:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleting would make the site appear to have information gaps. If characters like this have their profile deleted then the same should be done to all characters from the same program otherwise it would be pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KP-TheSpectre (talk • contribs) 18:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, and hope , that the meaning of the above is that she is a major character, and we should have articles on major characters in a series like this. If it means we should have separate articles on all characters whatsoever in the series, that's not realistic. DGG (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is more or less what I meant. I think all the main/major characters should have pages but not the recurring characters such as Jodie Smith and Kyle Canning, or characters from at the very start of the series who haven't made a reapperance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KP-TheSpectre (talk • contribs) 17:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 01:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerfnit[edit]

Gerfnit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. 52 Google hits.] Abductive (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN character in NN work by NN author. Happy Editing! — 138.88.7.48 (talk · contribs) 13:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As neither the self-published novel nor even the author is remotely notable, the character certainly is not.DGG (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 01:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG ;) if he says del, it should be speedied. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable fictional character in a non-notable book by a non-notable author, and why on earth has this been flagged for rescue - posting of stuff like this to ARS is one reason why many editors, myself included, do not read through ARS logs to actually work on what can be rescued. --SpacemanSpiff { Calvin Hobbes 03:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, and spicy drinks to all. This could have been speedied, couldn't it? Drmies (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody thought this topic was notable enough to tag it for rescue. Perhaps if it had been proposed for deletion via speedy or prod, the same person would have removed the tag, necessitating an AfD anyway. Abductive (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not with a speedy tag. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    we need a CSD criteria that would cover this. sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    just a nobody who reflexively opines to keep everything. sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable author + non-notable book = just plain not notable. Is it just me, or is it starting to feel like SNOW? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If DGG sez that it don't belong, then I agree that the discussion should be closed now. :-) — 138.88.7.48 (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is pure original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I suggest you read Wikipedia:No original research as this article is clearly not original research. Edward321 (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment please don't go by my name, rather by my argument. I could always have a sudden impulse to be erratic. And I've deleted a good deal of stuff that has ended up getting restored. It can happen even in fiction. DGG (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone closing this would know that "Delete per X" is shorthand for "My thoughts agree with the argument presented by X, so there is no need need for me to retype them". Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 02:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 05:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potato judge[edit]

Potato judge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One time Conan O'Brien character, non-notable. Abductive (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep as it is notable on the iinternet as "a metaphor for a ruthless, arbitrary, unjust, or draconian judiciary process." A few more citations would make this a regular keep. Gosox5555 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No citations found. I hate people who say "Keep but source" yet fail to dig up any sources, or fail to realize that such info can't be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google search suggests that it will be difficult to find any independent, reliable sources about this topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. Also, if this is a widely-used internet metaphor, shouldn't the ghits be showing us actual instances of that? ReverendWayne (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article itselt admits it was a brief, one time character, which really means "not notable". "Googly eyes"? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Home and Away characters. BJTalk 05:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Sutherland[edit]

Dani Sutherland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

might as well toss a few more on the barbie; non-notable fictional character with all the usual fancruft issues. delete. Jack Merridew 08:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge to an appropriate list (there seem to be a few for this show) and delete. Non-notable fictional character.  florrie  15:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and merge isn't an option, is it? Drmies (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the character isn't independently notable why not redirect or merge what's worth including to the main article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor character; no real-world significance. –Moondyne 03:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Child and Edward. There seems to be a shred of information worth saving here, and redirects are cheap. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough notable content to justify its own article, no need to merge it. Dream Focus 18:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are only about 3 lines that are referenced, the rest is plot summary. Anything relevant from the plot summary, save a few few descriptive sentences, should already be in the parent article. Standalone articles are justified by significant coverage in reliable independent sources, not by the volume of content. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Cut the plot summary, merge what's relevant to the appropriate character list. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge not appropriate for a separate article, but probably for a merge, and certainly at least for a redirect. No argument has been given against redirect, DGG (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Elf Queen of Shannara#Minor Characters. BJTalk 05:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gavilan Elessedil[edit]

Gavilan Elessedil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. 42 Google hits. Abductive (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Elf Queen of Shannara. Whispering 08:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article gets about 2 page views per day, about the level expected from web crawlers. No human is looking for this article. Abductive (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge This needs to be integrated in a combination article, with a short description, pretty much like the present. No justification for having it separate. No justification either for not merging, and especially for not having a redirect. None mentioned by the nominator, either. DGG (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opinion in this case is that this character is so minor and ignored by even the fans (hence the low Google hits) that a redirect will never see any usage. Merging (in my opinion) would require an expansion of the target article that would conflict with WP:Undue weight and WP:No original research, given that there are zero secondary sources. Merges are appropriate in other cases, such as a character that has one mention in a secondary source. Abductive (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are so cheap that if only a few people ever use it, its worth it. That a character must have one mention in a secondary source to be worth covering in a merge is a new policy invention of your own. Try the Village Pump for that one--that nothing should be mentioned in Wikipedia or get a redirect unless there is one secondary source for it. I don't think you;ll get far, but you can certainly try. Rather, one good substantial discussion in a really good source can even be enough to support an article. Arguments about undue weight in the target article are for its talk p. But since you raised the question, my opinion is that failure to include it would be undue weight, failure to give appropriate weight, and the removal of sourced content==sourced to the primary source, as appropriate for straight description) Possibly you are concerned that if redirected someone would try to rebuild an article? I hope nobody would be so foolish as to try to rebuild this one. DGG (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to invent policy, just interpret WP:PLOT and WP:No Original Research. In particular, No Original Research forbids using primary sources to build articles. My view is that one needs about one secondary source per claim. By the way, this character's name is spelled wrong in the target article, so if a redirect is the outcome of this AfD, that needs to be corrected (and is further evidence of the unimportance of the character). Abductive (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and direct to The Elf Queen of Shannara#Minor Characters (the same should probably be done for the other minor characters mentioned there). Also, the use of primary sources is completely allowed when sourcing basic information - primary sources can't be used to establish notability or verify controversial claims, but for basic information they are perfectly fine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The controversial (and unstated) claim here is that the character is important. Do you get my drift? Abductive (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the words you are saying, but I don't agree. I don't see how sourcing character information to the novel it comes from is controversial no matter how minor the character is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If carried to its logical extreme, the whole novel could be on Wikipedia (paraphrased), each sentence sourced to one in the original. Requiring secondary sources prevents this. Abductive (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because an overdetailed summary of a novel, especially in paraphrase, is a copyright violation. How much amounts to over-detail is arguable, but what you suggest is blatant.
    • Even more than that, I can't see why it is an argument against a redirect. Notability applies to articles, not the content inside of articles, which just has to be sourced and relevant. If the proposed content were to say that this is a major character, that would need some kind of secondary source because it certainly isn't obvious. if it were to say this character is an exemplar of some particular virtue, it would need a secondary source if not obvious. But to say that this character is the cousin of the protagonist, and what happens to him, does not need a secondary source. DGG (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, us mature people can decide what is too much detail and what is relevant with little disagreement. It is the fans of a work that will overdo it. Abductive (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Home and Away characters. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie Turner[edit]

Cassie Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

might as well toss a few more on the barbie; non-notable fictional character with no assertion of much of anything. delete. Jack Merridew 08:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BJTalk 20:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Deschanel[edit]

