The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cydney Bernard[edit]

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

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

Alleged domestic partner of Jodie Foster, although the reliable-source documentation of this claim is pretty negligible. No independent notability. Much of the recent flurry of tabloid/gossip coverage appears based on an article in the National Enquirer, which fails WP:RS. Related BLP issues, WP:NOTINHERITED etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I could not find any reliable sources that say she is notable on her own. Everything is based on Jodie Foster and notability is not inherited. There are also WP:BLP problems, since the whole article is based on something that, according to the article, both her and Foster deny is true. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. The subject has kept a very low profile, and her own activity in the film industry has not been prominent enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN per WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, i think it is against the spirit of out WP:BLP and WP:Undue policies to have a WP:coatrack BLP that only exists to imply a denied personal relationship.YobMod 13:27, 29 October 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 Speed close. First of all this was created with the required header making the page unlisted on the current AfD page and it appeared as part of a Cisco AfD. Second this page says that it is for the Malia Obama (2009), which was created and deleted 25 OCtober 2009, and the redirect Malia Obama. I am unsure how an AfD can be used to change a redirect to an article. I suggest that Wikipedia:Deletion review or some of the venues that User:Marcusmax suggests be used instead. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malia Obama (2009)[edit]

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

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

Malia Obama was an article that was made into a redirect in spring, 2008. More than one year later, she has become notable or, even by those favoring deletion, a "marginally notable" person.

She has articles written in very reliable sources about her specifically. She is now a public figure rather than an obscure figure before the election. Name McCain's children and most people have a hard time naming them. Name Obama's children, and the Malia's name snaps into people's minds, even more than her little sister (who doesn't have articles about her).

This is a deletion debate about the redirect, which should be changed to an article. There's already one in the history. SRMach5B (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Change redirect to the article previously written We must also watch the article to prevent vandals if re-created. We don't need to ask permission from the White House, who hasn't protested the Wikipedia article, but actually releases press photos of the family (unlike the Spanish government which informally prohibits release of photos of the Spanish prime minister's children) SRMach5B (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - SRMach5B I believe you posted this in the wrong place I recommend perhaps trying WP:RFC or try WP:BLP/N to start a discussion on the notability of Malia. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:41, 25 October 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. JForget 00:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visual T Sharp[edit]

Visual T Sharp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails notability guidelines, the vast majority of the article reads as a software manual, cleaning this out would leave a unreferenced stub article with no claims of notability. Q ^{T C} 17:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: All that I can find for this is the source that is already in the article. Joe Chill (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not the missing manual Miami33139 (talk) 20:08, 29 October 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo attacks in Australia[edit]

