Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 17

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 16 April 18 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. One (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Chuana

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

Non-notable band. They seem to have self-published some music, and played in front of audiences, but that's about it. No major tours, no media coverage, no reliable sources whatsoever apparent from their meager google coverage. All sources given are to unreliable sources (including the band's official website). The article itself describes the band as being active "on [the] underground". And that means - dun dun dunnn - that no reliable coverage is likely to exist. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the request for deletion of this article here is only a mirror of the request on the SK-wiki [1] and the CS-wiki [2], where you coould get the feeling of watching a war. Probably the author did something that does not fit the admins and his article is to be deleted. For the SK-wiki and CS-wiki the band is relevant. Regards, 217.83.49.239 (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. That band is unknown and nonnotable and not fulfill requirements of encyclopedic relevance in (and for) both countries, Czech Republic and Slovakia; based on the current status of voting it seem like that article will be deleted at both wikis.-- 
talk 13:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
You are not true. It seems that article will be kept at Czech Wikipedia, some new source were added. --Dezidor (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only "third party" sources I see added were this and this (I'm ignoring the webzine, as that would never be an RS under en.Wikipedia standards). Now, I don't know what the Czech standards are (nor does it make a difference), but those would be considered trivial listings and don't establish notability, as far as the English Wikipedia's notability guideline is concerned. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, I'll try to translate previous Czech comment: Maria Chuana is notable also for English Wikipedia, since there are several sources proving its notability. Two sources ([5] and [6]) call Maria Chuana an underground legend. Furthermore, we have an interview with them here, and also a review of their last album. Maria Chuana is mentioned also in the Again With Hatred LP review of the Czech trash metal band
    Vejvančický (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm still opposing, since the sources and coverage are trivial in my opinion. In that case we should have thousands articles for thousands of Czech (or Slovak) bands with similar "notability", and that's inadmissible for Wikipedia, IMO. Notability guideline for English Wikipedia is here, check please. --
Vejvančický (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The article was deleted on the Slovak Wikipedia. There is, however, continuing discussion (and almost war :)) between fans, members of the band, former manager of the band and editors of the Slovak Wikipedia. --
Vejvančický (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey Harmony Chorus

Surrey Harmony Chorus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I almost speedied this as blatant advertising, but am going to give it the benefit of the doubt seeing as it's been up for three years without any apparent objection. This appears to be a fairly blatant attempt to use Wikipedia as a free web host; I appreciate that "won the gold medal at the UK Championships" is an assertion of notability, but I'm not convinced this isn't a "small pond, not a big fish" situation. Google appears to bring up nothing other than false positives, Wikipedia mirrors, and their own website.  – 

iridescent 23:26, 17 April 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 both. One (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands Antilles – United States relations

