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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. George Asian Business Association[edit]

St. George Asian Business Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organisation, deprodded after 7.15 days by a spa. Abductive (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ORG. WWGB (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-controversial deletion, per above. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:ORG 龗 (talk) 01:44, 15 June 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 00:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MovieCodec Forums[edit]

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

Unnotable website that fails WP:N, WP:WEB, and WP:PROMOTION. It was created and hit with sock/meat puppets with a thread on the site asking people to come keep the article going[1] The only three reliable third party sources are purely about the "I am lonely" thread and its creator, Oliver Burkeman, and primarily mention MovieCodec in passing as where he started, not because the site itself is significant. At best, the three sentences on the "i am lonely will anyone speak to me" could be made to create a possible article on Oliver Burkeman as he appears to be an at least somewhat notable newspaper author (who, FYI, is a writer for the Guardian article making that source also a non-third party source). This particular site has already been spammed and deleted three times under moviecodec.com[2], with this new version apparently trying to claim that the forums are notable apart from the actual unnotable site. CSD was twice declined (tagged by two different editors), because it does at least contain marginal third-party sourcing. Original version was pure spam, containing dozens and dozens of links to the forums, a copy of the forum rules, etc and notes that the forum members have been asked to come expand this article.[3]

This site completely fails WP:N (coverage noted above is not signifcant nor about the site, but about Burkeman). It fails all criteria in WP:WEB: The forums have not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" beyond the single thread which, again, was more about Burkeman and had nothing to do with the site itself. As noted in this first crtieria, the coverage does not include this type of event. The site has not "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." nor is the content "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction to my above note, Oliver Burkeman did not create the thread. It was an anonymous person. So the thread's slim possibility of notability is also now gone. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Collectonian's arguments are compelling. While the article clears the WP:GNG hurdle on the surface by citing three sources, the articles are about the thread and not the forum. The forum itself isn't notable outside of the thread. Whether you argue that it's outright non-notable or is only notable for one event, it falls short of the depth of coverage expected for an article. Since the "I am lonely" thread does not (and probably should not) have an article, merging is not an option. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NN and the "I am lonely..." is a single event at best.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no significant third-party coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it should be noted in case of a lot of new members suddenly appearing that in the MvC forum[4], the creators of the article have now asked their forum members to come do meatpuppeting at this AfD and "try and fight the battle for us" to "save" the article. (I've print screened the thread)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So I'll go ahead and say it for anybody new to the process: This is a discussion, not a vote; all users are welcome to participate; discussion should focus on the merits of the article or lack thereof; the closing admin will weigh the merits of the arguments presented; and the closing admin will also take into account edit history, to the extent that lack of one could suggest an account create just to inflate the !vote count (and along those lines, may discount votes from IP addresses as possible double-votes). —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Non notable website, no evidence that it passes the minimum criteria for inclusion as spelled out at WP:N and WP:WEB. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Okay, for another argument. You want sources where it mentions moviecodec correct? Well here is the list off one of the referances http://www.alexa.com/site/linksin;0/moviecodec.com. 100 sources where it is mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChibiDiscoDhaos (talk • contribs) 01:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not sources. Just because someone links to the site or someone has the link in their signature doesn't mean those are all sources. Please see WP:RS to understand what a reliable source is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it makes the site more relevant, as it gets traffic from said pages. Even if said signatures or links are not published in a magazine doesn't make it any less relevant, after all this is the information age, the internet is a better source for knowledge than a magazine you might fine down from at your local shop, and this is a site that kind of compounds said information, am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChibiDiscoDhaos (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. As note multiple times above (and in the lengthy note I left on your talk page), Wikipedia has notability guidelines for what is and is not included. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place that compounds every drop of information available. WP:WEB spells out what criteria are used to determine if a website is notable for inclusion or not. And no, links from personal sites are not relevant, nor is how much traffic your site gets are not signs of notability. Coverage by reliable, third-party sources is.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Alexa rank is based largely on people coming to the site to download codecs. It has nothing to do with the forums or this sites one minor claim to notability. Ridernyc (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many online sources which are as reliable as print magazines. The key is the editorial policy of the publication: are articles vetted and fact-checked? That's why news sources (e.g., Wired, the Wall Street Journal) are reliable but blogs generally are not. As for Alexa, longstanding consensus is that Alexa rank is not an indicator of a site's notability. —C.Fred (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per chibidisco.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable website. Ridernyc (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Collectonian's well put reasoning. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:WEB. The "I am lonely thread" is probably notable, but that doesn't make the site notable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess it's fair enough to say that the "i am lonely thread" is whats notable not the website.Omegakingboo (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB Zzzzz (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Specifically the "i am lonely will anyone speak to me" thread, it has 4 notable mentions in magazines and newspapers, so would that be applicable for a wiki page? Or the The Lounge alone, since that is the home of the thread and a couple others such as the "Goku vs. Superman" thread that served as a popular place for debating the popular debate. Please tell me.Omegakingboo (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:N 龗 (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yeah, I am a frequent poster there (as well as a moderator for some sections), but after seeing your guys' reasoning I don't think we need a page yet. I do think it's stupid you guys are banning some people from Wikipedia because you think they are the same person. Me and some of the other mods have done IP checks on the suspected "puppets" and found neither were from the same address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.229.172 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that the thread should be deleted. My only regret is that none of this was brought up in page discussion so that it could have been fixed before a problem arose and people wasted time on a futile venture. (User:Derdev789 (talk) 05:51, 16 June 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.  Sandstein  05:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles D. Bell[edit]