Kangaroo attacks in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacks notability to sustain an article, seems to be heavily based on WP:OR/WP:SYN and non-reliable sources. Orderinchaos 17:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 17:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The references appear to be reputable daily newspapers from Australia, and what appears to be original research probably appeared in the source material. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note WP:SYN - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." At least two of the main sources are self-published web pages which themselves do not cite their sources. Orderinchaos 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion is explicitly stated in the source: Kangaroo Attacks in Australia Spotlight Growing Turf War James4750 (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment hmmm...(scratching head) I guess my main problem is that the existence of the article implies a level of notability to the subject which isn't present in reality. There is some reportage in press (more than I'd thought actually). Need to look into this one some more. At the very least Kangaroo (only at 30kb) should have a section on this before the daughter article was created. i.e. merge is an option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable topic which has been discussed by National Geographic and other sources James4750 (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No less notable than any of the other "x attacks in Australia" articles; doesn't seem like a case of synthesis to me, as the topic of 'roo attacks in general is covered in sources, not just various examples thereof. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom, I didn't realize these articles were all made by the same author. Orderinchaos is convincing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. All of the "attacks in Australia" articles were created by the same author over the last couple of weeks, and all of them are problematic in the same ways. 2. Randomly hunting through newspaper archives for incidents that happen to match a predetermined set of facts is indeed WP:SYN. Orderinchaos 07:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The articles are in the same format as the American articles on alligators, bears, cougars, sharks and snakes which have been here for years. 2. There are a huge number of publications about animal attacks in Australia James4750 (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Although WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here as well, the animals you've listed are generally predatory. Kangaroos, koalas and magpies aren't. (Although I will give you drop bears).You've gone a little bit overboard on the range of articles. Show me some similar US articles on squirrels, beavers and groundhogs. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to KangarooDelete. Kangaroos are so common in Australia that most "attacks" go unreported. Those that do make it to the media are the more unusual ones, generally used as filler material. Many are not even attacks, such as the most recent listed in the article, which is clearly the case of an injured and disoriented roo simply trying to escape from an unfamiliar environment. (Does anyone believe for a minute that a kangaroo deliberately jumped through the window of a home so that it could attack a family?) Only 20 km (12 mi) from the CBD of Australia's 7th largest city, kangaroos can be seen grazing on the lawns of family homes in large numbers. The become disoriented because of civilisation encroaching on their natural grazing land and often run into man-made objects that are out of place in the bush. That's why incidents such as this happen. It's not a deliberate attack a simplied by the article. The second last incident in the article is another example of a non-attack, a hungry kangaroo trying to eat, being forced away from scarce food by people who later killed it. The kangaroo was obviously just trying to defend its right to eat and not die. These incidents are generally taken out of context, as they have in the article. Any mention of real attacks should be in Kangaroo but a separate article that just lists incidents perceived as attacks by an editor isn't warranted. Unless, of course, Cat attacks in Australia, Fly attacks in Australia and Bully ant attacks in Australia are seen as valid articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the reason, it is still an attack. The last one was notable enough for CNN and the BBC. There isn't enough room in Kangaroo to describe all of them. James4750 (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What definition of attack are you using? Wikitionary says that an attack is "an attempt to cause damage or injury to, or to somehow detract from the worth or credibility of, a person, position, idea, object, or thing, by physical, verbal, emotional, or other assault." The first example I used was an attempt at escape. The attack only came when the man grabbed the kangaroo, which would have scared the hell out of it. It was he who attacked, not the kangaroo. That it was covered in foreign media perhaps gives it notability for inclusion in Human attacks in Australia, but not this article. The second I mentioned was a defence, not an attack. There is a difference. As for listing them all in Kangaroo, that article is currently only 30.5KB. Merging the entire contents of this article would only increase the size to 37.5KB. There is plenty of room to add real attacks to the article, if there is a need. I don't think there is. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok from your list: damage.. to.. an object (house).. by physical.. assault (doesn't have to be intentional). Not everything needs to be merged into Kangaroo, there's also Kangaroo emblems and popular culture and Kangaroo meat James4750 (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Attempt" implies intent. As for the existence of other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it could be Injuries to persons or damages to property caused by kangaroos which may or may not be deliberate, provoked or in self-defence but that would be a little long-winded. James4750 (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOT#NEWS - this is a collection of trivial news reports. Kangaroos are common, large and not very smart animals with claws which sometimes panic and strike out at people when they feel cornered or are in territory which isn't familiar to them. I don't see any reason why individual attacks need to be covered. I once had a kangaroo in my backyard (which isn't at all uncommon in the small city where I live) which the park rangers told me to leave well alone when I rang to report it. If I'd bothered it and it had kicked me (deliberately or accidentally) it seems that I would have met this article's inclusion criteria... Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal cougar attacks in North America by decade: While Wikipedia is not a news archive, the large body of news stories over the years about cougar attacks (including a number of stories about cougar attacks in general rather than a particular single attack, show that this topic satisfies WP:N. I might not agree with an article about each attack which makes the newspapers, but collectively they are notable and a documented list is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James4750 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That deletion discussion (from two years ago) is about an article that deals with "fatal" attacks. None of the attacks in this article are fatal and some aren't even attacks. That makes them significantly less notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though they aren't fatal the stories are still picked up by international media, which makes them notable. James4750 (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and AussieLegend's points which are all valid. Some of the incidents may be worth summarising into the Interaction with humans section in the kangaroo article. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and other comments above. --GenericBob (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Kangaroo as an Australian i can assure you kangaroos attack quite often however the severity is on a large scale, whilst it is worth a mention and maybe a list in the Kangaroo article, maybe a new article such as "Australian Widlife Attacks" would be more appropriate, considering Australia has the top 10 deadliest snakes, not to mention our crocs and koalas (believe me u dont want to get on the wrong side of a koala), just some food for thought. Is worth a mention that drought does play a very large part in Australian animal attacks.ZooPro 12:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey seems we already have an article called Animal attacks in Australia why not just move info into that sections, with all the animal attack info that would be a top quality article.ZooPro 12:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the info wouldn't fit in one article. James4750 (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AS per my earlier comments,[17] Animal attacks in Australia is currently 30.1KB, Merging in this article would increase the article size to around 40KB. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put them in, but it was just removed [18] because it was too large James4750 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the edit summary says or what is indicated by the edits made. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was still removed, this article can't be merged into it if the info is being removed. James4750 (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus of this AfD is to merge then that's what will happen. I suspect though that the edit performed was to eliminate the non-notable entires. There are a lot of them in all of the attack articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a hell of a lot of them have simply been mined from NLA sources in violation of WP:SYN ... only those discussed in the context of historical attacks in secondary sources could reasonably speaking be included. Orderinchaos 14:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary sources state that there have been animal attacks in Australia. There is no synthesis. James4750 (talk) 21:20, 31 October 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. JForget 00:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hesketh[edit]

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

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

Prod removed. Fails WP:ATHLETE, not played at a professional level. Tassedethe (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuetral/Comment: What about all the other Perth Glory articles? Should they all be deleted? What prevents them from being deleted as well that may apply to this article?--TParis00ap (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems clear that this person has only played for the youth team and in friendly matches on tour. He has not played professionally for Perth Glory. Professional players for that team will pass WP:ATHLETE. Tassedethe (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So Glory Youth is a sub-league of Perth Glory then? If so, I can support this AfD--TParis00ap (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG; recreate if & when either of these concerns are met. GiantSnowman 21:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hasn't made an appearance and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE Spiderone 21:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Youth appearances do not confer notability per WP:ATHLETE. Has not done anything else that I am aware of that would meet broader notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:47, 30 October 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. JForget 00:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford (band)[edit]

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

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

The article has the tag that it may not meet the notability requirements for music since July 2008. After review it does not meet any of the notability requirements set forth on the page listing these requirements and should be deleted. Robkozlowski (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local band with no awards or record hits.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources just don't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 18:35, 25 October 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, which generally defaults to a keep, but in this case, we have the added element of the subject wishing the article to be deleted. That has an effect on what action to take. According to the current deletion policy:

Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete.

The outcome therefore hinges on whether Emmanuel is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure". After reviewing the discussion, I gather that Emmanuel has been the leader of political rallies and run for public office. It is difficult to conciliate those activities, where public attention is sought, with Emmanuel being a "non-public figure". Since Emmanuel's political activity make him a public figure, the "no consensus" outcome here is defaulting to keep.