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

Bilateral relations are relations between states. The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are not states; under international law and Dutch law, they are part of the Netherlands. The United States also recognises this (eg, [7]). Thus, since the two are not states, and since the Netherlands is responsible for their foreign relations, the articles should be deleted. Biruitorul Talk 22:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Aruba – United States relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep both There are other types of relations than diplomatic. This is a distinct political and economic entity, so we should WP:first see what we can find before nominating. Going by the sources, if the USDept of State considers them appropriate for a full entry, perhaps we should. Or are we a more reliable authority?DGG (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - this is very similar to
    Bermuda-United States relations in which Bermuda, an overseas territory of the UK shares very close ties to the US. In this instance even the bermudan currency is pegged directly to the USD showing that the territory does not have to be independent to prove its relationship. In the cases of the two Caribbean islands up for deletion, it should be noted they are greatly affected by US tourism, and us businesses. So basically just deleting for the purpose of deleting is not productive in this situation. --Marcusmax(speak) 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I am in agreement with DGG and Marcusmax. This is not one of those whimsical X-Y relations articles where it seems the countries were pulled out of a hat.
    talk) 01:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep both as non-controversial. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Hooray, someone finally nominated a couple of these articles that have the United States as one of the X-Y nations. Biruitorul is entirely right-- Aruba is not a nation, and the Netherlands Antilles is not a nation. No matter how autonomous either place may be, no matter how many American tourists go to Aruba, no matter whether the State Department has a branch office on a Caribbean island... the U.S. does not make an end-run around the Netherlands in order to enter into agreements with these two parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. We might as well have an article about Puerto Rico-Russia relations. Frankly, these articles suffer from the same deficiency that the Groubanis do... a directory of offices and personalities, with no actual evidence of a notable relationship... except that Groubani knows the difference between an independent nation and a dependency. Mandsford (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An idealistic view of foreign relations; the Machiavellianism that can be so important in foreign relations work is a very good reason for all these articles to exist. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least Machiavelli knew what he was writing about. Mandsford (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How can a country have relations with something that is not a country? It would be one thing if the Antilles claimed independence, but since they don't make any attempt at independence, there's no way that they can have foreign relations. We need (perhaps we already have it, I don't know) an article on
    United States-Netherlands relations to cover this topic. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Hi Nyttend, this (also noted below) says the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles are different countries--the source is the Dutch government. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks to nominator for alerting me. Sure, the Antilles are part of the kingdom of the Netherlands, but they are also separate in some ways. I don't to make this another list of one news item after another, but I think there are plenty of those ways besides the merely diplomatic. First of all, the Antilles do really count as a country--as in that the Antilles, Aruba, and the Netherlands agreed in 2001 to join in combating terrorism, which would be strange if the Antilles were a province or even a state (in the US-way) (see [8], esp. "De drie landen binnen het Koninkrijk...," "the three countries within the kingdom"). Second, the Antilles have their own flag under which ships can be registered--such as the freighter attacked by Somali pirates in January (who will be prosecuted, incidentally, in the motherland), reported on here, par. 10. And even financially there is a difference between the motherland and the Antilles, since the latter are a tax haven ([9]); why the Netherlands are not, I don't know.

    Again, an expert on Dutch law will know this better than I do, but the above three sources suggest that there's enough 'difference' to warrant the US dealing with the Antilles separately, at least in some matters, and the struggle against drug trafficking is only one of those ways, even if that is ratified by the Dutch

    Eerste Kamer--see here, and this site mentioning Aruba and Curacao as "Forward Operating Locations" (in the same breath, even though officially they are different entities). So I say keep. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was Speedy delete as a

blatant hoax. There are absolutely zero hits on Google outside of Wikipedia mirrors. This was obviously made up by the creator and only substantial editor to the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Nousics

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

Apparently either a hoax or an incredibly obscure neologism by an incredibly obscure "philosopher"; I'm leaning toward the former. Orange Mike | Talk 22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elwedritsche

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

This article contains no references to establish notability, this lack has been noted on the talk page and through a reference request template for some time, and I can find no supporting references in a web search. It seems likely that the topic is not notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Locke9k (talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per above added templates. It always gets me when articles get nominated for deletion as non-notable when one (interwiki) click away there is a host of sources. Fix it don't delete it. Agathoclea (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Desperate Housewives episodes. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in Business (Desperate Housewives)

Back in Business (Desperate Housewives) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

An obvious notability failure. The article lacks any sources (entire plot is pasted straight from the ABC website) and the only reason it still exists is because there are other Desperate Housewives episodes articles. This one has no significance whatsoever. -- A talk/contribs 22:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why isn't this a G12 (copyvio)? Graymornings(talk) 22:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe it is a good idea to single out one episode to present the issue. A more compact policy is needed for those, to decide when an episode is notable and when not. While I agree with you that not every episode deserves own article, you may want to check what happened when I did something similar: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elementary School Musical. Obvious no consensus on what is notable but I haven't yet decided to make a push to make a better policy. So I'd say it's better to withdraw this nomination and start a discussion elsewhere. Regarding the plot copied from ABC, this may be a copyvio issue and that's somethig else (should be removed for sure). --Tone 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tone is right -- nearly every episode of this series has its own article, and this one doesn't seem substantially different from the others. "Other stuff exists" may not be a reason for keeping an article, but the discussion on whether every DH episode needs its own article should most likely take place on the talk page of List of Desperate Housewives episodes, not on this deletion discussion. We do need to remove the copyvio, though. I'm not sure which parts of it are copied (intro, summary, notes) and where they're copied from, so I'm not going to take a crack at it myself, but someone with a bit more knowledge should remove this stuff. (Or does ABC ever allow the use of their material for press/informational purposes? Maybe we ought to check this out.) Graymornings(talk) 18:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect that at least 10 or 20% of the separate episode articles are copyvios--but also that at least half of the one paragraph descriptions in summary lists are. I will say this for ABC, that at least the grammar is correct, though I think the prose pretty monotonous. But there's something else--when somebody writes either the real article on the episode, or the summary, they can now refer to the ABC article for the motivations of the characters. That's usually a weak point, because that part of the plot does need some secondary sourcing. The producer's own description would seem reliable for that.DGG (talk) 00:42, 18 April 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. One (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