Charles D. Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a classic case of failing WP:PROF. Currently an assistant professor, he got his PhD in 2003, no books, and an h-index of 13-ish. His field is well supported by WoK indexing. No non-academic sources that I could find. Abductive (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. It seems likely given his publication record that he will eventually pass WP:PROF. He has papers with good although not yet spectacular citations. The issue for me is less the citation record and more that it's hard to disentangle his work from that of his more notable supervisors — for instance on his most well-cited papers he's in middle position showing that he contributed but is not main author. Time will fix that problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:PROF 龗 (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Deducing information from the order of authors on a paper is fraught with difficulty as conventions vary so widely (alphabetical order, reverse alphabetical order, seniority, contribution to paper, include the whole research group on any of its papers, being the boss, honorary publication, student-goes-first (even though the student may have done no more than plod through the steps of a recipe written by the supervisor and guided every step of the way, etc. etc. etc.). Reliable sources are needed for claims about author order but I doubt if they exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 18 June 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.  Sandstein  05:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Greer[edit]

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

Subject of the article isn't notable, low-profile journalist, author of four obscure books. Johnnyturk888 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Johnnyturk888.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncertain Although I have not yet found any reviews, these books have been published by major mainstream religious presses, and are held in about 100 Worldcat libraries each. That's not totally obscure.
• Delete. I've never put a lot of stock about how many libraries have the book. Libraries often receive books as donations, sometimes by the authors themselves. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• [5] is about one of her books. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does that support her notability? Maybe it is a small start on making the book notable. Drawn Some (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable per WP:NOTE and WP:CREATIVE specifically. Drawn Some (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently the University of Alabama thinks she's notable as they have an entire collection of her papers and photographs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because she donated them to the University perhaps? Not sure how that establishes notability either. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems to just a manifest of an archive of articles this person wrote. I would like to see some independent sources that wrote about her. Chillum 16:41, 13 June 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. speedy, snow, unreferenced BLP, etc. Cirt (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Jackson (Kid)[edit]

Paris Jackson (Kid) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable child of a celebrity. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This child has mostly been kept out of the public eye. (Incidentally, I would like to go on record as saying that "(kid)" should be avoided as a qualifier for disambiguation purposes.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a BLP violation magnet, no need for this. Nate • (chatter) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not inherited. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 13 June 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:NOTE requires substantial coverage in secondary, reliable sources, which, as the discussion showed, is not present. Ruslik_Zero 15:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Surkov[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable source which would confirm that Surkov even existed, and the main claim for notability (kill count being 702) actually conflicts reports in reliable sources such as sniper books. The current sources in the article are two websites written by Russian military hobbyists, as well as a memoir in which the author indeed claims to have met Surkov. However, the more notable apocryphal sniper, Erwin König, was known from the memoirs of Vasily Zaytsev. Prolog (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What about this [6], a 1944 information bulletin by the Soviet embassy mentions Mikhail Surkov, and calls him a famous sniper, one of the first to cut the 100th notch? Unfortunately only a snippet preview on Google Books, and not sure how reliable an information bulletin by the Soviet embassy in wartimes is. Andrei Rublev (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the most useful or reliable source indeed, but at least it confirms that Surkov is not an Internet hoax. Prolog (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is quite mysterious. This google book search for "Михаил Сурков" Снайпер [7] gives a few more hits. Again, not sure about the reliability of these sources, but allmost all of these books were published in the Soviet Union. This could mean either that Mikhail Surkov existed or that he was a fictional propaganda hero. Either way he would probably be notable, but given the uncertainty we have given the lack of good and accessible sources it is not clear how we should proceed then. Andrei Rublev (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you found appears to be quoting a Sov commander about a sniper called Surkov with 100 kills - so I think he existed; not sure if he can be notable though on this basis. Its strange -- perhaps he is a real sniper who enjoyed mention in the dispatches but with a much lower number (than 700) kills -- not sure where this leaves us notability wise as all we can say is that he existed, was a sergeant, and a sniper with gt or equal to 100 kills. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its very strange --- I can find a scan of a clipping purporting to be a foto of the man; doesn't give his number of kills though which seems to be the purported claim to fame. If he is a real sniperist or even fictional sniperist that enjoyed substantial Sov coverage then I agree the article should stay --- but I am baffled that there isn't more given his alleged prowess and the Soviet wartime "cult" of the sniperist! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is the same memoir that I mentioned in my nomination. It contains some interesting information, but with memoirs, it is always unknown how much is fact and how much is fiction. However, I rewrote the article and mentioned the sources in the article text so the readers are able to judge their credibility. Prolog (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job --- I agree memoirs can be misleading and they can also cover a fair bit of minutiae --- all the additional research merely underlines the subject's lack of notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, cannot find any reliable sources for his notability; not in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/bse/%D0%A1%D1%83/24?q=) Given the lionisation of Vasily Zaytsev; I find it quite absurd that a man with allegedly 150% of the number of Vasily Zaytsev's kills under his belt has no sources of reliability. I suspect this man didn't exist. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I looked in a couple of books I have and a website that has a very good list (but wouldn't cut it as a WP:RS ) and I can't find the guy. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP I found several sources within the first page itself: http://HOTELhistory.TABLE101.com/article.cfm/simo_h_yh__the_greatest_sniper_ MilitaryHistory, Wapedia and other military history websites such as [8]. I really can't understand why he is "unnotable".

Note- The link appears to be blocked by wiki's spam blocker. To visit that informtive link, replace HOTEl-with military and TABLE with suite . --Roaring Siren (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those are just mirrors of the very article that we are discussing! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to above, the first one also seems to be a user-generated content site, which are generally not considered reliable. Prolog (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• probably Keep There are two people by this name: one is the sniper linked to in the GB link above, who probably warrants an article. I think one of the links had him a a reipiant of the Order of Lenin, which I think we recognize as the highest rank The other , who certainly does, Mikahail Surkov, a major general, secretary of the All-Army Party Committee in the 1990s [9],. Oddly, I can not find him in the ruWP under the transliteration Сурков. They could be the same, but I doubt it . DGG (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curious -- The General Surkov was allegedly involved in the attempted restorationist coup against Gorbachev -- now he *is* notable. Unlikely the same Surkov though -- he would've been a very old Major General in the '90s. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --- I don't think being awarded the Order of Lenin makes you notable --- the Order was awarded more than 400,000 times and some individuals received it multiple times. If something reliable can be found about his sniping career -- in particular his number of kills that would do it for me. I am surprised that if he was as "prolific" as claimed that there are not more Sov sources available -- they really lionised their snipers; more than any other belligerent in WW2. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for the Order of Lenin claim only brings up the Wikipedia article and its mirrors. Interestingly, there are even less hits when searching in Russian. Prolog (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (again) --- one of the russian language websites purported to quote a 1983 book "Last Stand in Berlin" by a I.L. Roslogo and says roughly: "One of the best snipers we had was a sergeant called Mikhail Surkov - the "Al" of the business... he had by his own account, killed more than 100 enemy soldiers and officers". Two things here -- its by his personal account (confirmed kills always were much lower for snipers) and the number was 100 -- not 701! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 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. ÷seresin 06:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tippingpoint Labs[edit]