While I realize the outcome may be controversial, after I feel that it is justified by "strength of arguments", the "keep" side of the discussion have provided a deeper argument, including numerous references covering Emmanuel's political activity. The delete arguments have presented the subject's desire for deletion along with an assertion of non-notability as the only reason for deletion, and the coverage by national-level newspapers has not been adressed by them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Emmanuel[edit]

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

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

My attention was brought to this article by the subject. In reviewing the article and making adjustments wrt his concerns, I realized he didn't appear particularly notable. In doing a Google search, I don't find many RS. The first reliable result that is focused on him is on page 2 of the search and reads "Reverend Tristan Emmanuel is not a household name nor an important player in the evangelical community."[19] G-News hits brings some things up, but I wasn't sure. However, today I received an email via OTRS from the subject expressing his desire for the article to be deleted. Lara 17:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems utterly non-notable. Also, as the subject requests deletion, and as it's marginal, it should be deleted. The encyclopedia is not going to be the worse-off for its absence. While I personally dislike this guy's stance on ... just about everything :p - objectively, there's just not the notability here to have it kept - Alison ^❤ 18:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is marginal at absolute best, and per Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Biographies_of_living_people weight should be given to the wishes of the subject. Kevin (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Minor party candidate in by election? not notable. And certainly not notable enough to keep against subject wishes. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tristan Emmanuel is a significant organizer among social conservatives in Canada. He organized a 2003 rally in support of the American invasion of Iraq, and had several prominent federal and provincial politicians attend as speakers. In the same year, he organized several forums among social conservatives who were opposed to same-sex marriage and to the extension of federal hate crimes legislation to encompass gays and lesbians (one newspaper report from 2003 indicates that he organized at least fifteen such forums in various urban centres). In 2005, he organized several rallies in opposition to same-sex marriage across Canada (and in the process influenced several Conservative Party nomination meetings). More recently, he was the chief organizer for Randy Hillier in the latter's bid for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. By any fair definition, Emmanuel is a public figure and a fair subject for an article. I should add that someone claiming to be Tristan Emmanuel recently attempted to remove certain passages from the article page, using arguments that I found to be less than convincing ([20]). I am not opposed to deleting the biographical pages of truly marginal figures whose future prospects may be hindered by past utterances, but Tristan Emmanuel is not a marginal figure. He received extensive media coverage in 2003 and 2005-06, and the fact that most of the articles in question no longer turn up in Google searches is quite beside the point. I'm certainly not in favour of removing sourced, accurate and relevant information that a notable subject finds inconvenient. In response to Lar: Emmanuel's notability does not derive from his electoral record, but from his organizational work. Since you've mentioned it, however, I should note that the standard practice is to redirect entries for failed political candidates to centralized list pages. If the consensus view is that Emmanuel is non-notable, the proper course of action would be to summarize and redirect the page, not to delete it. In response to the nominator, I can only say that Richard Viguerie isn't a household name either, but no one familiar with his efforts in the public sphere would deny his notability. CJCurrie (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Per CJCurrie. While he may not be a household name, I have no doubts about the notability of this person, and the article seems well referenced. His notability derives from the political sphere, but not from his electoral record. DigitalC (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow-up comment: This article in the Georgia Strait counters the idea that he isn't notable, describing him as one of Canada's "most politically active social conservatives" DigitalC (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —DigitalC (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CJCurrie, DigitalC and the Georgia Straight. His various activities as political candidate, organizer and author cumulate to mkae him notable even if the activities individually may not (although I think CJC has addressedt hat effectively.) Ground Zero | t 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per Alison, Kevin, and Lar especially with regards their accurate comment relating to our keeping this minor biography against the subject's wishes. I have also read the strongly put request by CJCurrie to keep - however I say (without attempting to or hopefully actually upsetting that editor) that I have noted in the edit history of the article a continuing argument between CJCurrie and what appears to be the subject in regards to claims about the subject's COI. Whilst I generally can respect CJCurrie's concern about COI, I am left with a strong feeling that there is a degree of ownership by him over this article which does not take into account the subject's reasonable wishes. In a nutshell whilst I respect the defence of an article by editors so interested I think in this case that level of defence has moved beyond a healthy encylopedia driven response.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question pertaining to the previous post: in light of the recent changes, is the subject of the article still insistent on its deletion? CJCurrie (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I should clarify my reason for asking this question: I've recently made a number of adjustments to the article, taking into account the subject's prior complaints. Given that the subject did not make a request for deletion until a few days ago, and that the conditions under which he made this request no longer exist, I am curious as to whether or not he still believes the page should be removed. CJCurrie (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I will email him to ask. Thank you. Lara 00:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  He said he's traveling and will review and respond Friday. Lara 16:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Has he responded yet? CJCurrie (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. I've just checked. He said he reviewed the changes and still wishes to proceed with the deletion discussion. Lara 15:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We should absolutely honor the subject's request. — Jake Wartenberg 22:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I see no reason not to honor the wishes of the person who the article is about; especially if they aren't truly that notable. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - while not a household name in the US, he seems notable enough. This is the sort of article however that can run into trouble with negative information, as the subjects views are not popular amongst large sections of modern western society. and I would urge all editors who vote keep to watchlist and be vigilant for extraneous crap. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well sourced, notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The individual is a willing public figure so his personalpreference in regards to having an article or not should not be given weight. It is much more reasonable to consider courtesy deletion for private figures. A well known political activist is clearly not a private figure. We also have enough sourcing to meet WP:BIO so the article should be kept. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable, as is evidenced by the profile of him in Canada's national newspaper, the Globe and Mail (cited in the article), and by his recent role in the leadership race for the Conservative Party of Ontario (the second largest party in Canada's largest province). His own preference to not have an article, as JoshuaZ notes, should not be relevant to our decision. Bucketsofg 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The numerous references show, cumulatively, pretty clear notability. The subject’s apparent desire to not have an article about themself should carry no weight here. The key here, as with all such articles, is to ensure that WP:BLP is being followed, which the well-cited content of the articles seems to do. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Internet Leaks. Black Kite 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ringtone (song)[edit]