States that have explicitly recognized the Republic of Slovenia

States that have explicitly recognized the Republic of Slovenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article got deleted before in a bit different form, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of states that formally recognise the independent Republic of Slovenia. The rationale for re-nom is pretty much the same, it's useless, nobody can say it is complete and it can easily be covered by Foreign relations of Slovenia or History of Slovenia or such. And unlike entities like Kosovo, nobody really challenges existence of Republic of Slovenia. For other cases, we have List of states with limited recognition that is a FL and short and informative enough. Tone 22:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There aren't any states that don't recognize the Republic of Slovenia. It's a pointless list. Timmeh! 23:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Slightly odd creation. Slovenia is universally recognised, its not like a Kosovo/Taiwan/Israel situation. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dlelete. Slovenia is universally recognized. Useless article. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 00:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doc Strange. Slovenia's independence is uncontested. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - pointless list, as it is uncontested, so merge the useful content and cites into Foreign relations of Slovenia. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Bearian. A list of the first states to officially recognize Slovenia may be useful, but not an article such as this--Dans (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List may be useful to Slovenians. Also date of diplomatic relations may be useful. Van der Hoorn (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Harris (AIO)

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

Does not explain why subject is notable, no sourcing. TheAE talk/sign 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find any coverage on this guy; the more famous actor keeps popping up though. It fails
    WP:BIO. Timmeh! 23:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak delete I've added IMDB link and one ref, but the claim, that he is co-creator of Adventures in Odyssey is the only fact available online. --
    Vejvančický (talk) 11:37, 22 April 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. One (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translations of The Lord's Prayer

AfDs for this article:
Translations of The Lord's Prayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Except for the first two paragraphs, which are already present at

gr 21:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I appreciate those concerns on avoiding a copyvio, but Jesus required that the copying of the Lord's Prayer and all translations -- even before the GNU license was created, ("Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature"). Of course, citation to a verifiable source (in this case Mark 16:15, KJV translation) is encouraged. Mandsford (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is writing an encyclopedia and Wikisource is compiling a free library. Neither project is engaged in proselytism. —
gr 05:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm glad we've stopped talking about copyright violations. Mandsford (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the nominator's observations are succinct.
    talk) 01:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete If this didn't exist elsewhere on Wikisource or a non-Wikipedia source; and if I believed that the translations were made by people fluent in many languages instead of repeating the same "International Consultation" template (all these years, we should have been saying "Save us from the time of trial" and not the incorrect "lead us not into temptation"); then I'd mourn for the erasure of this 100KB+ article . While an encyclopedia article should be interesting, it is even more important that it should be reliable. Mandsford (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as wikipedia is not a source repository -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 20 April 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. One (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dori Monson

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

Non-notable local radio announcer / talk-show host. Does not meet

talk) 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment/Question While I have no issue with your Delete vote, I have to question what about "As of winter 2008 it was the highest rated talk radio program in the Seattle-Tacoma market." "In 2008 Monson was nominated for Radio & Records News/Talk/Sports Local Personality Of The Year" and "Since 2002 Monson has hosted... a day-of-game broadcast carried on...a network of 46 radio stations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, and British Columbia" makes someone "non notable in the extreme"? Between a nationally known talk radio host like Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh and a non-notable single-station host with a 2am call-in show, there's a line somewhere. Where is that line? Eauhomme (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't want to admit it, but most talk show hosts are notable. --Clark89 (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Major radio host, and the sources are reliable and published. TheAE talk/sign 04:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let You Go