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

There are some unknowns here and at New media life cycle, which I'm bundling into this AfD. Is the user named Davis the same Davis who runs the company? Is this mainly an internet marketing company? (We get a lot of those.) Are the recent mentions at CNN.com and in large newspapers a flash in the pan, or indicative of notability? - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• New media life cycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete New media life cycle for sure, the phrase has only 40 Google hits. Tippingpoint Labs itself does not seem notable to me, and the article is pure spam. Abductive (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'DElete as vanispam...ment Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No Delete New media life cycle is a legitimate topic, the fact that it is not yet widely debated and search on Google doesn't make in any less valid, does it? [10]. If agencies like BoatHouse and Razorfish are notable - why not Tippingpoint?.
  • Actually, "not yet widely debated" is the definition of not notable. These other agencies may or may not be notable; you are free to look into the deletion process for them. Abductive (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn spam. Ray^Talk 00:12, 16 June 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 redirect to Michael Jackson. redirected, but history deleted as poorly sourced. Cirt (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Michael Jackson ll[edit]

Prince Michael Jackson ll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notable only for being the son of Michael Jackson. Especially for a young child, there's no reason for us to have this article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Michael Jackson (eesh, that sounds dirty), nothing worth keeping in a solo article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Michael Jackson, standard course of action for relatives of notable people who get incidental media mentions. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, as Chiliad22 pointed out. --Julle (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not inherited. At worst, redirect as suggested. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - filled with BLP violations; unlikely to become notable on his own any time soon. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:Per all above.--gordonrox24 (talk) 01:44, 14 June 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 close Not an articles for deletion issue. I have pointed the nominator to WP:RM, which is where this issue should be taken. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Denny-Brown[edit]

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

I want this disambiguation deleted so the neurologist (currently at Derek Denny-Brown (doctor)) can be moved to this title. The disambiguation only has two people on it, a doctor and a software engineer and I believe the doctor is way more notable than the software engineer. You don't become an OBE for nothing, this guy made some major contributions. The other guy was an employee of Microsoft, but while he created some things i just don't see how he can be as notable as the neurologist. I have created a hatnote on the doctor's article so that someone trying to find the other guy will be able to find him. I figured this would be uncontroversial, but apparently not as my G6 tag was declined so here we are. Tavix |  Talk  20:14, 12 June 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. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny .S.[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced since its creation over two years ago. Trying to find references is difficult with such a generic name. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:N. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Between reference issues and the long-term lack of references, it's time to toss this one away.Tyrenon (talk) 05:54, 15 June 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. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland[edit]

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

Unsourced dicdef and OR, no attempt to source since 7/07. I see no way of expanding beyond the current state of "Heartland may refer to this part of the country or this part or this part or this part". Suggest deletion and moving Heartland (disambiguation) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator, but consider it for Wiktionary.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary has had heartland for two years, now. Uncle G (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced musings. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 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.  Sandstein  05:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic theories of consciousness[edit]

Electromagnetic theories of consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The whole thing appears to be yet another crank theory by a non-physicist who allowed misconceptions of physics get the better of him. Read the article for a good laugh. 99% of the refs are cranky, personal, unpublished papers. Watch for doozies like "topological geometro dynamic theory" and "solitonic singularity formation." Dmitry Brant (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete though I know little more topology than elementary fixed point theorems; I can spot this as a cranky piece of nonsense. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There seems to be the kitchen sink in there. How does this compare to other fringe theories? Bearian (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Afdrescue}}

• Strong keep. The theory is very fringe, but it has received some coverage in reliable sources, e.g. Wired article, a chapter in a book by McFadden proposing what he calls CEMI. The article needs heavy work to weed out the self-published work and non-peer reviewed science, but it can be salvaged without deletion. Book search, Scholar search. Fences and windows (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article some order to make it easier to work on, and highlighted two sections I think should be excised from the article. Fences and windows (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Persinger is another who has ideas in this area, e.g. [11][12][13]. The first link has vanished from the journal homepage[14], possibly they realised how odd the paper was after they published it, but it's unusual just to vanish a paper like that. Fences and windows (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some more articles:

Lindahl BI, Arhem P: Mind as a force field: comments on a new interactionistic hypothesis. J Theor Biol 1994, 171(1):111-22

Steele RH: Harmonic oscillators: the quantization of simple systems in the old quantum theory and their functional roles in biology. Mol Cell Biochem 2008, 310(1-2):19-42.

Lipkind M: Consciousness enigma: the "hard problem"--binding problem entanglement, "extra ingredient" and field principle. Indian J Exp Biol 2008, 46(5):395-402.