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

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

Questions about its notability by other users, one user tried to redirect, but hadn't waited for discussion to close Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CNR (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Skipper Dan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Adding sister minor singles off the same album to the nom. They should be handled as a group for consistency. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I started this RFD because the redirect process wasn't handled probably, not because I think the song's not notable. I believe that there is precedent that notable artist + single + music video = notable. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There is no claim of notability in the article for the song. I nominated for merge with the album, another editor merged, it has now been unmerged and re-merged a couple of times. It is good it has been brought here for discussion. There is no WP guidance that makes this song notable because there is a video. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the same rationale, Beautiful, Dirty, Rich, a good article, would get booted; it wasn't even released as a single, as Ringtone was Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as an experienced editor you should know that it is WP guidance that matters, not what happens in other articles. Have you notified other interested parties? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by interested parties you mean the people involved in the article discussion plus the articles creator, I believe I have Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have, sorry for suggesting that you might not have done. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Internet Leaks. Song is barely notable to justify a full article. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Singles from established artists seem like they should be notable. Also helps make the Weird Al singles succession in {{Infobox single}} continuous as opposed to jumping erratically. But I am the article creator and there aren't a lot of sources covering the single on its own in great depth (but then again it is only 1 song), and I readily cop to this argument being more or less "inherited" notability, hence my vote is Weak. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Internet Leaks. Doesn't even begin to meet the guidelines established on Wikipedia:Notability. CNR (song), Ringtone (song), and Skipper Dan all should redirect to the Internet Leaks page. The articles are too brief and lack any citations or anything to establish notability. Funny how I post a discussion about whether or not to merge, and no one responds until I go through with the merge. Spman (talk) 04:26, 26 October 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. JForget 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robb knie[edit]

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

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

Non-notable financial analyst Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can come up with some sources and a better claim to notability. Hardly even good enough to pass speedy as it is. The one link provided is only a mention. Hairhorn (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:17, 26 October 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. JForget 00:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinwardship[edit]

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

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

Admitted original research and neologism. Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable original research. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:N. There was already a prod on the article. Joe Chill (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The creator of the article directly says on its discussion page that this was original research. Doesn't get much more straightforward than that. —Smeazel (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Drivel. Also unquestionably OR. andy (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. tedder (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Was speedied once, but then re-created. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 20:42, 29 October 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. JForget 00:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SC Stunts[edit]

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

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

Non-notable film project lacking GHits of substance and zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom - making a few videos and posting them on MySpace does not make one notable without (the lacking) third party coverage. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 00:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing notable here. Just some teen club in which they videotape their antics. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. These two related AfDs should be combined to save time. They both fail notability and the one is not likely to survive if the other is deleted. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and append to include:

SC08 Extended Version (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

9mv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

13mv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

none comes anywhere close to meeting notability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN Josh Parris 10:12, 26 October 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. Most of the Keep votes are basically saying that all enclosed malls are notable, which isn't the case as many have been deleted in the past. With such a small size and little secondary sourcing, the onus appears to fall on the delete side. Black Kite 20:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University Mall (Athens, Ohio)[edit]

University Mall (Athens, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Almost no secondary sources found; unsourced original research, no real notability asserted. Only hits found were trivial (award for the manager of the Penney's) or false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was tempted to favor deletion until I perused the category. Can we really say that this mall is less notable than the other rather numerous Ohio shopping malls in Wikipedia? Athens is the home of Ohio University, and I believe that this is the biggest or perhaps only mall in town. It obviously requires sourcing, and in searching the Athens News website I found a large number of articles. By the way, according to the Athens News, it is now known as the Market on State.[21]. Cats can be neutered there, I hear.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I did find a couple sources that might help, but the article still needs a lot of work. Also, if the only coverage is local, does that really make it individually notable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't coverage of most Ohio malls be local? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I don't know what the heck I'm saying. Anyway, I wouldn't oppose a merge since I can't find much more than what I just put in there (haven't confirmed that Tractor took the old JCPenney, but with the other three anchors accounted for, it has to be there). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it's absurd to have an article on every sizable shopping mall in Ohio. But that seems to be the practice. If someone nominated all except the most clearly notable for deletion, I'd favor deletion of all without significant statewide notoriety, and that would include this mall. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems enclosed malls are of a magnitude that they're considered notable. Keep consistent with the practice of keeping articles on numerous enclosed malls. --JamesAM (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the number that have been deleted over time, what is this based on? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with JamesAM, enclosed malls are almost to the point of inherent notability.--Milowent (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete enclosed or not enclosed is not a determining factor in notability. Enclosed malls can be rather small. Generally super regional malls are notable and there is no indication that this mall falls into that size range. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Actually, most mall articles have been long since deleted, or redirected to the locality. It would immensely help to know the size of this mall, and I finally found it, [22] It's 300,000 square feet, and that's way under the size for most cases. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Malls over 800,000 square feet are "super regional" and have commonly been kept in AFDs. This one seems of local interest only, and does not even make the 400,000 square foot cutoff for a regional mall. Per a tally on the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers) (failed notability proposal) of the size of malls and whether they were kept in some past AFDs, most this small have been deleted. Edison (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep see Category:Shopping malls for thousands of mall articles of all sizes which anyone can see who is willing to look up through the category tree. No valid reason provided to go after this particular mall. There is no criteria that establishes that only malls of a certain size or notability are to be kept in WP--these are just random opinions of certain editors. Hmains (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this was the first or only nomination of articles like this, then maybe you could claim that this article was targeted. But I don't see how this could be the case here. Small not notable malls are nominated on a regular basis. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:47, 31 October 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. JForget 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Jossie[edit]