Tyler Deschanel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Despite phrases like "Deschanel can quickly restore order to your face" another editor thinks this is not spam! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • G10 Speedy Delete Rather than spam, this reads as an attack page against Tyler. It has been tagged as such, and any successful deletion should include a courtesy blanking of this AfD. Nate • (chatter) 07:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - We need a version of WP:BEFORE for admins (or whoever) that remove (decline might be simply passing) CSDs without a cursory examination. The last section screams hoax/vanity/vandalism/attack. It's one thing to pass, it's another to remove the CSD. It's another to remove the CSD and not bring it to AfD themselves. Shadowjams (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G11, can't see how that this qualifies as G10, just odd G11. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please look more carefully guys I've reverted the IP vandalism and removed the G10 tag that this lead to. I've also deleted the spammy legacy paragraph, and asked the author to read wp:COI. As to whether the chap is notable, well I'll leave that for those who care about Hollywood stuff to judge. But he appears to have articles about him on three of our sister projects. Please read the history of articles like this, when something has been vandalised you neeed to revert the vandalism before considering whether it should be deleted, and he's already had a G11 declined. ϢereSpielChequers 08:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look more carefully at the history - The original creator was the only editor (with one small totally legitimate AWB exception) when RHaworth tagged it for CSD, and it was subsequently (in my opinion erroneously) denied, and to which all of the above were replying. While the anon IP added some vandalism, I was referring to the pre-anon content. On top of that, a totally new anon, and a totally new editor, who both contribute to only one (or two) articles, suggests a pattern. Don't chastise the four or more editors who think this is speedy material, before looking deeper at the history. Shadowjams (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current version of the article is not suitable for speedy deletion. The requested speedy deletion was correctly declined as in the version that was tagged only the final section had any problems and the majority of the article was of encyclopaedic tone. I have no opinion about whether Tyler Deschanel is notable enough for an article or not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I disagree that the speedy was correctly removed and no further action taken, but I can understand that as a reasonable position notwithstanding the last section. But three things. 1) The last section was part of the original post, suggesting that the rest of the article might be an attack page or hoax too. We use context clues to sniff out hoaxes, and this is a pretty big clue. 2) The second section of the article's problematic (even now) too, so it is incorrect to say that "only the final section [has] any problems." For instance: "would eventually lead to his mastery of in the field of make-up." 3) The tone here isn't encyclopedic, nor are there any sources, or indication of notability. It probably should have been tagged A7 but as a hoax would be reasonable. It's fine that it's here now, but I just want to be clear on what the state of the article is.Shadowjams (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN person, no one doubts that he exists but there are no sources that show he satisfies WP:N. meshach (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- While I don't see how this an attack page, and I don't see any justification for blanking the {{afd}} there are no WP:RS -- nor do there seem likely to be any, any time soon. Geo Swan (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notablity is not asserted, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School of Our Fathers[edit]

School of Our Fathers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 20:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlicious[edit]

Wrestlicious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company that fails to verify any sort of notability with reliable sources. Has very few Google News hits. Nominated after PROD was removed. Scjessey (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NOTE, no references. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added article from 3rd party site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RassleFan123 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References added. The company is notable because it involves a WWE Hall Of Famer, Jimmy Hart, and was founded by the youngest powerball winner ever, Jonathan Vargas. Lacey Von Erich, whose family was inducted into the WWE Hall Of Fame in 2009, is the company's featured star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RassleFan123 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing you just mentioned established anymore notability. There is no reliable third party site within the article. The only reliable ones are all primary, and primary sites don't establish notability, third party does.--WillC 11:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles about the company on Wrestleview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RassleFan123 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then include them and try to write in a netural professional manner.--WillC 03:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment rather than add external links to the references section, references need to be citations (see WP:CITE) especially since there really isn't much claim of notability in the article itself, just the existence of this group.--RadioFan (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user does not know how. He or she is inexperienced. The user once told me that he was one of creators of the promotion, so if that is true, then this is technically an advertisement. Looking at his edits, he must think that you place the links in the reference section to make them appear like the one already in there.--WillC 12:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, there seems to be no third party sources available. According to the website [94], the promotion is appearing on TV this fall, so it may be notable then...Therefore, I say delete for now with no prejudice for recreation in the future if it meets the notability guidelines. Nikki♥311 18:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Makes no claim for notability whatsoever and at present is more like a directory than an article. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 08:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violates WP:DIR. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete adding references that keep being removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by RassleFan123 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References must be reliable. The only proven reliable wrestling sites are Figure Four, WrestleView, PWTorch, and Slam Sports. These help establish notability. There are very few that are acceptable besides these. Newspapers, etc are reliable. But when it comes to wrestling, there are few related stories.--WillC 21:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One of the sites that was removed as "unreliable" was from CBS (which brings to mind some great Dan Rather jokes, but should obviously be acceptable as a reliable third-party source). GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That one would be reliable.--WillC 01:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"There are Wrestleview.com articles about the company" —Preceding unsigned comment added by RassleFan123 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Do Not Delete The Sun out of the UK is publishing updates on the promotion like this one and I've read updates on Wrestlicious on paid sites that I can't post here like F4W. 76.92.215.49 (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)— 76.92.215.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Funny how the only major objectors are the COI violator and anonymous IP's. If those sources exist, link them or provide screen shots if you can't link them. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Mifter under CSD G4. lifebaka++ 03:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarey (Singer)[edit]

Sarey (Singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Note: the page has also been created at Sarey and Sarey Savy

The speedy tag has been repeatedly removed by the author - creating as an AfD to get better review of current status. Note, an earlier version of this page at Sarey Savy has been deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarey Savy. The only change appears to be a claim of meeting WP:MUSIC #2 Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart via reaching 25 on Soundclick, which is a is a music-based social community and mp3 upload/download site. I do not believe that mp3 download ranking meets the "national music chart" requirement. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I see no indication of notability here. I agree with the above statement that Soundclick should not satisfy the requirement, especially if there is no other indication of this artist anywhere. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also feel the need to point out the fact that there is a conflict of interest here. User:Googleisawesome appears to imply that the user is making this article about himself. I'm not sure if this is truly the case or not, but it's my best guess. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as clear spam asserting no notability (or at least no assertional of Wikipedia "notability" -- referring to a national chart but citing a minor website is bogus). DreamGuy (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User:BoredBoredom, presumably a sock/meatpuppet of User:Googleisawesome, has made an entry for a Sarey single, which I would suggest adding to this nomination:
Don't Stop Believin' (Sarey Savy Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hairhorn (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was revert to version prior to vandalism. I've decided to close this now as the article, reverted to the valid stub about a computer language, bears no relation to the nominated version about spirituality and meditation suspected as being a hoax. If any editor wants to recreate that version (with sources to show it isn't a hoax) they can do at a different title and a new AfD can be started for that if warranted. Likewise if anyone wants to nominate the computer language stub for deletion they can do so in a new AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEE[edit]

KEE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm pretty sure this is an elaborate hoax. Abductive (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. There's a clear consensus that the subject of the article passes WP:ATHLETE. — Aitias // discussion 01:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Argetsinger[edit]

Peter Argetsinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not notable Penschool950 (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 20:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:ATHLETE as a professional athlete. -Falcon8765 (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is horribly wirtten, but as other editors have shown, sources exist and clearly passes guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. BJTalk 20:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Yuan[edit]

Alex Yuan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable political candidate for an Ontario provincial election. Never elected and nothing else in article is noteworthy. Recommend delete or redirect to Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election Suttungr (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 'delete as apparent hoax. DS (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koda Kumi Remix Album[edit]