Laberge D, Kasevich R: The apical dendrite theory of consciousness. Neural Netw 2007, 20(9):1004-20.Fences and windows (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have heard of Penrose Hameroff and quick GOOG search reminds me

something about anesthesia. I have also corresponded with Persinger in the past and I think this is one of those areas where fMRI may not have proven anything yet ( or course you may have seen the Vul Voodoo papers LOL on a related topic). As you probably know, brain-independent mind would make it possible for things like spirits and ghosts and an origin of conscioness theory would go a long way towards proving something about religion( is there a soul?). What is interesting of course is that the article needs to document the known state of knowledge about an obviously open and controversial issue. There are plenty of theories, and maybe they are all fringe. Everyone who thinks has some theories. I wouldn't scrap it based just on some passing refs I noted as AFAIK these are credible but I wouldn't throw out an article on cold fusion quickly either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 00:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Re jargon, this is a great place for an idiot to hide :) But, in

this case, when dealing with something new and confusing, it is possible you need to start with the pompous until you get a better understanding. In particular, solitons and nonlinear phenomena look like a good place to look- either for real emergent traits, real consciousness, or pretenders and false starts. If you concede these are all fringe theories, but yet notable and maybe even eventually a step along the way, I'm not sure I would worry too much about merit. If a wiki reader can use this as a starting point, even to see how bad the field is,that is the job of an encyclopedia ( without actually being a review article maybe). Also note, related to merit, are coo-coo clocks intelligent social creatures? Afterall, Entrainment_(physics) . My point being that small nonlinear effects can produce things that are macroscopically notable and many people never get past the first Taylor term...

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the sources Fences and windows found. Nice work. Dream Focus 02:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to sources found; the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would normally call for a delete for entries on crank theories. If the entry is going to stay, it should make clear that it's a crank theory (in the most NPOV way possible of course).Hairhorn (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the theory, most theories of consciousness are speculative. The main theory of Pockett and McFadden isn't complete kookery, it does have some merit as a theory, and they're not the only ones to suggest that fields might be involved in consciousness. So "crank" wouldn't be the right word to use - try "fringe". Fences&Windows 00:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would you treat the "Theory of Spontaneous Generation" now known

to be wrong? There is a wiki entry on it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation , because it is notable and in retrospect everyone can rationalize "gee, how could these people distort the evidence enough to believe this stuff" but at the time deductive logic hadn't gotten there to inform those silly people. Or even alchemy or astrology? When you don't have a periodic table, you have confusing observations and jargon- even think about particle wave duality - does this make sense? So, to make a point on consciousness, " just who the heck do you think you are ?" LOL... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:46, 18 June 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 (Non-admin closure; was speedy-deleted during the AfD discussions) 龗 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private equity in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sigh. Another great example of why we delete promotional articles rather than fixing them. I'm declining the db-spam speedy deletion because the article has been around 6 months, which makes it hard for the tagger and me to make the case that we're right and everyone else who's worked on the article is wrong; we need to come to AfD to demonstrate consensus. However, my vote here at AfD is speedy deletion. For anyone who doesn't see any problem with this article, I have an emerging markets fund that is rated #1, with guaranteed growth, but only for the first 100 lucky investors. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Technically salvagable, but to what end? Best to start afresh with an entirely new article and interested impartial editors, and delete this one in the meantime. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am very much focused on the improvement of coverage of private equity subjects on wikipedia but as currently constructed this article does not cover a separate topic. I don't even know if there is enough content of note here to warrant a section in the main Private equity article. It is really just an excuse to have a list of China-focused private equity firms. I do think the nominator needs to beef up the criteria for deletion. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 21:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you want to see? - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete financespam ("Among the most active, successful and best-managed private equity firms focusing on China are" christ on a bike) Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Spam. --Julle (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Spam, as per above. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Worse than spam, a possible pyramid scheme : Delete. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Since we generally speedy-delete spam rather than having a 7 day discussion, I'm going to assume from the votes that that's what you guys want, unless you say otherwise within roughly 20 hours. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's my view. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Now speedied. I'd appreciate it if someone else would do the paperwork and close. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 14 June 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. (X! · talk)  · @495  ·  10:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King's Lynn in popular culture[edit]

King's Lynn in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While King's Lynn is notable per WP:NOTE, the subject of this article, King's Lynn in popular culture, isn't. It has been tagged to have anything significant moved to other articles for more than a year. See WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is also original research, see WP:OR. Drawn Some (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic material that cannot be allowed into any other articles. In our referentially-based culture, this tiny handful of mentions does not indicate any kind of importance. And notability is based on reliable sources, which must be shown, not merely assumed to exist. Mintrick (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any notable material into King's Lynn. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or, better, merge any material to parent article. Some references will be notable, but not as a coherent subject. Sourcing will help. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I hate these articles (x in popular culture, y in popular culture) but they do serve the purpose of stopping decent articles being choked with popkult cruft. I'm neutral on this but would rather not see a merge into the "parent" article. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a list of editor-chosen examples contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. No hint that people have written about this subject in reliable sources. WillOakland (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the appropriate places in the main article. Not enough content for a separate article. DGG (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This nomination raises a host of principal problems, the scope of Wikipedia, who can edit and contribute with what, WP:NOTPAPER etc, the usual slew, and likely the usual people commenting the ususal way. This article was spun-out from the King's Lynn paretn article 23 October 2008. No reason was offered, but likely it could be an attempt to purge contested, debated, and what some people think is "low quality" and "unecyclopaedic" in popular culture.... content into a separate article - aiming for an uncontroversial compromise. Perhaps somebody then will hit the delete button later, which turns out to be now. This principal issues is a recurring problem, and we achieve NOTHING by first spinning out content, and then merging in back. Personally, I dont like most of this "in popular culture" stuff, but as Jimbo has said, what shall we tell all those people who write about Pokemon etc, go write about nuclear physics instead? The procedure of spinning out the stuff is even endorsed in some guideline, if it prevents the article from achieving GA or FA status - and I think it is a good compromise that everybody should be able to live with. The scope of Wikipedia is so much broader than the elitist Encl. Brittanica etc, see NOTPAPER. So I would say keep, and ask the nominee not to nominate more of those articles for AfD and instead to start a centralized discussion (good luck!) where this issue belongs. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the nominator. Your smokescreen doesn't make the topic of this article, "King's Lynn in popular culture", notable, in fact, I could find not one source addressing it. WP:NOTE repeats over and over that the topic of an article must be notable. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a criteria for inclusion. Drawn Some (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - parallel discussion takes place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crash test dummies in popular culture. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This principal issues is a recurring problem, and we achieve NOTHING by first spinning out content, and then merging in back. — Yes, exactly. The correct course of action is not to take the lazy route with bad content, of sweeping it under the rug, in the first place. Please read User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing, and see from the examples what actually, in practice, stops this cycle from recurring, and has stopped it with many articles in the past. It requires work, a lot more than a copy and a paste, but unlike the lazy route it is provenly effective. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per DGG. Useful information, but there is no where near enough to constitute a whole article. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to King's Lynn. Encyclopaedic but in the wrong place. References to popular culture almost always go into to main article unless the list is so long it wouldn't fit as a section in another particle, and I see not reason for an exception here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Many articles used to have a popular culture section that was a bucketthat collected a lot of trivial trash. Such sections were generally deleted a couple of years ago and WP has been better without them. This article should follow. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in its current form. The subject lacks notability and the content consists of nothing but trivial details. ThemFromSpace 23:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yet another fork by Mintrick, with content that xe didn't like erased from one article, and copied and pasted, without proper authorship attribution (in accordance with the requirements of our copyright licences), into a new article.