Let You Go (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to demonstrate the notability of its subject, and was previously deleted via prod for the same reason. KhalfaniKhaldun 20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why it fails on the notability? It's a single that will be released in the future... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas tkof (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From
WP:NSONGS: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article... a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." KhalfaniKhaldun 03:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete, fails notability per
    WP:RS
    .

 Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't receive any award, it still didn't chart anywhere, the cover wasn't leaked yet. The only reliable source able for me is iTunes, but you do not accept it. So the only proof to date is the music video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas tkof (talk • contribs)
And that is precisely why it should not have a Wikipedia article. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines that we have been linking, specifically
WP:CRYSTAL. Thanks! KhalfaniKhaldun 22:25, 19 April 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 copyvio.

Non-admin closure. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Davonte Suarez

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

I prodded this, and the prod was removed by an IP editor. Nominating for deletion because I feel this article fails various Wikipedia guidelines and policies relating to biographies of living people, such as

reliable sources, etc. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I agree with the above reasons.

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy ledder

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

High school athlete doesn't meet

WP:ATHLETE. JaGatalk 20:37, 17 April 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 already deleted,

already discussed in the last AFD. chaser - t 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Ascentive

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

Contains Malware links and is unsafe.. SparksBoy (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direction of Management

Direction of Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. No notability. No googlebooks mention. Does not meet any criteria for inclusion. Wikidās ॐ 20
03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - some sort of internal political feud among the Hare Krishnas, apparently. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of verifiability, in-depth coverage by independent sources. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)d[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:45, 21 April 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube fame

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

Bringing this to AfD after a lengthy discussion at the article's talkpage. First of all, the title of this article is a neologism: while the words "youtube" and "fame" come up next to each other a lot in a Google search, that doesn't mean it's a new proper noun; it's just a common phrase, like "birthday party". So even if this were kept, it should be moved to a more general term like "internet fame" or "internet celebrity", and not be youtube-specific. But I, and several others at the talk page, think all the content here can be moved into related articles such as