Koda Kumi Remix Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I cannot find anything Japanese that says this album remotely exists. The most I have found is a passing mention at ja:12週連続シングルリリース, which discusses the fact that Kumi Koda released a single a week for 12 weeks and then gave a limited download to those who purchased all 12 albums at this dead website. There is no mention of this album anywhere on the Japanese Wikipedia and it was only referenced on other pages here by AaaLOLaaA (talk · contribs). It should be simple enough to find sources for an album, but I can't find any for this one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. BJTalk 20:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pina Martino[edit]

Pina Martino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable political candidate for an Ontario provincial by-election. Never elected and nothing else in article is noteworthy. Recommend delete or redirect to either Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election or Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. Suttungr (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BJTalk 20:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Themedusacode[edit]

Themedusacode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Book with no assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Themedusacode (talk • contribs) 03:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Themedusacode (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

  • First of all, I am not a member of Wikipedia's staff. In fact, my status at Wikipedia is exactly the same as yours, no more, no less. Second, if the author is going on Oprah, you should provide a reference from Oprah's site. And if there is a movie in pre-production, we need reliable third-party sources attesting to that. And finally, I don't think Wikipedia accepts money that comes with strings attached, regardless of the amount. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As seen above, attempt to use wikipedia as an advertising/PR platform. This should be wiped out faster than small-pox infection, imho. Casimirpo (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no evidence of notability, there are strong overtones of advertising, I can't locate any evidence of the publisher on the Internet, and I don't like "threats" of withdrawal of funding, which Wikipedia will undoubtedly survive. Feel quite free to reconsider your "major donations". Accounting4Taste:talk 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as advertising. Failing that, delete as not notable. ReverendWayne (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per the Reverend. I'll forgo my WP bonus... Drmies (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 05:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE-- OR, DELETE, AND WHEN THE MOVIE COMES OUT, APOLOGIZE FOR BEING REACTIONARY. OH, WAIT.. WE ARE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.202.139 (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Help us provide free content to the world by donating today!You can support Wikipedia by making a tax-deductible donation.[reply]

  • Comment: I checked the ISBN number provided. Apparently, that ISBN number has either not been assigned, or too recently to be listed.-- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Spam. Iowateen (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS FOR CHECKING ON ISBN, WE'RE THE ISBN HOLDER AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO POST THE BAR CODE FROM THE BACK OF THE VOLUME, AND IF YOU CHECK WITH BOOKS IN PRINT (DRM ONLINE) IT COMES UP (NEW ISBN IS FOR RECENT PRINT EDITION). ON NOTABILITY: THIS TITLE COMES UP ON FIRST PAGE SEARCH IN GOOGLE BOTH ON SPONSORED AND IN EDITORIAL PAGES. EDITORIAL GOOGLE IS OBJECTIVE, JURIED AND NOT INFLUENCED BY ANYTHING BUT NOTABILITY AND RELEVANCE, INCLUDING ADVERTISING. IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A SELECTION CRITERION FOR NOTABILITY, FIRST PAGE RESULTS ON GOOGLE ARE MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN MANY OTHER ACCEPTED ENTRIES HAVE ACHIEVED EVEN WITH WIKI FEEDS. DELETING SOMETHING AS ADVERTISING DOES NOT GIVE OTHERS THE ABILITY TO READ THE VOLUME AND POST THEIR OWN INFORMATION, AND IT IS A TAUTOLOGY TO SAY "DON'T POST INFORMATION BECAUSE IT CAN BE SEEN AS ADVERTISING" WHEN THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF WIKI IS TO PRESENT ENCYCLOPEDIC INFORMATION THAT CAN THEN BE JUDGED BY THE READER-- IN OTHER WORDS, "ADVERTISE" AN ENTRY FOR COMMENT AND INFORMATION VALUE. IF WE (SANCTIMONIOUSLY?) REMOVE ALL ADVERTISING MOTIVE FROM ENTRIES, HOW MORE OFTEN DO YOU THINK TRADEMARK HOLDERS WOULD ENFORCE THEIR RIGHTS AGAINST WIKI? COPYRIGHT HOLDERS ALLOW WIKI BECAUSE OF ADVERTISING, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD AGGRESSIVELY ENFORCE TRADEMARKS AND THE VALUE OF WIKI WOULD BE MINIMAL. IN FACT, THE NONPROFIT STATUS OF WIKI CAN BE CHALLENGED IF THEY ARE DISCRIMINATORY IN DELETION, AS THEY ARE RECEIVING TAX BENEFITS FOR INCLUSIVENESS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.202.139 (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read the above comment when it is rewritten in lowercase. Not before. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete because:
  • The ISBN cannot be found via any reliable online source
  • A Google search for Gate Press Publications shows that they've only ever published one book, and that was 20 years ago
  • A Google search for "Medusa Code" does not bring up themedusacode.com within the first 100 hits (not counting the paid ad on that page, which doesn't count as "objective, juried and not influenced")
  • I can't search for the book's author, as the web site doesn't list one
While I'm tempted to also include the annoying nature of the comments from User:Themedusacode and User:24.117.202.139, WP policies say that I can't, so I won't. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of OpenXPS and PDF[edit]

Comparison of OpenXPS and PDF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research. While this article is well-sourced, those sources establish that specific facts in the article are true, but the comparison itself constitutes WP:SYNTH. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this comparison article is any different than:
Not only is this not true, as many of those other pages have 3rd party sources, which this article completely lacks, but you yourself have created many of these with a standard template stacked comparisons. These are created in a manner closely reminiscent to practices of a stacked panel which Microsoft use has been documented in Comes v. Microsoft.
The nominator himself confirms that this article is well sourced and there are 3rd party sources in this article as well. In fact it contains more references than many of the comparisons in the category mentioned above. Also, the statement that I "created many of these comparisons using a standard template" is a blatant lie. Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is your start of OpenXPS and PDF and Open XML and OpenDocument identical? and also, may i point out, unsourced WP:OR and POV? Scientus (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The simple reason is that I decided to contribute another comparison article to Wikipedia. I don't think that there is something wrong with using an existing article as a starting point when creating a new one. I bet that happens all the time on Wikipedia. In fact, I did the same thing when I created the standard navbox templates Template:Ecma International Standards, Template:Open Mobile Alliance standards, and Template:Open Group standards. I also did this when I created the operating system navbox templates Template:DEC operating systems, Template:IBM operating systems, and Template:Microsoft operating systems. Note that I added a great deal of 3rd party references to the articles your mentioned. They are all well-sourced and provide no POV at all. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned before the “stacked panel.” Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners — our usual opposition. For example, an “unbiased” panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the Backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus, we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every “naturally occurring” panel debate.

A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select die panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can’t expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only “independent ISVs” on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed -just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the “real world.” Sounds marvellously independent doesn’t it? In feet, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the “independent” panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you’ve got a major win on your hands.

Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel The best sources of pliable moderators are:

Analysts: Analysts sell out - that’s their business model But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.

Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don’t let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he’s well-known, but apparently independent, he’ll be accepted - one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right?