  The same rationale applies as before to Mitrick's previous forks: There's no reason to keep this fork; the content is already in the original article's edit history and can be restored directly from there in the normal way; this article's authorship is not correctly attributed in its edit history; this isn't a title that we need as a redirect; and the correct action for Mintrick to have taken in the first place was to address bad content in the article in which it stands, not take the lazy route of sweeping it under the rug like this. The same outcome should happen here as has happened so many times before: Delete.

  Please learn from this happening time and again to these creations of yours, Mintrick. There's a reason that User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing is not short of examples from the many times that this pattern has repeated at AFD over the years. You are wasting a lot of people's time by taking the easy routes of sweeping things under the rug with all of these articles, rather than addressing bad content properly, by fixing it and writing good content. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll notice that those supporting a keep or merge have not offered any reliable sources where someone has written about the subject. Instead, as usual, people are trying to make the subject notabile by mere acclamation. WillOakland (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per DGG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle G. To merge the information would require that it be cited to reliable sources, which, with one minor exception, it is not. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 10 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 if there is consensus on the relevant talk page that this content is appropriate for the Tang article. ÷seresin 06:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tang in popular culture[edit]

Tang in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tang is notable per WP:NOTE but the subject of this article, Tang in popular culture, is not. This is an indiscriminate collection of original research that has been tagged as needing references for a year. See WP:NOT and WP:OR also. Drawn Some (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unencyclopedic material that cannot be allowed into any other articles. In our referentially-based culture, this paltry handful of mentions does not indicate any kind of importance. And notability is based on reliable sources, which must be shown, not merely assumed to exist. Mintrick (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's the possibility that this is a referenced topic, but this is emphatically not a start on that and such a topic could easily be covered in Tang (drink). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete popkult infinite regress. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a list of editor-chosen examples contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. No hint that people have written about this subject in reliable sources. WillOakland (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am in agreement with the other opinions put forth. The lack of references doesn't help the article's cause. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge some of this, though most isn't worth merging. DGG (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What would you say is worth merging? I'm open to being convinced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There are some of these list that are notable. This isn't one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Tang with no prejudice towards re-creation at a later time. Some of the trivia needs to be excised, but there are some examples of the use of Tang as major plot points. It is a "hot mess" right now, but there appears to be enough notable examples that a better article could be created later. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no original research please.--Caspian blue 17:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge not notable enough as a topic on its own. No doubt some have been mentioned somewhere in some commentary or other. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Casliber and Bearian Ohms law (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuke and Pave — mention in individual pop culture articles if appropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems that Mintrick hasn't learned the lesson of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syrinx in popular culture, because xe has done the same thing again: erased content that xe didn't like from an article, and copied and pasted it, without proper authorship attribution (in accordance with the requirements of our copyright licences), into a new article.

  The same rationale applies as before to Mitrick's previous forks: There's no reason to keep this fork; the content is already in the original article's edit history and can be restored directly from there in the normal way; this article's authorship is not correctly attributed in its edit history; this isn't a title that we need as a redirect; and the correct action for Mintrick to have taken in the first place was to address bad content in the article in which it stands, not take the lazy route of sweeping it under the rug like this. The same outcome should happen here as has happened so many times before: Delete.

  Please learn from this happening time and again to these creations of yours, Mintrick. There's a reason that User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing is not short of examples from the many times that this pattern has repeated at AFD over the years. You are wasting a lot of people's time by taking the easy routes of sweeping things under the rug with all of these articles, rather than addressing bad content properly, by fixing it and writing good content. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back into Tang (drink). I cleaned out some of the irrelevant trivia so it is now a bit more focused than it was but I still vote Merge.Joe407 (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mostly per Uncle G. While a prose paragraph depicting the cultural reception of Tang is appropriate in the main article, this information is devoid of sources and really isn't about Tang at all. ThemFromSpace 01:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no factual evidence --Dragon Kick (talk) 04:28, 19 June 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 G3 as hoax, deleted by J.delanoy, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Cream Pie (film)[edit]

Banana Cream Pie (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film. The article says the filming took place between, "June30, and July 30 2009". Furthermore, the actors and director of this film are all red links. Cunard (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Fails WP:NOTFILM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs)
• G3 as blatant hoax given the film dates (which, as you noticed, are in the future but listed as if in past tense). Also, the title + director turns up bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:19, 12 June 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. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knight class[edit]

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

There is already an article about the game Knights in the Nightmare. This article is about a specific element of the gameplay itself, and Wikipedia is not a game guide. Furthermore, the article is unreferenced and most likely original research. I42 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, indeed fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, along with WP:N --Taelus (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Run of the mill gameguide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:OR, WP:N etc.. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Can't believe anybody thought this was worth an article. DrSturm (talk) 06:06, 13 June 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. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connections (game)[edit]