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

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

The individual hasn't done anything notable in his career, so far. He was in the WWE training facility for a while, and now he holds a five-minute fake talk-show on the WWE's least important television show. None of that makes me believe he meets our notability requirements. iMatthew ^talk at 13:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Are you getting me? First, people should ignore the nominator's OR and POV about ECW. Besides being the GM in FCW (where he appears on TV every week), he also has a recurring interview segment on the internationally broadcasted ECW, which is often used to help build feuds. TJ Spyke 14:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not "getting you." My comment about ECW isn't OR or my POV. It's just common sense. How does either of the things you mentioned make him notable? If he were to get fired today, in 5 years from now, would we really need to know that he was the on-screen GM of a training facility? No, of course not. Same goes for his "talk-show" - nothing notable has ever happened on it, right? iMatthew ^talk at 14:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is calling ECW "WWE's least important television show" not POV? Besides the fact that you are implying A.M. Raw (which airs Sundays at 1AM and compresses Raw down into 1 hour) is more important, it's based on your own personal opinion and is OR. As for your second comment, you could say the same thing about any wrestler. Have you even watched the show? His segment has helped further push many feuds (like Benjamin-Sheamus, Swagger-Christian, etc.) Being the lead authority figure in a notable indy promotion (don't try and distort facts and mislead readers by claiming it's just a WWE training facility. That's like calling Triple A baseball teams nothing more than "MLB training facilities".) helps out his notability case. Hell, I would argue that his role in FCW alone has been notable enough to warrant an article. TJ Spyke 16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not even a question. He is a regular character on a weekly television show. The fact that this is even up for deletion is preposterous to me. --ECWAGuru (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Keep Agree with TJ Spyke completely. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Oh boy. TJ covered matters very well. !! Justa Punk !! 04:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per TJ Spyke. GetDumb 04:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope the closing administrator takes these three comments lightly. TJ's rationale is wrong. Although he is a regular on the show, he's only been on it for a month or two, and in that time he hasn't done anything to establish notability. iMatthew ^talk at 12:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A month or two"...or four (according to the very article you are trying to have deleted). I hope the closing administrator takes notice that you are distorting the facts in pushing an absolutely unnecessary agenda. I also hope that the closing administrator sees that this allegedly "not notable" character has his own bio page on WWE's homepage Abraham Washington. Yes, all signed WWE superstars have their own bio page -- which is why all signed WWE superstars have their own Wiki page as well.--ECWAGuru (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Having a WWE bio does not prove notability on our encyclopedia. iMatthew ^talk at 13:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Then please find a wrestler on the current WWE roster that does not have a Wiki page. He has a WWE bio page because he is on WWE television on a relatively regular basis. Just because you subjectively see ECW as a third-rate show, it doesn't change the fact that he is a regular character (not to mention his work in FCW). I'd like to also add that, in your attempt to persuade administrators to delete the article, you have used "Brian Jossie" in the various searches to establish notability. Yes, a Google search of "Brian Jossie" turns up 10,500 hits. But, for the record, a Google search of "Abraham Washington" (his ring name) turns up 207,000 hits. Perhaps this is more of an argument to redirect the article to his more well-known name of Abraham Washington. I've been arguing for quite awhile that Wiki is very inconsistent when it comes to establishing whether or not a main article should be a wrestler's real name or ring name. I'm sorry -- I just do not see the argument to delete him altogether.--ECWAGuru (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)**[reply]
              • • Considering we've had two presidents named "Abraham" and "Washington" of course there would be 207,000 hits of pages with those names together. For an example as you asked, Ranjin Singh has a WWE bio but no article. iMatthew ^talk at 13:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • • • Not if you put "Abraham Washington" in quotes, which is what I did. And fair enough on finding that Ranjin Singh did not have an article. However, I'd absolutely argue that Washington's contributions (though for a shorter length of time) have been more notable than Singh.--ECWAGuru (talk) 14:12, 31 October 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. JForget 00:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons in the sky[edit]

Dragons in the sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No claim that this is a notable book, doesn't meet notability for books, google doesn't help. Author doesn't seem to meet notability Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This link says it clearly, this is a small, essentially self published, undiscovered book.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What makes you say it's "essentially self published"? I looked around the publisher's web page, and can find nothing about their requiring authors to subsidize publications, or about any connections between the author and the publisher—nor is there anything indicating this on the page you linked to. Of course, even if it's not self-published, that still by no means means it's necessarily notable enough for a Wikipedia entry; I was just wondering why you said it was "essentially self published"... "Self published" and "published by a small press" are not the same thing. —Smeazel (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct, and i was being sloppy in my comments. it just looked like such a small, marginal publisher. i didnt check thoroughly to see if they charged for publishing. i have no more info than you. My aim was just to try to point out the titles nonnotability, but my choice of words was poor. to my thinking, many (but not all) books at the margins of small press/self published/vanity press start to all look the same (i worked in the book business for years)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet notability guidelines for books. JBsupreme (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Contrary to a statement above, I can find no indication that this book was in any sense self-published. Unfortunately, I can also find no indication of notability. There are a number of very positive reviews online, so maybe this is a very good book that deserves more notice... but until it's received coverage in reliable sources, Wikipedia is not the place for it to get that notice. —Smeazel (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the kind words to the author. i like it when authors can hear that we are deleting based on notability not quality.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:45, 25 October 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. JForget 00:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HillJack[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Evil saltine (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Name-drops a lot, but doesn't asssert notability. There is a band of the nearly-same name which may be notable, though its name isn't CamelCased. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article re-written encyclopedic to meet standards. Premature deletion under simple personal guise of unknown notability risks relevance of Wikipedia to others whom this American personality is recognized. In other words, just because you don't know who this person is, doesn't mean others are also unaware. Wise choice would be to secure Wikipedia relevance and allow re-written article to remain, so others will continue to look to Wikipedia for even the most obscure knowledge. Wikiqwiki (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does not include every bit of obscure knowledge. See Wikipedia:Notability. Evil saltine (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then Wikipedia risks its own relevance. Just a word to the wise: Don't base Wikipedia upon your own known knowledge. Others would think less of Wikipedia as a reliable source. From Wikipedia:Notability "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Consider this: The inclusion of this article does not hurt the relevance of Wikipedia... but removing it does. Wikiqwiki (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability. Above commenter (Wikiqwiki) seems to badly misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia; arguments that Wikipedia is risking its own relevance or importance by not including articles on obscure people and phenomena are nothing new, and don't hold any more weight now than they did when they were first advanced. What's needed to establish notability of this person isn't vague assertions that some people know who this person is or dire prognostications of Wikipedia's decline in relevance; it's links to coverage of this person in reliable sources. I looked, but couldn't find any. (A Google News Archive search, for example, turns up absolutely no relevant hits—it does turn up 65 hits, but most are about the country music band mentioned above, and the remainder simply use "hilljack" as a vocabulary word; none are about the subject of this article.) —Smeazel (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough significant coverage to show notability. Kevin (talk) 00:01, 28 October 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. JForget 00:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newman Enterprises[edit]