— Internal Microsoft Document "Evangelism is War", Comes v. Microsoft


Please also note that "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia." (See: Wikipedia:These are not original research) Ghettoblaster (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it should be somehow cleaned, plus more alternatives? Otherwise it looks suspiciously much like "my product vs. the industry standard" kind of comparison... --Sigmundur (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I fail to see how WP:SYNTH applies. The article merely puts two sets of features against each other and doesn't develop any conclusions of its own. — Rankiri (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only source is purposefully biased stacked comparison from a Microsoft-only development firm and Microsoft it's self. Irregardless of WP:SYNTH, it only cites one sided sources.Scientus (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The article is very poor quality and I have listed some of the problems on the Talk page. I can't think of an audience that would gain any value from reading the page as it stands. The technologies are too complex to be compared in a simple table. You can't do a comparison consisting of a Yes/No table unless the choice of what things to compare is uncontroversial and that is not the case here. The choice of row labels is very arbitrary and can lead to highly misleading impressions. (For example saying "alpha in color specification: OpenXPS yes PDF no" would give any reasonable reader the impression that PDF does not support vector transparency). Even if I had the time and inclination I am not sure I could write a good comparison article without crossing the line into Original Research. I am doubtful about the notability of the subject as well - who needs to compare these things, for what purpose? I could maybe support a totally rewritten page but am skeptical. Mrhsj (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No synthesis at all. It isn't making an conclusion, such as, that one is better than the other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Irregardless of WP:SYNTH, it only cites one sided sources. Scientus (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soapbox  : There is a clear need for website administrators or document publishers to understand the utility and limitations of the format they use for making their "information" available. I personally continue to get annoyed that information providing websites, either through intent or accident, use presentation formats that severely limit the usefulness of their end product. Anything that lets more people know tradeoffs- such as that pictures tend to detract from automated processing capabilities and pdf doesn't just automatically adapt from desktop to cell phones very well compared to formats that know about document structure- would be an important addition to Wiki. I personally get annoyed when I need to waste BW downloading fonts that may be embedded in a file when all I want is the numerical data for use with other people's data ( and reducing to text or a csv file is usually the best thing to do ). So, I would suggest if there are specific problems with this article to give them a lot of thought before removing or reducing it. The formats are notable, these do have factual attributes which can be listed ( in a text format LOL), and the tradeoffs compared for interested readers. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Even the nominator agress the article is "well sourced". I also agree with Ghettoblaster: per the nominator reasoning, then all comparisons have can/should be deleted. I think the solution would be to find more sources with direct comparisons and/or try to keep the comparison article neutral. I would also like to point out that a comparison is pretty much always biased, since the person/group will always try to compare features it considers important, while others might consider other features might important (simple case: in wikipedia comparisons give a lot of importance to the license and to the fact that a program is open source or "non-free". In contrast, most users probably dont' care much about that and probably care more if stuff is free/gratis and DRM-free) SF007 (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No i do not, the only source is from a Microsoft-only development firm with a clear conflict of interest, as well as Microsoft itsself. The entire article is based on this stacked comparison.Scientus (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about [98]? — Rankiri (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're obviously missing the fact that this company offers Java and Ajax solutions that can hardly be considered as Microsoft only. You also seem to be missing the fact that PDF solutions are obviously their core competence. Why should they favour a Microsoft developed format in their Whitepaper? Also note the other 3rd party references. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 20:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Abarbanel[edit]

Neal Abarbanel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable soccer player. Google News, Scholar, and Books have zero hits. Google itself produced a few soccer websites listing him as a player, but not proving his notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Warehouse 13. BJTalk 20:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (Warehouse 13)[edit]

Pilot (Warehouse 13) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redirect to Warehouse 13, per WP:EPISODE. It is premature to create a separate article for the pilot of this new series, as the main article is relatively small and easily accommodates all of the content in this new article. The only information which really makes the episode notable is the small amount of sourced information on reception, which I have merged into the main article; a sub-article such as this one can be split out later in the unlikely event that there is an overwhelming amount of reception and production info in the main article in the future. — TAnthonyTalk 00:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has been somewhat expanded since my nomination above, and I have not added all of the material to the main article, pending resolution of this discussion.— TAnthonyTalk 05:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's notableGNews, and per WP:UNDUE all the info about it would be too much for the main article. The main article needs some work, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
One can argue that the coverage asserting notability exists only because it is a new series, and so is really just supporting notability for the series itself. If there is that much coverage of subsequent episodes, I would see no problem with a spinoff article like this, but as of now it is overkill.— TAnthonyTalk 02:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Looking at the section on the episode in the combined article, its un-usefully short and is a teaser. The description of a plot must include the entire plot. (the present article doesnt do very well with pt 2 either). Whether the episode list should be split from the main article is a separate decision to the need to include content. I can not tell whether the serious will prove major enough for that, or even more whether it will be important enough for separate episode articles. DGG (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge back into the main article. If the show wins an award or gets a second series, then split it out. As it is, assuming that every episode is going to produce a good article may be optimistic.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can make this a good article if you want. I've done it with episodes that have 1/100 the sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt this article can be put together well enough to go GA, but you really can't see it's redundancy?— TAnthonyTalk 02:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The series has notability. Does this ep have notability in its own right (not just as the first ep of a new series)? Will the next ep? And the next?Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable, as we define it. That's just two independent reliable sources that discuss it in detail. Generally these modern scifi shows actually do create enough media coverage to establish notability for every episode. IGN provides a review for just about every ep of every newish scifi TV show, for instance. Some other sites are almost as complete. It remains to be seen if every ep of this show is notable, but they probably will be. The biggest problem is finding editors who can keep up. I was hoping to start a nice little precedent of how the episode articles should look, and if someone else came along and wanted to create one, hopefully they'd do a lot of sourcing as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, check out Parks and Recreation. No one seems to care about the series page, but I think all of its episode articles are GAs (or GANs). One could easily turn the series article into a GA by grabbing the most important parts of the episode pages, putting them in the series article, and giving it a thorough restructuring. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the Parks episode articles are (to me) a perfect example of how just because something exists doesn't mean it should. I can certainly appreciate the dedication and thorough work of the individual fan who created them (Hunter Kahn, who is also just about the only contributor to them), and they are certainly impressive and well-crafted and within policy, but just because there are some reviews of each episode does not (to me) make them individually important enough to be explored in detail this way. You have done a lot of work to this Warehouse 13 article and added some great material during the course of this AfD; are you planning to cover each episode this way? If you are, great, I may not see the need but the information is surely of value and interest to someone; if you are not intending to create robust articles for each episode, this material should reside in the main article as a reflection of the series. I'm afraid we'll have a dozen stubs with plot summaries and ratings, waiting for expansion that may never come.— TAnthonyTalk 05:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I probably won't create all of them, but I will do it for any that I create. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and you might check out the Simpsons episode pages. They've got maybe 9 seasons up to GA, for about 200 GAs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Design engineer. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Konstrukteur[edit]

Konstrukteur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any evidence that this is a word regularly used in English. There is a German Wikipedia article de:Konstrukteur which indicates it might be a common word in that language, but I can't find many English-language references to it (unlike, for example, Cosmonaut, which is a Russian word but also used in English to refer to Soviet astronauts). ... discospinster talk 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect not an English term, or a distinct concept. I';m not sure design engineer is the equivalent exactly, though--it seems to be more the concept of someone who both invents and realizes a major invention. DGG (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOTDIC. DE:Konstrukteur redirects to design engineer because "Konstrukteur" means "designer" in German. I don't see any reason why such a redirect should exist on the English version of Wikipedia. — Rankiri (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of crooners[edit]