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

A nonnotable drinking game. Twri (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. But I request that a Wikipedian tries this game with a group of friends and reports back here what they thought of it.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this recipe for alcohol poisoning. Should we add "things I came up with while drunk" to "WP:NOT for things you made up at school one day"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per A Man in Black. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. (A many similar articles have the same problem - what would be considered "significant coverage in reliable sources" for drinking games, anyway?) Dawn Bard (talk) 14:31, 15 June 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) 00:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Jacobite Party[edit]

Scottish Jacobite Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable political party which has never stood for election. Further more the party no longer exist (see http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/63167/Renamed-or-Deregistered-Parties.pdf doktorb _words^deeds 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question- The last AFD closed only 3 days ago as a Keep. Why is the issue being re-opened?Umbralcorax (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Same Question. You beat me to it, edit conflict. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as improper use of AfD for rapidly repeated nomination. BTW, it apparently did run candidates in an election. they did not do well, but any party which actually runs candidates should have an article. DGG (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The claim that the subject of an article no longer exists is never grounds for deletion. Once notable, always notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep. A very, very clear case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I totally disagree. I cannot find any proof that they have stood in elections, and even if this is the case, they have failed to do the very basic thing thought of parties - WIN. Further, they are no longer registered, so on notability grounds, they clearly are not. With all respect to the process, and I trust my record shows responsibility and respect to the project, this is surely a case of policy blindness. doktorb _words^deeds 20:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - The fact is that we have a source that proves they were registered. This should at a minimum be a redirect to the list of political parties in Scotland. Whether or not we keep/merge/redirect/whatever should be sorted out on the talk page, this isn't a cause for deletion. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply We have a source that they are now DE-registered doktorb _words^deeds 21:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But being de-registered doesn't matter. As I said above, once notable, always notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and WP:SNOW. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:NOTE. Has nominated candidates in a national election. Don't see the problem here. --North North-West (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Though I must disclose that I started the last AfD discussion and I will readily concede that I think it's too soon to start up a new discussion, I still feel that this is a case of a minor party which had little impact, electorally or socially (unlike the Loonies, who can be argued to have had some impact electorally and made a lot of waves socially).Tyrenon (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons given above by many others. Ohms law (talk) 04:03, 17 June 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. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art of Travel[edit]

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

There is absolutely no indication this exhibition is notable. I42 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• . . . or indeed of where it is being held. Delete what looks like a botched attempt at an advertisement. -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indications of notability, and the article appears to have been created by the artist herself. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is an advertisement, not an encyclopædia article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:59, 14 June 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 Mufka (talk · contribs) as G12: blatant copyright violation of [15]. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Tamburello[edit]

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

Appears to be self promotional, couldn;t find csd tag with that specific freason so opened to discussion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per nom. I've nominated this for speedy as a copyright violation. JNW (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was restored as a non-copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• ...and deleted again as a copyvio. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 12 June 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. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADVANCE Student Organization[edit]

ADVANCE Student Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD; prod tag (and prod endorsement tag) were removed with the not "this page should not be deleted without discussion", but with no edits to improve the article. No assertion of notability, 10 ghits that don't amount to significant coverage (they are passing mentions), and nothing at all in Google news, books or scholar, therefore no evidence that guidelines for inclusion have been met. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - completely non-notable and non-encyclopaedic. Canterbury Tail talk 17:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The proposed deletion should have been allowed to expire if the person removing the proposed deletion only opposed it because there was "no discussion". Doing so is basically stating that the entire WP:PROD process is invalid. There's no reason for this article to still be on Wikipedia. -- Atama^chat 17:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The person who removed the proposed deletion is on the Administrator's noticeboard for deprodding a number of articles just after account creation and suspicion of being a sock. While not an indicator of whether or not this article in particular deserves to stay, I thought it should be disclosed. -- Atama^chat 17:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly non-notable organization. If we cut all of the POV language out of the article, such as "prepare African American college students for a world of effective professionalism" and "employers have a unique opportunity to contribute to the workforce of tomorrow" and "for promoting leaders of tomorrow" there would be nothing left. Add to that, the article cannot pass WP:V since there are no reliable, independent sources available to write about this group. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Migh, just possibly, be worth a passing mention in the University of Cincinnati article, but there's no indication it's worth an article of its own. Anaxial (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To be fair, the name of the club isn't "ADVANCE Student Organization", it is just "ADVANCE", which increases the number of Google hits to ∞. Still, it is just a student club at a single university without particular notability. Outside of its university there is little interest in it, as evidenced by its Wikipedia page view stats of about 1 view a day. Abductive (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete merely part of a career development office at a university. No sources for notability nor are there likely to be. DGG (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely non-notable and non-encyclopaedic. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:22, 13 June 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 G3 as hoax Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls 4: Shanghai Nights (soundtrack)[edit]

The Cheetah Girls 4: Shanghai Nights (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced future album/soundtrack. Would redirect if the film had an article Wolfer68 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G4 No need to bother any further; the article about the "film" was deleted a month ago for being a hoax from the DisneyMania/Sher'Quan Johnson vandal. I will not apply the db-repost tag myself as I want a second opinion just in case. Nate • (chatter) 16:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:03, 12 June 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. ÷seresin 06:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games with female antagonists[edit]