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

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

Article about fictional company within Young and the Restless. No reliable third party sources to demonstrate notability. No references at all, in fact--just a long plot summary. Blargh29 (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Do we need to update [{WP:CORP]] for fictional companies? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It reads like an extended plot summary for a soap opera. Warrah (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It fails WP: GNG, not to mention WP:TRIV.
• On a side note, there's an alarming amount of articles just like or worse such as Chancellor Industries, Chandler Enterprises, NVP Retreats, Forrester Creations, and Fusion Cosmetics. Rocksey (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have put most of them up for AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - fictional company should be part of the show CynofGavuf 07:13, 28 October 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) Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary proof[edit]

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

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

Unclear as to notability, seems little more than a turn of phrase with no consistent meaning. Leon (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be a little clearer, the meaning here isn't ostensibly too similar to here and neither to here. Whilst the expression appears quite a lot, this does not make it notable. Surely "elegant proof" comes up quite a lot also, but that's not worthy of an article.--Leon (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Those links do all give the same definition - the latter two are just special cases of it as are applicable to that particular proof. The definition is consistent, just a little vague - it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things (in special cases it can be defined precisely). This could just be merged into mathematical proof, but I think there is enough to say to warrant a whole article. Some discussion of other elementary proofs would be nice, as would a discussion of why mathematicians like elementary proofs (with some quotes). Some history of the term and of the quest to find such proofs would also be good. I think if all that were written there would be more than enough to make a good article. --Tango (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep definition is consistent; subject is notable; article is well written and sourced. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As regards notability, the remark by Goldfeld that the "elementary proof of the prime number theorem was quite a sensation at the time" seems enough for me. And (with Tango) I see the definitions pointed to above as being consistent. Paul August ☎ 15:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Regarded as a meaningful term and regularly used by highly competent mathematicians, whose judgement shouldn't be second-guessed here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google scholar finds about 1000 papers with "elementary proof" in their titles. That's way more than enough. I added a couple more references that are less about specific individual elementary proofs and more about the general topic of elementary proof. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The nominator's assertion that "elegant proof" is not worthy of an article is far from self-evident, to say the least. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed - we have mathematical beauty, which elegant proof could easily redirect to. --Tango (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For a good time, see the talk page for the corresponding Conservapedia article for proprietor Andrew Schlafly's doubts about the existence of √−1 and his theory that an elementary proof is one that can't be broken down into smaller subatomic particles. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wouldn't recommend Schlafly's judgement.--Leon (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If the issue is possible different meanings, one could limit the article to elementary proofs in number theory, which is to say proofs that use no complex analysis. That meaning of "elementary proof" is easy to source to lots of number theory texts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although the term isn't well-defined, it is widely used. The article could reflect several interpretations of the term, with sources. --Robin (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep (tiny COI disclaimer: I started this article) This is a term that is frequently used especially in the historical context of the Prime Number Theorem. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Two issues: (1) It's not a precisely defined mathematical concept; it's a cultural thing. That's not a problem if the article is up-front about that. (2) In regard to the prime number theorem the use of the term is traditional. What it means in other contexts is another matter. Maybe the thing should be two separate articles: elementary proof (prime number theorem) and elementary proof (mathematics (or something like that)). Michael Hardy (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this agrees with what I was saying: we could focus primarily on the meaning in number theory, where things are more clear, and mention lower in the article that "elementary" is used in other fields as well, with varying meanings. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Further Comment I'm prepared to accept that I might be wrong on the subject not being notable at all; however, I fail to see why it might warrant two distinct articles for the (at least) two usages of the word. See page 13 of this for some discussion of usages.--Leon (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think two articles are needed; we can cover everything in one place and it will make more sense that way. Throwing the unusual stuff into a separate article almost always leads to that second article being poorly-organized and hard to motivate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, one article is better. I don't see why something not being precisely defined should prevent it having an article; the article should just explain the definition and why it is vague and what disagreement, if any, there is about it. --Tango (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Its elementary, my dear. JBsupreme (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whichever horse's ass nominated this page for deletion should clearly never be allowed near the deletion template again. Having said that, the way things are run around here, I expect the page to be removed regardless. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your foul language is completely uncalled-for. Please be WP:CIVIL. --Robin (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obsessive: Please refactor your personal attack. Further, given what seems like a clear, well reasoned consensus to keep, your "prediction" that the closing admin will delete is unfounded and inflammatory (in a self-defeating, waive a red handkerchief in a bull's face sort of way). —Finell (Talk) 05:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A suitably short article on a widely used term; it isn't the article's fault that the term's definition is fuzzy, and the article discusses the fuzziness. Decently sourced. It could, like most articles, be improved, but there is no good reason to delete it. —Finell (Talk) 05:02, 31 October 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. The article remains in a poor state but there's a rough consensus here that there are enough sources to demonstrate notability and potentially produce a viable encyclopedia article here. ~ mazca ^talk 01:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Profonda[edit]

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

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

I've just declined the spam speedy on this, though it's probably borderline. Is a new musical instrument notable? Wikipedia, it's over to you... GedUK  10:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why should a new instrument not be notable? At least it seamed to be notable to other-language pages of Wikipedia... It's name and construction is new but it doesn't stand for it's own, because it considers long european tradition of classical music theory. It is already accepted and has been presented in expert-forums: http://www.aesav.com/documentos/Calendario%20de%20actividades%20II.pdf

Greetz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.56.20 (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I tagged it for speedy deletion because there is absolutely no evidence this is a notable instrument; when this is coupled with its recent invention and the only link in the article being primary this appears to be spam. Whether spam or not, if notability is not demonstrated - and it currently is not - then the article should be deleted. I42 (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The idea of a tenor-range string instrument is relevant and notable as you can appreciate at:

• Viola da gamba
• Tenor violin

So it achieves to be categorized in the categories music theory and it’s verified existance in bowed string instruments.