List of crooners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page should be deleted for a couple of reasons. It is not needed. The main article Crooner gives the names of the important people in the history of crooning. There is also a category "Crooners" for the rest. Besides that the article is utterly unsourced. Nor could it ever be sourced. The whole concept of a crooner is so vague and subjective that once you get beyond the few leading ones, Bing Crosby etc., there is no way to prove someone is or is not a crooner. Even if a "reliable source" says someone is one that is still just one person's opinion. Especially glaring to me was the inclusion of Bob Dylan on the list. I have no way to know if this is a joke or not, but I don't think anyone (despite Dylan's great importance as a performer and songwriter) would call his singing bel canto. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Superfluous due to the Category. Also, not a good thing to have a list about.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 03:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although not every genre of music on Wikipedia has cleaned up list/category repetition, no need to be repetitive here. Category suffices.--Junius49 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination's contention that we may not talk of crooners is blatant prejudice against a notable genre of music which dominated the first half of the 20th century. Here are thousands of scholarly sources which show that we will have no difficulty sourcing entries if this seems needed. The other comments that a category supersedes this list take a contrary position in that they assume that we may have an equivalent valid category. But categories can't be given citations like list entries can and so those comments are nonsensical especially as WP:CLS tells us clearly that lists are not superseded by categories. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I (the nominator) am not prejudiced against crooning, nor did I ever say that people shouldn't talk about it. In fact I went to the article Crooner to find out more about it. I just don't think the list of crooners is needed since major crooners are named in the main article, and a list of minor or border-line crooners is a problem as I explained. The category is less of a problem since fans of each artist will be watching his article to see if the category is fair or not. I doubt if fans of Bob Dylan or Iggy Pop are even aware of the "List of crooners." Steve Dufour (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fans, eh? The trouble that Bob Dylan has many fans who all want a piece of him and so we see that he is on the List of Lithuanians while being in the category category:Turkish Americans. With no sources for any of this, of course. I quite like him myself and so have added a missing category - this is a game that anyone can play. But, anyway, what do you think of the List of crooners now that every entry is sourced (and Bob Dylan isn't on it)? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like your changes to the list. However it now should be merged with Crooner since all the info it contains is important to that article. (BTW Crooner needs help too. If the two articles were merged it would make one good article.) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've done a little work on the list, adding a good source for Rudy Vallee and Al Bowly who were indisputable crooners. Bob Dylan's article doesn't mention the word crooner and there don't seem to be similar sources for him. So, I just took him out. So, how hard is that? Just check the sources and edit accordingly. Sheesh. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. And "blatant prejudice"? Please. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:STAND a list should present an unambiguous statement of membership criteria. This one doesn't. ReverendWayne (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it does - it says that the list is composed of crooners. WP:STAND goes on to say, "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should be based on reliable sources.". So, all we have to do is knock the list down to the entries based upon reliable sources. Done. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what do those reliable sources need to say? To be included, do we merely need to find that a reliable source says that somewhere in a long career, that person crooned? Or are we listing people who are known primarily as crooners? That's where the criterion is still ambiguous. I can find reliable sources that refer to Iggy Pop as crooning, but is that enough to include him on a list of crooners? ReverendWayne (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ambiguous criteria depends on someones opinion of the artists style and just labelling it as such. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course policy would say "delete the category and keep the list", but why not go for the worst possible option? Meconion (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This a a major musical genre, and there are plenty of reliable sources that can be used to source who goes on the list. Just because some editors don't agree with what the reliable sources say (why not Iggy Pop? I've seen him crooning myself) it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term is used in two senses. Looking at our Crooner article, by the primary definition a crooner is a male singer of standards. The same article goes on to discuss crooning as a technique or style of singing, and as it currently stands the list article is based on that definition. Both senses of the word are entirely valid, but an editor looking to expand the list will find sources that say a singer croons, or is a crooner, and it won't always be clear what definition the source is using. I'm not opposed to a list of crooners, if we could make it easier for editors to understand just who belongs on the list, i.e. what the reliable source needs to say about that singer. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether a particular person belongs, is discussable in any individual case--usually, the criterion is that it is supported by he article. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. DGG (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Crooners. 'List' gives 'Crooners' examples for clarification that is obviously needed; 'Crooners' gives description to the list. Anarchangel (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Crooners. The deletion arguments make no sense - the topic of crooners is notable, we're agreed? And there are notable crooners with articles on Wikipedia, right? We know that, as we've got a category for them; we must be able to define who a crooner is, so it isn't indiscriminate - we use the descriptions given by reliable sources. If there's a content dispute, we resolve it, we don't delete whole articles. And the existence of a category doesn't preclude the existence of a list. So what argument is left for deletion, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Fences&Windows 02:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Colonel. Failing that Merge as suggested by F&Ws. Crafty (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Space Ghost (TV series). BJTalk 19:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creature King[edit]

Creature King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor fictional character doesn't meet WP:N. Prod declined. —  X  S  G  02:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge as the default way of handling these. No reason given why that is unsatisfactory. DGG (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Merge and redirect is the default way of handling notable characters. When the subject is not notable at all, a redirect is inappropriate. Think about it; if every minor character in every fictional work you ever witnessed had a redirect back to the primary source, Wikipedia would be an extraordinarily confusing place full of disambiguation pages. —  X  S  G  01:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Space Ghost (TV series). I can't find a list of characters to merge to, redirecting to the show's article. BJTalk 19:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metallus[edit]

Metallus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor fictional character doesn't meet WP:N. Prod declined. —  X  S  G  02:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge as the default way of handling these. No reason given why that is unsatisfactory. DGG (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - A merge/redirect is the way of handling a situation where a character is notable but not deserving of its own article. In this case, the character is minor, appearing only in a few episodes of the subject's program, and does not warrant even a redirect. —  X  S  G  01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are complete incorrect. WP:NOTABILITY applies only to stand alone articles and does not control content in otherwise notable articles. Being verifiable is all this is required for inclusion within a large article. Also the existence of redirects from non-notable characters hurts nothing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then please be so kind as to explain why WP:RCAT doesn't list this as a reasonable use of a redirect. To boot, WP:RCAT does list "People known solely in the context of one event", linking to WP:BLP1E with its main article at WP:N. From this, I discern that yes, indeed, it is Wikipedia policy to establish notability prior to utilizing a redirect. —  X  S  G  04:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blah. You're right. I've reviewed the "Too short for own article" entry, which indicates that redirects for non-notables is acceptable. Damnit. —  X  S  G  04:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Unreferenced. Google shows no noticeable signs of notability. — Rankiri (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was a reoccurring character on a noble show. He was notable because unlike the fools they normally fought, he was the only one to figure out how their invisibility worked. He was also the most technologically oriented villain they faced. And he was a member of the council of Doom with other notable villains of the Space Ghost series. Dream Focus 19:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this article is based on unsourced original research, and provides no evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WANG Jianxin[edit]

WANG Jianxin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable, Unremarkable tripe masquerading as a notable academic. Pushing a political agenda par excellance, this transparent attempt at sino-polemics survived speedy deletion but still deserves a swift death. Baileyquarter (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not clear that this is "pushing a political agenda" or doing anything nefarious, but Wang cannot be considered notable in the English-speaking world. The entry confounds NWU (Northwestern University, US) with Northwest University, China. While NWU is a major university and the Director of an Institute there may warrant inclusion, Northwest U is a minor Chinese university unknown to most English-speaking Wikipedia readers. All of Wang's publications are in Chinese, and Google Scholar produces no hits. The entry should be deleted, but it would be useful if the submitter could propose an article that provides an overview of Chinese archaeological research institutions, carefully linking to existing articles. Liontooth (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with submitter. -Falcon8765 (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no signs of notability shown at article. Alexius08 (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After an extensive search using various tools, such as Worldcat, Google and various academic databases, I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. By the way, I agree with Liontooth. I would also add that the English WP is the main/global WP, so notability should be verifiable through international sources, ideally sources that are widely available to the participants in AfD discussions. Otherwise we may fall into the trap of having to lower the standards of notability for lack of verifiable sources of notability for certain subjects. In my opinion, it is not good practice to justify a keep recommendation based on the assumption that sources of notability MAY or PROBABLY exist, for this or that subject, but are not currently available. As for their language, it certainly does not have to be English.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no such thing as being notable somewhere, but not in the english speaking world, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. . Notability can be shown by any language sources whatsoever. Nor need they be widely available , they just need to be publicly available. Precisely because the English Wikipedia has such a wide range of contributors from different language es and places, we have people here who can check sources anywhere and in any language. The standard of academic notability as a researcher is usually in fact international--though I would make exceptions: the leader of a field of study in a particular country may be notable for that. , --in most other matters, such as authors or whatever, if they're notable in any country at all , they;re suitable topics here. As for standards, there are citation indexes for Chinese academic works--does anyone have practical access? If I can see no sources, or be told of them, I cannot really say keep. DGG (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Budd[edit]