List of video games with female antagonists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games with female protagonists for deletion reasons. This is exactly the same type of article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per what I said there, of course. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic and, in any case, far too general (it must be quite a high proportion of video games, one would think).Anaxial (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Actually relatively unusual. Note the specific meaning of antagonist, as a principal opponent of the protagonist. The intro says this clearly, but the list needs major editing, as for some of the games here is it does not apply: Lara Croft is the protagonist, and similarly for some of the other examples. DGG (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I am kind of new here however I have read through the video games lists and wikipedia rules and so I think that this should be deleted. I do not think we have lists just for unusual things; if they were worthy of note, then there would be sources for it as per the Notability Guideline.
• Comment If we keep it, let's have List of video game characters who wear orange hats, List of video games with evil scientists, List of video games with a "Loading" screen and List of video games without female characters. Got it?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With such a broad use of "female" and "antagonist", this is going to run to List of video games with female antagonists (A-Aardvark). If this topic is interesting, as DGG implies, then a better way of dealing with it is Female video game antagonist, assuming some references can be found for the topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't actually think it would be that large--perhaps it would be better to see if it grows too large. before assuming it. It can always be narrowed to principal antagonist if necessary, DGG (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's already narrowed down to "principle" antagonist, and it's swelling quickly. I could add entries until my fingers got tired typing, if I thought this were going to turn into a useful list. There's an interesting topic, you're absolutely right, but this list is too broad to illustrate that topic. "Female" and "feminine" are not clearly defined attributes when you're talking about a form of fiction that includes all genres of setting, and many of these games only have a female antagonist as a coincidental attribute, one so unimportant even players of the game may be unaware.
  It's just too big. Feminist theory is a fascinating subject, as is study of gender roles in "low" art, but this is a random, poorly-formed aggregation of raw data that doesn't imply a topic.
  Unless you can explain what Kid Icarus, System Shock 2, and Rez have in common? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pointless popkultcruft, impossible to maintain totally non-encyclopedic. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If that's the case, then there should be a list of characters with African ancestry, Japanese ancestry, etc. –Nickin/ShifterBr (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. As other have said, this is a slippery slope to start allowing them. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – contrary to what I stated in the "protagonists" AFD, the portrayal of women in video games article is written with the explicit premise and focus on the main characters in the game, the protagonists. I do not think this would contribute to any further understanding of the context in that article. A better idea would be to have a list of video games in which the main character is female (but then "main" is a very loaded term). Right now, the only thing coming close to that is the female protagonist list (which I !voted to keep in that AFD). MuZemike 16:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how it matters whether a female character is good or evil, as I understand it, the portrayal of women in video games article is meant to address issues like making a female character a sexual stereotype (e.g. early Lara Croft) or fantasy girl versus a deep character on an equal level to any male protagonist...or something like that. Just listing games with female characters doesn't really assist that case at all.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:02, 14 June 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 WP:CSD#G11 by Dank (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure (full disclosure: it was my prod that was contested, but I don't think that makes me too involved for this). AnturiaethwrTalk 01:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cabriel Loxley[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable cartoon character, entirely -in universe with no sourcing save for the official website. Written by User:Cabriel, so there's a possible conflict of interest here as well. Contested prod. Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Heh. Guess it's been speedied.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only three ghits outside of WP itself, and the site linked to in the article is just an advertisement. In fact, it looks as if the entire article is simply spam. Anaxial (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Advertisement/non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedied as db-spam since I'm hearing "COI" and "spam" from everyone. I'd appreciate it if a 5th person would do the paperwork and close, and with the closer's implicit agreement, that will make 5-0 for COI/spam, that ought to be enough. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 12 June 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. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Heiskill[edit]

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

I've not been able to find anything about this poet. The page has been around for really long. The creator's only other contribution was another poet with a similar birthday and history that I'm also nominating, for the same reason. I'm inclined to think this is a hoax or something, but people seem to have fun with these pages, if you look at the history. Delete SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating the following related page for the same reasons.

Robert W. Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, can't find any RS for either just a blog at associated content for Heiskell. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't find anything on books or news, and nothing unassociated on general search. Shadowjams (talk) 07:10, 18 June 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. While a number of new sources were provided, the broad consensus seems to be that none provide the substantial coverage required by WP:N, and generally all that has been demonstrated is a variety of small mentions. ~ mazca ^talk 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toon Zone[edit]

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

Procedural nom. This article was deleted through WP:Articles for deletion/Toon Zone (2nd nomination) last year, and Morningpulse rewrote it recently in its current form. Backslash Forwardslash speedily deleted it under G4 (re-creation of deleted content), and Morningpulse contested (see User talk:Backslash Forwardslash#G4), saying that he believes the article is substantially different from the deleted version and should go to AfD. Listing here for discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, copy-pasting my rationale from User talk:Backslash Forwardslash:

  Just my unsolicited two cents: from what I can tell, the article has more references than the original, but doesn't address the problems raised in the original AfD, and so while it's superficially different than the original it still has the same problem.... most of the references appear to be nothing more than picking any article or website that happens to mention ToonZone at all, and don't really demonstrate real notability

  rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are plenty of references towards it in third party media sources. The quote from Atlantic magazine should be enough. Some places call it ToonZone, instead of Toon Zone though. The official site says it has a space in it. Dream Focus 15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you looked at those references? They aren't about ToonZone, most of them are just a passing mention or, even less, just saying "this story appeared in ToonZone". Out of the ones I looked at, the engaget, slashdot, io9, shanghaiist, IGN, and gateworld (archived, the current url is dead) sites can all be so described. That's the entire right-hand column of the reflist (excluding offline sources, which I doubt are any better), and I didn't even look at the left. This is a textbook example of flooding an article with every random ref you can find just to avoid deletion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Many notable people in the animation industry make reference towards it. Two published books, including one from the Webster dictionary company, mention it as notable. I'm going to add those references now. Dream Focus 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those Webster books are reprinted content from Wikipedia. --Morning (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? How do they decide what to include and what not to? It can't just be random, and they certainly can't include everything. Do they have a means to determine what is notable and what isn't? And was the article there, with that information, at the time of the printing? Dream Focus 16:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article's been around in some way or another since 2005 (although it was deleted for the past year). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and salt. It's a great website, but there are absolutely no non-trivial mentions. Every reference cited only uses Toon Zone as a source and doesn't give a non-trivial mention. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources seem sufficient to show notability. This was not at all the case in the version previously deleted, which had no sources at all. That deletion was correct; this one is not. DGG (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mere verification of existence by trivial mentions is not reason for inclusion. For a topic to be notable, it must have significant in-depth coverage. Drawn Some (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Two thirds of the references are examples of the claim that this website has been mentioned in passing by a bunch of things. Not references which make this claim, but examples of the claim. The references that actually make claims about this website are not substantially about the website, and are indeed mentioning it only in passing. It's fashionable to ignore the "significantl" in "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," but to my knowledge it's still there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a clear-cut case. The presence of many references is irrelevant if they do not provide significant in-depth coverage of the topic. That is the case here with the many trivial and oblique mentions but no real substance. Drawn Some (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep verifiable sources, check, notability check. trivial sources? perhaps some, but then as notability isn't transferred neither is triviality.--Buridan (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but how does trivial sources on the internet not translate to trivial sources in the article? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because references and article are horrible. If nobody else can be bothered to write an article about this, then we shouldn't either. Blackbirdz (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I can't really trace down any of those sources and soom look fairly trivial. But there is a strong case for notability here and, AGF, I will assume a few of them are detailed enough. Hobit (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please state what the strong case for notability is? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, the article establishes that Toon Zone is used as a source for statistics and similar things by those involved in the area. That so many RS indicate that they use Toon Zone as a source, that implies notability. Plus LOTs of fairly trivial coverage builds up toward meeting WP:N IMO. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can accept the error I made in speedy deleting the article, but I may as well chip in. Deletion would appear to be the correct decision; the website has not passed the notability criterion of non-trivial coverage. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} [[13:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The references are all fake, seemingly plucked at random so the article seems more relavent than it actually is. I work at Toon Zone and ALL of these references are news to the staff, citing books that have no reason to reference an animation website.--HellCat86 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• THIS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not this. There's a big difference between "this is trivial coverage" and "these are fake". TenPoundHammer, you don't accuse an editor of lying just because he wrote one crappy article. —Morning (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe what he meant by "fake" was that the references are not really sources supporting the intended claim, but just pages that happen to contain the words "Toon Zone". It was not an accusation of intentional lying (as far as I can tell). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Again, it's a good site (my site is hosted there and been cited by animation history writers like Jerry Beck, Michelle Klein-Hass, and Amid Amidi and animation producers like Tad Stones and Fred Seibert, so I'm a little biased), but this article is largely used to insult the reputation of the site (highlighted by that "sort of common ground where those without lives can dwell on and dissect in detail the doings of others" quote and the countless links unconnected to the site), especially when the quote can be referred to any pop culture website. That said, the article had been deleted in the past largely because it attracts former members who had been banned from the site's forums to libel Toon Zone while hiding behind false names and IP numbers. Now, while I don't have a problem with people expressing their opinions (freedom of speech is a glorious thing), Wikipedia isn't exactly the right place to do so. Nemalki (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a negative quote because that's all I could find. If you have better sources, get rid of that terrible quote and add the good sources instead. —Morning (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But here's the thing. Why does the inclusion of THAT particular quote need to be prominent in the article? There are even more negative quotes about bigger sites than Toon Zone, and they're rarely present here, so why is that quote in this one? I mean, The Art Institute of Philadelphia calls Toon Zone home to "some of the best animation sites on the internet." [16] Also, many industry insiders have praised Toon Zone during its fifth anniversary [17]. Many, many positive quotes, and yet you chose to post a negative one instead.Nemalki (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't need to be anything! It's not my article. You're free to add and remove whatever you want. I haven't been a member of Toon Zone for like six years, I just made this article on a whim. I'm not out to disparage the site. If you don't like what I wrote, go ahead and change it. Add those Fred Seibert (etc.) quotes, and you'll have a good, fair article that won't get deleted. —Morning (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, by your own admission, you haven't been a member of Toon Zone in over six years. and yet, you decided to make an article dedicated to the site? That does sound a little suspect and makes my original observation of the use of the article for former members to disparage and libel the site under the guise of false names and IP numbers that much more probable than not. Nemalki (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's please stay civil and focus on content, not contributors. There is no reason to think there is anything "suspect" in Morningpulse's editing. We're just having a disagreement about the notability of what he chose to write an article about; there are no ulterior motives here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Morningpulse: "That's all I can find" doesn't sound like a very strong case for notability.... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:23, 15 June 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 Boldly redirected Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Scientology[edit]

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

I nominate the History of Scientology page for deletion on the ground that it currently serves no real purpose. This article is merely an unreferenced collection of links, and unnecessary given the long history section of the Scientology article. So, I propose we either delete this article, or merge it with the aforementioned section. RUL3R (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Scientology#History which has more content about the topic than this page. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Mandsford (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above Racepacket (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above with merging whatever is to be salvaged. Wikid^as© 16:33, 12 June 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 G12'ed Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Die Kur[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, google returns nothing, and it has crazy POV, with nothing to back up the claims of "highly recognized music" or a "...strong reputation as pioneer of electronic music..." Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 15:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A7 No true assertation of notability. This crap has sat around for two years?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would of speedy-ed it, but there were quite a few edits to the article; figured if someone else hadn't already PROD'd or brought it here, speedy probably wasn't the best idea. Oh well. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Random--Never wrong to exercise due diligence. I don't believe WP:before should be a policy, though i do try to adhere to it. Been here this long, a few more moments won't hurt anything. Dlohcierekim 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get 450,000 google hits. That's a lot to sort though to establish nn. Dlohcierekim 21:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- Unless I've missed a notice, this is a copyvio of http://www.findmusicvenue.com/live-music/band/?Gig=Die+Kur&Band=529. Dlohcierekim 21:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I tagged it with a CSD for copyvio. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Am Allmusic und Billboard alles nichts. Auch am Deutche Wikipedia If this is a German band, as the name of the group suggests to me, ("The Cure" in English). I would have hoped to see an article on German Wikipedia. Likewise would I expect a mention on Billboard and Allmusic whatever the nationality. When I refine my search for "Die Kur" plus "Industrial Metal" I do not find reliable third party sources giving significant coverage. If it is a copyvvio, that speaks for itself. I disagree with R&B as to the assertion of significance, a lower standard than notability, and found it hard to search for info on the subject given the limited context in the article. Dlohcierekim 21:32, 12 June 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. ÷seresin 06:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]