Neither is the reader of the article being guided to buy anything nor does the article aim to sell the described object; so it’s not spam.

Moreover it was also already accepted in other-languages Wikipedia-pages.

Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come.- ^[1]

— Diderot

Why should Viola Profonda not be notable? Just because it has not as many hits as Air Jordan yet when locking for it in a search engine?

Brgds

• Comment No reason why it should not be notable. But is it? An official website is not an indicator of notability. There has been an article on the German Wikipedia, with so far as I can see no attempt to nominate for deletion. However, the different language Wikipedias have their own rules and procedures. There only appears to be one of these violas in existence - so far. If more references from outside sources were forthcoming, including perhaps some supporting the idea behind the instrument, things might look rosier for the article. (Personally, I think the theorising behind the development of this instrument is a bit like the Baconian theories of Shakespeare, but rather like the idea of the instrument. With due respect to the viola players I know, I've never quite seen the point of an instrument so close to the violin...). As to ghits, they are an indicator not a requirement. References outside the 'official' and self-edited are essential. Peridon (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Found one source in spanish.[23] Which does still not warrant a separate article. Maybe this can be mentioned somewhere?--Tikiwont (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for this comment. (Concerning the German Wikipedia-article: it was initially deleted because of the form and then accepted after having executed some changes.) The most important point on the theory of this instrument is its timbre (which also differs a Viola from a Violin and which is the main reason for the existance of both instruments): one of the most important issues in music in general. The own tone-colour of this tenor-string instrument, the possibility to play it easily being a Violin player and (again) the completion of the classic music-theory of four seperate voices within the strings-family make it notable. Brgds —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro.tone (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I did find two newspaper articles covering the instrument, which would seem to meet the criteria for multiple secondary sources. That's assuming, however, that these newspapers are reliable sources—they're both foreign-language newspapers (La Razón from Bolivia and El Comercio from Asturias) with which I am unfamiliar. —Smeazel (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Page of a recognized composer announcing a composition for Viola Profonda [[24]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro.tone (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Duplicate !vote struck Reference on the page of the spanish viola association.[[25]](Pro.tone (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• announcement in the classic magazine with most reputation in germany [[26]](Pro.tone (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• I think the article should be kept, unless the instrument builder really wanted to produce just one copy - which is hard to believe. Imagine Wikipedia had existed in the year 1700. Then we would have discussed whether the pianoforte was notable. The Viola Profonda does exist, and a few compositions have been written for it. But the writer of the article could have put more stress on the fact that filling the gap between viola and cello was Yañez's idea, and not a need that was deeply felt by the musical community.

There are also some things I miss in the article. What about the instrument's size? Is it bigger than an alto? The prototype was built in 2007. How many Violas Profondas are in existence now? How many compositions have been written for this instrument by now? Is there anyone who knows? Sijtze Reurich (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. A list of completed compositions can be found here: [[27]] There are already much more in progress, but naturally they can't be posted in this article yet. Furthermore the VP is able to cover the tenor voice in any string quartet-composition with declared tenor-voice; for example the "Art of fuge" of J.S.Bach. The "Art of fuge" was already performed at the VPs' world premier (please see the CRESCENDO-reference in the article) and at the 2nd national congress of the spanish viola association.

Regarding the size of the VP and the existing number of items the article has been updated. Any additional, detailed information would be added in a future.

Brgds Pro.tone (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 1700 we might also have discussed other instruments which did not go on to become notable. Wikipedia requires articles that are already notable, not those which might become so. I42 (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear I42, "which ...might become so." is interesting. In 2007 Wikipedia didn't seem to have a notability-concern with a new instrument as you can appreciate here: Reactable. At least it wasn't nominated for quick-delete... The VP exists, was mentioned in reliable sources and has a logic fundament; therefore the VP-article is notable enough to be kept.

Pro.tone (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; each article has to be considered on its own merit, and comparison with the Reactable article is irrelevant. So, considering the VP alone, the fact that it exists is not an indication of notability. Nor, in itself, is the fact that some pieces have been written/commissioned for it. However, the references to it may assert notability; I haven't had the opportunity to properly study them yet, and may not be able to form a judgement at all as they are not English publications. If a closing admin does decide notability is met then those references must be incorporated into the article. I42 (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear I42, the comparison with other articles is irrelevant, right. The hint to the Reactable-article was intended to aim with a 2007-view at the "In 1700...instruments which did not go on to become notable"-argument. BrgdsPro.tone (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not all new instruments are notable, but based on the foreign-language sources, this appears to be so. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 2 November 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 speedily deleted as a hoax . TNXMan 14:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filippo Perucchini[edit]

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

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

It's a hoax article about a footballer who has never played professionaly. Luxic (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Luxic (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it's a hoax, shouldn't it be a speedy delete? If not, delete anyway as there are no claims to notability as required by WP:GNG. WFCforLife (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete hoax, with an admin taking a look at the creator's contributions in general. Creator appears to have a long history of creating hoax articles, and has on at least one occasion re-created what seems to have been a speedily deleted article (Emanouel Okoue). I have no way of telling on what basis it was deleted and re-created, but it definitely needs to be looked at. WFCforLife (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - a blatant hoax. I have tagged it for speedy. GiantSnowman 14:26, 25 October 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 speedied G3. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy Jones[edit]