Andy Budd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person is not notable. He is just a Creative Director of a non-notable company in the UK. Furthermore, simply being a published author does not automatically entail notability (in this instance, neither listed book is notable either). This article is an orphan because no other pages would link to it since it's trivial and not Wikipedia worthy. Jrcla2 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evidently"? What evidence is there for that? --Calton | Talk 02:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of any real impact aside from weasel-wording. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Evidently non-notable. (if that is sufficient for a keep...) Niteshift36 (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophanes (Omar Rodriguez-Lopez album)[edit]

Xenophanes (Omar Rodriguez-Lopez album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficient detail and waaay to early. One for the WP:CRYSTAL WP:HAMMER Astronaut (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect to Omar Rodríguez-López. (FWIW, WP:HAMMER doesn't apply because this has a name). Notability not asserted (and probably won't happen before the release), but the search term is valid so help the reader out with a redirect.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An Eminem album is also coming out in later part of '09. It has it's own article. So does that mean that article will get deleted too ? Just wondering. --Roaring Siren (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The big difference is in the sourcing. Xenophanes has just one source listed, and the rest of the article is entirely unsourced. On the other hand, Eminem's Relapse 2 has several sources such as MTV news and Rolling Stone magazine. Please take a look at Wikipedia's policy on albums, and in particular what it says about future releases, and then decide whether Eminem's ahould be listed at AfD as well. Astronaut (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hume[edit]

Billy Hume (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotional tone ("writer/producer/mixer extraordinare"), no real references, notability is questionable. Delete. Eloquence* 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not enough 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability for inclusion Nja247 12:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As was already mentioned above, he is one of the writers of one of the biggest hip hop songs of 2008[[100]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.51.199 (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the subject was described only in a few paragraphs, then the long Discography section followed. It's becoming a very long article laden with original research. Alexius08 (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Metal Madman Radio Show[edit]

The Metal Madman Radio Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am not convinced that there is sufficient notability here. Many of the references are no good at all. The Blabbermouth ones are the best but even they are not much more than passing mentions. If they had an article about the show in itself then that would be better but they are primarily articles about bands that mention them being on the show or having coverage on the shows website. Google shows little real RS coverage. The theme tune by Drover being the only significant thing and even then they are interested in Drover, not the show. DanielRigal (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability does not appear to have been established per WP:WEB for this Internet radio show. (Incidentally, if nobody had voted or commented, I think it would have been appropriate for an admin to close the AfD with "no consensus" due to a general lack of interest in deletion. In other words, it would default to keep.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AfD nominator could then feel free to WP:PROD the article. It is necessary to run the full PROD procedure the action is properly reviewed.
  • Delete. There are several "references", but they all contain no more than mentions of the subject. There seems to be no independent third party coverage of this subject. Wikipedia doesn't cover every media outlet. Someone else has to write about it first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cab's sources seems to address the concerns over notability and verifiability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Armenian[edit]

British Armenian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication that Armenians in the United Kingdom are notable. No coverage in news sources, or on Google Scholar. 2001 UK Census recorded only few people born in Armenia. No indication that they think of themselves as a group.--NovaSkola (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Plus there are some major BLP concerns here. The one individual on the list of supposed Armenians I checked out appears to have one Armenian great grandparent and there is no evidence that person considers themself be Armenian. I42 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Armenians in the United Kingdom. British Armenians isn't a valid topic, but it is clearly established that the inhabitants of one state in another is a worthy article topic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename. It doesn't matter if there's one or one million British Armenians. It's still just as notable as the British Chinese or British Indian articles. Spiderone (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the topic of the article isn't notable. There's no inherent notability for this type of article as Spiderone and Deacon of Pndapetzim would have us believe. We have standards of notability and verifiability and this subject fails WP:NOTE as stated by the nominator. Drawn Some (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is not enough evidence to support this article.--NovaSkola (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Insufficient notability to meet guidelines.--LightAtmosphere (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)— LightAtmosphere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep and rename/snip list of people where required. Two minutes on google books found tens of thousands of words printed about this topic:
  • Talai, Vered Amit (1986), "The circumscription of ethnicity: a case study of the London Armenian community", Ethnic and Racial Studies, 9 (2): 211–18
  • Talai, Vered Amit (1989), Armenians in London: the management of social boundaries, Manchester University Press, ISBN 9780719029271
  • Malik, F. (1990), A Survey of the Armenian Community in London, London Research Centre, ISBN 9781852611002
Thanks, cab (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and expand - Very notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Squared Anti-Malware[edit]

A Squared Anti-Malware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Beyond the peacock words, there's no real indication of notability given for this software. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. No indication of notability in the article as it stands but Googling shows a few mentions in RS sources although I am not seeing really significant coverage (e.g. dedicated reviews). This comparison article is about as good as it gets: [101]. It is not a major player in the anti-malware market in English speaking countries. If there is evidence that it is a major player elsewhere then this needs to be added, otherwise it is a delete.
    Note: Despite being Austrian, there is no article about the product on the German language Wikipedia. They do have a two articles on the parent company though: de:Emsi Software GmbH (poorly referenced) and de:Emsi Software (short, unreferenced)! Perhaps somebody who speaks German might like to pop over there and sort this out. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I removed all WP:PEACOCK content.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2347031,00.asp
http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/a-squared-Anti-Malware-Review-39757.shtml
Google News:
http://www.ixbt.com/soft/a-squared-anti-malware.shtml (English Translation (Google)) — Rankiri (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We may as well document it, as we have well-written articles for other well known anti-virus/anti-malware software, such as Avast! and AVG. Wandering Traveler 02:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per the reliable sources with significant coverage that Rankiri found. Iowateen (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Goodman[edit]

Douglas Goodman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:ONEEVENT Avi (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coromandel Cricket Club[edit]

Coromandel Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
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, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a really old and surviving club as noted on an independent reliable source - local govt website. Aussie newspapers don't have online archives from even the 1990s, so it's going to be difficult to get other online sources. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I read the article as establishing notability, due to the age of the club. Rlendog (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. likely to be one of the oldest surviving cricket clubs in Australia = notable. –Moondyne 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. BJTalk 19:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table of development periods[edit]

Table of development periods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Request AfD for article I created. This article is completely redundant now that the original tables have been replaced by two svg-images that are incorporated in other articles where appropriate, rather than having to go to this article separately to get the overview. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Douglas (stand up comedian)[edit]

Jason Douglas (stand up comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article with many claims to meeting WP:BIO. Unfortunately, despite searching, I am unable to find a single reliable source to back up one claim let alone all. As such, the subject is non notable and unverifiable. Nuttah (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article has no citations, and no references. The URL for the website quoted in the initial version does not work. It is over two years old, so there has been plenty of time for people to have added citations and references. Maybe the article is a spoof.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He exists per a couple of Michigan newspapers that list some stand-up shows he's done (one called him a crowd favorite), but nothing to show notability, and I can't find anything to verify most of the info in the article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consequence of Sound[edit]

Consequence of Sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music website, fails WP:WEB. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A couple sources, but not enough to get over notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Appears to be notable enough to warrant inclusion. But more substantial coverage would be better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substantial coverage from where? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 09:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Weak keep?!! Totally non-notable, no reliable third-party sources, not owned by a notable company, doesn't have writers who have been published elsewhere reliable, doesn't even have a submissions guideline page. Let's keep the standards up, guys. Control says Halt! and Delete. Rafablu88 06:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Luminar Leisure. BJTalk 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid nightclub[edit]

Liquid nightclub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable nightclub chain. A7 was declined, but this fails WP:CORP by a city mile. Blueboy96 00:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POHMELFS[edit]

AfDs for this article:
POHMELFS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The 2 refs are to a blog (wp:rs), the external links fail encyclopedic notability (wp:n). -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-05t20:19z 20:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only reliable source with significant coverage that I can find is this Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 19:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to History of Catalonia. BJTalk 19:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Catalonia[edit]

Military history of Catalonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This "article" is just a bunch of headers, and even some of them have a strong Catalan separatist POV. To make matters worse, it will be pretty hard for a region to have a "military history" when that region has never had an army. This article's clearly a separatist attempt to spread free propaganda on Wikipedia, it's completely useless and, well, actually it isn't really an article. Taraborn (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This could be a legitimate article, but each of the sections woudl need a paragraph of text following the "main" or "see" link. I am not convinced that the article is completely hopeless, but at present it is a waste of space. Tag for expasnsion. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Contrary to the nom, the area did have a military history. For example, from the 8th to the 12th century, there were various armies marching all over the region. However, this article as it stands seems to have been configured with POV pushing of Catalan separatism in mind, with some of the links provided having little or nothing to do with military history. It might be better to blank it and start from scratch than to start with a 'Separatist history of Catalonia' article and try to fill it out into some sort of true military history. Agricolae (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the region had a "military history" in the sense that wars occurred there, but if we had to include every region's "military history" then we would end up with endless useless articles. That way we could have the articles Military history of the Basque Country, MH of Andalusia, of Galicia, of Murcia, Cantabria, Aragon, Northern Castile, Military history of Emilia-Romagna and Military history of the southern half of Sicilia. Well, doesn't make sense, does it? Something different would be, for example, Military history of the Holy Roman Empire, the Crown of Castile or the Crown of Aragon, since those former states actually DID exist, they obviously had an army and, well, a reason for having an article other than spreading separatist propaganda. --Taraborn (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically agree with that. I guess it should be checked if other regions have this kind of article (and at first sight, they don't) and/or wether this has been discussed before. If not, probably the best thing to do is delete this article, in order not to create a bad precedent MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 14:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has nothing to do with making sense. If there is sufficient notability and verifiability with regard to the military history of the southern half of Sicily, then yes, there could be an article on it, no matter how ridiculous it may seem. Slippery slope arguments need not apply. There are numerous small regions with published military histories, describing the local militias, battles and conflicts fought in the area, regiments raised locally to serve in national wars, specific soldiers and heroes, etc. (And by the way, we can argue about semantics, but the medieval state of Catalonia actually did exist, and had an army.) The problem here is that the topic is potentially valid, but the article is being used for something different, and doing that different thing badly at that. The article is rubbish, a misuse of namespace, but that need not necessarily negate the namespace. Agricolae (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that Wikipedia "has nothing to do with making sense" then you fail to understand how Wikipedia policies or guidelines work at the most basic level. See Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules and Wikipedia:Use_common_sense. Wikipedia's rules are loose and general, and are especially in need of "making sense". I'm pretty sure that there's enough "notability and verifiability" to make a great article about the military history of the southern half of Sicily, but why the southern half and not the southern quarter? Doesn't make sense, does it?
Indeed, if there is sufficient reliable published material written on the Military History of the Southern Quarter of Sicily, why not? If there is sufficient RS (without OR) on the topic to make it notable and verifiable, there should be such a page. As to 'making sense', I don't see the same common sense as you do in invoking Wikipedia:IAR to throw out the WP:N and WP:V cornerstones in favor of a WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#All or nothing argument that if we have this article we need every other. I have seen a published military history for a small Massachusetts village. It appears to be reliable, and the topic has also been covered in other regional histories. If that satisfies the reliability and notoriety standards, then this represents a valid topic for a page, and that there are thousands of other towns or regions has no bearing whatsoever. 'Sense' has nothing to do with such decisions - notorietynotability and verifiability do. Agricolae (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, if you think that there was a medieval state encompassing modern Catalonia, you're deeply mistaken because there were a lot of smaller states in the region at the time. And considering the County of Barcelona as the former "state of Catalonia" would be like considering modern Russia as the new Soviet Union (though it's the most important part, there are major differences). --Taraborn (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of begging the question. The namespace we are discussing is not "Military History of the Area Encompassed by Modern Catalonia", but "Military History of Catalonia". The term Catalonia is used by some medieval scholars to refer to the state controlled by the counts of Barcelona, which included not only the County of Barcelona but also various adjacent counties under their feudal hand. I have seen it argued that to call this simply the County of Barcelona is to make the exact mistake you are decrying, like calling the former Soviet Union simply Russia, to use your analogy. I told you we could get into the semantics, and now we have. Now maybe we can get beyond it, because it just doesn't matter. A region or place or people that never had it's own army can still have a military history, and several such pages exist: Military history of Oceania, Military history of Europe, Military history of Birmingham, Military history of African Americans, Military history of Nagorno-Karabakh, and even Military activity in the Antarctic (redirected from Military history of Antarctica). Agricolae (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You made a horrendous spelling mistake. --Taraborn (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete -- Basically agree with the bottom line of the nominator. Still, as Peterkingiron says, maybe the article is salvageable, but for that it does need, per Agricolae, to be blanked and started from scratch (dont agree with the latter, though, in the need for a "Separatist history of Catalonia", there is Catalan separatism already). MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 02:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I was not proposing a "Separatist history". I was saying that the article currently reads as a "Separatist history" and as such it makes a poor starting point for a "Military history" article. Agricolae (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss the exact coverage on the talk page, with an rfc if necessary. We don't delete articles to settle content disputes of this sort. DGG (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I advise you to read the "article" I've proposed for deletion. It's utter trash, useless and with a heavy separatist POV. It's an embarrassment for Wikipedia (though it seems that article is ignored by almost every English Wikipedia reader, it's still embarrassing and should be removed). --Taraborn (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs a lot of improvement: all of the headers need to be main article links eg {{main|Catalan Republic}} some of them need to be consolidated under a single header. I can even see myself being in favor of a title change, should a better one be proposed. However, these examples only prove the article is viable; it should never have been brought for deletion. Taraborn, you have, as of this date, not shown a single concrete example of "POV", "a separatist attempt to spread free propaganda on Wikipedia", "separatist propaganda", or "a heavy separatist POV". Note also that PoV is not a valid reason for deletion, as content that is PoV can be replaced. And by the way, Re: 'include every region's "military history"'. What a fascinating idea. This article, and your, shall we say determined?, search for arguments to back your case have accidentally landed on a really good way to treat the history of Europe. As you say, it is replete with examples of regions being taken back and forth by different empires; I will definitely consider the introduction of further articles on the history of particular regions. Anarchangel (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - despite all the formatting, the current "article" is entirely free of content. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Dog Called Ego[edit]