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

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

Aside from WP:V and WP:NOT#NEWS concerns, this appears to be a hoax. No evidence to support the article can be found and the obviously fake "McCarthy Jones Last Known Picture" is the clincher for me. I42 (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - clearly a hoax. I've tagged it with {{db-hoax}} andy (talk) 11:56, 25 October 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. NW (Talk) 15:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OutSystems[edit]

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

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

Promotion of non-notable company, written by a series of SPAs. Haakon (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article content needs work, but OutSystems is noteworthy in its market (Reuters, Reuters, TechRepublic), and in its country as you can see by the amount of articles originally written in Portuguese (OutSystems in the news). Plus, I would be sad to see only very large companies beeing described in wikipedia. It is not uncommon for me to look for information about companies of similar or even smaller size, like some that appear in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_game_companies_of_the_United_Kingdom. User:lucio_ferrao —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Arguing that smaller (and therefore lesser notable) companies should be on Wikipedia is an argument for changing Wikipedia's guidelines, not for keeping this article. "Other stuff exists" is not an argument to keep this one. Haakon (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of coverage in mainstream Portuguese media - Público (via Lusa), Expresso, Diário de Notícias, Sapo. Gr1st (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note, however, that the Reuters sources given above are both press releases and therefore do not confer notability. Still a keep from me, however. Gr1st (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Is this company only notable in Portugal for serving a Portugese market? From a global perspective, this company is not notable. Miami33139 (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last time I checked, Wikipedia's notability guidelines didn't require the subject of an article to be notable "from a global perspective", but rather to be the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Gr1st (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This company is notable internationally. It has been included in two Gartner Magic Quadrants. In particular, OutSystems was rated the most visionary company in Gartner's "Magic Quadrant for Application Infrastructure for SOA Composite Application Projects". It has also been covered by other international analyst firms like the Butler Gruop, Ovum, Forrester and MWD Advisors, as well as independent sources like Techrepublic and Atos Origin. All these external sources were included in the original version of this article. OutSystems has an international presence and doesn't only serve the Portuguese market. Mozzello 12:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: — Mozzello (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Gr1st (talk) 16:36, 31 October 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. JForget 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Davis (American football)[edit]

Marcus Davis (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject is a freshman college football player who has not yet established notability. While college football players can satisfy general notability guidelines, a good faith search does not reveal significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media (i.e., coverage beyond passing reference in game coverage). Cbl62 (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Cbl62 (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ATH (hasn't played in the highest level of the sport) and WP:GNG (hasn't receivied significant third-party coverage).--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 13:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He's only caught one pass in his college career. To include him would almost be like saying that any BCS football player's article should be kept. The inclusion of college athletes should not be so broad. --JamesAM (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-For the record in future AFD's it's nice to notify the author of the discussion, also in the edit summary in the article, you should switchout Nominationname with name of the article, I have no opinion one way or the other on the article.--SKATER ^Speak. 19:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry about that Skater. This is my first AfD nomination, and we had spoken on your talk page about the article. So I thought you were aware of the intention, but I should have provided a further note about the AfD when it posted last night. Cbl62 (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries, you might wanna try WP:Twinkle takes care of the pain in the ass that is deleting in a couple of seconds.--SKATER ^Speak. 03:04, 26 October 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. JForget 00:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PyGoWave[edit]

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

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

The article does not indicate any notability of the software and reads like a description better suited to the project's own website rather than Wikipedia. Speedy was declined on the grounds that it is not blatant advertising, and the PROD was contested on the grounds that "This needs to be there because of being only viable alternative to the open-source future of the web." ♣ Ameliorate! 08:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As it stands now, the article may not be blatant advertising, but it is certainly stroking this area, since it would appear that the article itself is simply a copy off a description page from their own website (e.g. notice the lack of Wikilinks). In addition, the argument that Wikipedia must have this article is flawed too. Not until this piece of software becomes a noticeable alternative to the current Google Wave server can its article be justified. And as of right now, it is not even public yet. And I see no Third Party sources describing this software just yet. --Svip^pong 09:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP: It may need to be cut down/altered to fit into Wikipedia, but it is important for various Wave servers, not just googles, to be listed. Pygo, specifically, implements an open and documented client/sever protocol...something google has not got. For developers working on making clients from scratch, its not only an "alternative" its our only realistic option. -ThomasWrobel(13:42, 27 Oct (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.17.125 (talk)
  • Note that your reasoning should be based on Wikipedia policy, in this case WP:N and/or WP:IAR. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any reliable source coverage beyond the Mashable story; at least 2 reliable pieces of coverage are required by the notability guideline. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wave is going to be the next buzzword for throwaway projects isn't it? Miami33139 (talk) 20:18, 29 October 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. JForget 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tricadecathlonomania[edit]

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

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

non-notable and WP:MADEUP. Ironholds (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this scavenger hunt. Joe Chill (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm sure this is a real event, and I'm sure the participants enjoy themselves - but we can't have an article unless there are reliable sources, and I'm not seeing evidence of that. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:22, 28 October 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garuda Indonesia Flight 865[edit]

Garuda Indonesia Flight 865 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 07:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Resulted in the death of three people in my mind any incident causing fatalities should be kept and expanded on. Plus WP:AIRCRASH is but an essay, not a guideline nor policy. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decline. The article itself does not include appropriate encyclopedic content.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 02:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Standard practice here is that accidents in commercial airline flights are notable if death results. What is needed is expansion. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG. Article can easily be expanded from this source. Mjroots (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mjroots.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep resulted in death, just a stub needs expanding not deleting. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lack of source, is this keepable or does it meet the criteria for deletion?--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you need sources then I have found many; [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 01:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone please close this AfD? I'm tired of waiting for more consensus, but noooo, not even a single user is contributing to this AfD.--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 13:09, 30 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italo-Greek Orthodox Church[edit]