A Dog Called Ego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Meets none of the notability criteria per WP:BAND, except maybe for the coverage subject has received ...though the works cited as lending notability to the band all have questionable reliability, and none meet preferences of WP:EL (all are in German and some require registration) Third-party sources that do not fail to meet these prefs couldn't be found through Google web or news search. SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for the sources already in the article pre-AfD. While English ref's are prefered, having them in another language is not a valid reason for deletion.  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 12:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy?) Keep as it passes WP:Music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosox5555 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep does seem to pass the relevant notability standard. JJL (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fosco[edit]

Joseph Fosco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Guy just happens to be a plaintiff in a civil RICO lawsuit against boss of the Chicago Outfit. The few refs provided are to a Linkedin profile and Mr. Fosco's personal website. Appears to be nothing more than a vanity page.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Too much a COI and just not notable. Propaganda. Parkerparked (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe I read in the Wikipedia Deletion Policy article that I should identify that I, Sritchern, am the original author of this article. KTF website is not a personal website, but an online magazine (several authors write for it). The linked article is from a credible 3rd party source (MSNBC). The Civil RICO section is only recently added, and there was never a problem before it was. Joseph Fosco appears to be the first person in the United States to file a Civil RICO complaint against The Outfit. The topic is very relevant when considering the subject of the The Outfit, as Family Secrets just wrapped up sentencing (and rumors are flying about Family Secrets 2). I wonder why PassionoftheDamon, who has authored extensive articles on The Commission and Sammy Gravano, would be so keen to tear it down? Possible COI? Also, Parkerparked has been cited on his user talk page as potentially being a sockpuppet. If these two are the only ones raising objections about the article, I would strenuously suggest it remain an active entry. Sritchern (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No COI on my part, the subject just doesn't meet the notability guidelines. If this were a high-profile case with extensive coverage in the media, it might be different. But it's not. As it stands, there's no coverage of Mr. Fosco or his case to speak of, and the references in the article include only a LinkedIn profile, the web site for Mr. Fosco's media company, Fosco's complaint (also posted on Fosco's company's web site), and a reference to an MSNBC article in which Fosco is indirectly quoted in one line ("Director Joseph Fosco says the goal of the organization is to provide counseling for biracial children dealing with emotional problems and questions about identity"), the matter of which is wholly unrelated to his asserted claim to fame: filing a civil lawsuit against the Chicago Outfit. At the end of the day, what we're left with is an owner of a small media company who was indirectly quoted once in an MSNBC article, who has recently filed a civil lawsuit against the Chicago Outfit that has not garnered any coverage (let alone significant coverage) by reliable sources, and who (presumably, since he posted his court filings to his company web site) is looking to gain publicity for his action. Sorry, but that's not enough to establish notability. Not even close.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added several news sources and expanded on explanation on Fosco's role at KTF and involvement with the Outfit. Sritchern (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, you added a link to a blog on Blogspot dedicated to "The Conrad Black Trial" [103] which quotes a Sun-Times columnist as having had dinner with Conrad Black: "Sun-Times columnist Stella Foster mentions a dinner that Conrad Black had in her latest column: "EMBATTLED LORD CONRAD BLACK, on trial in Chicago, apparently took some down time to dine with Cardinal Francis George May 21 at the Holy Name Cathedral's Rectory on North Wabash. Others in attendance at this small and private dinner: the Rev. Dan Mayall, pastor of Holy Name; Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus Timothy J. Lyne; businessman Joseph Fosco, and attorney Robert DeMeo."" The only reference to Fosco is a passing one as an attendee at the dinner. The other "news source" you claim to have added as a reference is, in reality, a message board [104]. Please stop with the bad faith misrepresentations.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate your zeal in patrolling Wikipedia, but I feel you're being very picky here. I say this not to insult you, as you seem very reasonable, but I feel I must express my disagreement with you on this matter. The news story is real. It is a matter of getting to a copy of it, as the Chicago Sun-Times does not allow free access to their online archives (there are actually a few stories with mention of Joseph Fosco in them that have appeared in the Sun-Times over the last few years). I found a copy of it elsewhere. It goes toward credibility, proving that Fosco and Black do, in fact, know each other. As for message boards and blogs - this is the internet. Do you doubt that the stories are true? Or does a story only count if it was once printed on paper? I understand that Joseph Fosco is not as famous as a Conrad Black or Francis Cardinal George, but I feel it is pretty clear this man is notable. Sritchern (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even assuming the blog accurately quoted the Sun-Times column, the reference to Fosco in the column is a passing one merely noting that "businessman Joseph Fosco" was one of many attendees at a dinner involving Cardinal George and Conrad Black. Once again, a one-sentence mention is not nearly enough to establish notability: the standard is significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As for the issue of message boards, they do not meet the Wikipedia standard for reliable sources. This is not a close case: the subject does not meet the notability standard.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Why would WP:PROF apply to this situation? Sritchern (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chicago Sun Times Columnist, Stella Foster authored an article in June of 2007, citing a meeting relevant to Fosco, Conrad Black and Holy Name Cathedral, which supports the new statement added to Fosco’s Wikipedia page today (Mr. Fosco’s media interest was inspired after befriending Conrad Black via Mr. Fosco’s honorary Stewardship Committee position at Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral in 2007.) Please be advised that the intended recipient of Fosco's Holy name Cathedral stewardship letter asked KTF Media Internet Magazine to block out his identity. So basically Fosco appears in two highly credible media publications, msnbc and Chicago Sun Times. Fosco's Internet Magazine, KTF Media Group has garnered media mogul Conrad Black as a contributor. Fosco is an intended murder victim who filed a lawsuit against a United States Mafia Boss and members, which is has a particular oddity in itself that creates a notability of its own. This article should stay in place. Sritchern (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AdeS[edit]

AdeS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not indicate in what way this product is notable, it is a minimal 2-line stub. The single reference given is to an article which briefly mentions the brand as being acquired by Coca Cola some years ago. It was prod'ed, but the prod removed with a reference to a google search which mentions the product some archived Google news articles. I did not check all of them, but the first one is again a trivial mention which merely lists this brand among many other brands in Indonesia. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 19:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accurate stub article about a business, with cited news coverage. Expansion potential. Acquisition by major corp indicates significance in national market. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Big and significant company. I added a few external links there. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlin Ross[edit]

Carlin Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable activist, accomplishments are primarily associational, not coverage of the specific person for things they have done. MBisanz talk 07:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. References do not deal primarily with her, and actions do not appear to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Malinaccier (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - name is in lede of this NYT article. Appears to be a shameless media junky, but she is no doubt notable. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That NYT article mentions her in the first paragraph but all it says is she started a website, completely trivial. Significant non-trivial coverage is needed for WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as shameless self promotion. Subject seems to be in the business of getting hits online, so that's relevant, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 18:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. The only reason given above for keeping is that she is given prominence in a newspaper report. If everything that ever got covered in a newspaper report were considered notable then notability would be a pretty weak criterion. Bearian says "she is no doubt notable", but to say that you don't doubt notability is not enough: you need to produce evidence. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rufino Pablo Baggio[edit]

Rufino Pablo Baggio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Limited number of Ghits and GNEWS hits. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Sources don't indicate notability. -Falcon8765 (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_12

Leave a Reply