List of internet phenomena#People (given that most of this article is just a list of examples anyway). While the nominator claims that the article has unique information that can't be merged to those other articles, I don't see what that information is. More input is needed. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Where would you have this entry redirect? Pepperoni pizza is one type of pizza. YouTube fame doesn't seem a clear type of anything, but if there were an article on "
Internet fame", I suppose it could be merged there. Of course merges don't require AfDs. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Merges and redirects don't require AfD, but they require a consensus that the article itself does not belong. Since there was no consensus at the talk page, I had no choice but to bring it here. If consensus here is to delete, we can implement that by redirecting or merging, which in this case is basically the same as deleting. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter that
milk jug? When will it end? Is nothing sacred? What? Where are all these voices coming from??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Kleenex is a company, facial tissue is a product made by many different companies. Square milk jug specifically was the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject, and is therefore notable independently of milk jug. YouTube fame can be a generic term for someone who rose to fame via some form of internet video sharing/viral video, not necessarily YouTube, the end result is them being an internet celebrity. And nothing is sacred and it will never end :D--kelapstick (talk)
  • Keep I am always inclined to keep articles. Just because a few editors aren't interested in a topic doesn't mean that the article has no merit. I can see mass potential in this article. No need to delete at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism, coatrack. - Biruitorul Talk 22:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- Even I was surpirised by the media coverage, Google News Results and Wikilinks. As far as a move to
    internet fame, what else on the internet even comes close to comparing with the attention meritted through Youtube? A once in a blue moon blog that... no; and even that isn't attributed to nearly any one person. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete neologism, content fork, original research, synth, no reliable sources that establish this as an encyclopedic topic... I'm sure i could come up with a few more if i put my back into it, but that seems sufficient.
    talk) 03:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's wahat I'm talking about; why doesn't anybody improve the article at hand? Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination is just concerned with the title and suggests moving the content elsewhere. This is move/merger not deletion. I favour merger with Internet celebrity as suggested above and shall revive that article. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointing out the existence of
    List of YouTube celebrities, since it wasn't mentioned previously. --Raijinili (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak keep. The Dutch bluehelmets are not going to come out for this AfD, especially since, duh, they can't smoke weed here, and there's no extra pay for entering a danger zone. But "YouTube fame" seems to me to be more than a random pairing of words; the plethora of hits in Google News (I don't care for the regular Google web search) has convinced me that this is a concept of sorts (though <insert deity>! I wish it wasn't). CoM, Daniel Christensen, where's that stash of Northern Cali at? Drmies (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I said above, "pepperoni pizza" gets more google news hits than this does, but that doesn't mean it's a noteworthy concept worth writing an article about... rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I saw you said that. I don't care for Google hits; Google News is much more relevant--and there you get 103, and I get 149. Moreover, the hits in Google News are often in reliable resources and clearly, in my opinion, establish the term as a "YouTube fame." Now, what does pepperoni pizza have to do with any of this? Drmies (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're confused; I am talking about Google News hits, not google hits. And I got 29,000. The link is above (#4). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • My apologies: I'm comparing apples with pears--that's "pepperoni pizza" for all dates, 29,000 hits; "youtube fame" for all dates, 149 hits. Still, how does that apply here? I don't see how "YouTube fame" is discussed as just a subset of "viral video" the way "pepperoni pizza" is a kind of pizza. For starters, "viral video" refers to the spreading of a video; "YouTube fame" refers to the effect of YouTube exposure. You'll also see, in your Google News hits, that "pepperoni pizza" delivers mainly mention of pepperoni pizza, whereas the YouTube hits talk about the phenomenon itself. That's notability. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Neologism, but notable one with enough sources to demonstrate notability. The term has been used in a number of places and by a number of reputable organizations. Cheers!
    talk) 02:49, 19 April 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. Both sides have made excellent arguments, but neither seems to establish definitively whether six is significant enough to include a cutoff at that level. Summary of "delete" !votes: Six is just an arbitrary number; the relevant information is already included at

consensus on the talk page to have the cutoff at six, as well as the inevitability of a cutoff for any list of "notable" things. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

List of films receiving six or more Academy Awards

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

Delete - list has a completely arbitrary inclusion criterion. Nothing to indicate that the topic of the list, Films that have specifically won more than five Oscars, is the subject of

talk) 19:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

It is reason enough for a list of notable things. DGG (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already do list
    talk) 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Agreed. And exactly that has indeed already been discussed at the article's Talk Page ... not only once, but twice. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge Winning a large number of awards is indeed notable, but perhaps not notable enough for a separate list. Thus, my personal preference would be to have all the content in one article -
    List of Academy Award-winning films - with a table at the top for films that won the most awards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - Its handy and easy look at. Oniongas (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This article should be kept, for all the reasons already mentioned. The issue of what to use as a cut-off point had been discussed at the article's Talk Page. See
    Talk:List of films receiving six or more Academy Awards#Move cut-off point to 6 awards. Also ... please see my Comment immediately below. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply
    ]
Comment: The original post of the nominating editor (Otto4711) is utterly ridiculous. Every list has a cut-off point. Obviously. We can ask why the "list of oldest people" cuts-off at age 100 and not at age 99? There must be a cut-off point at some point. And the cut-off point in this list is not arbitrary. As the Talk Page discussions of the article indicate ... reducing the cut-off point would essentially double the size of the list ... thus, diluting its value. Winning a "lot" of Oscars is clearly notable. Picking the number 6 (instead of 5) makes a great deal of sense and is hardly arbitrary. The logic goes like this ... if I must spell it out for you ... "Very few films in history (namely, 34) have won a lot of Oscars (where lot is defined at 6 or more). However, quite a large number of films, relatively speaking, have won 5 Oscars. In fact, if we factor in the winners at 5 Oscars, we double the size of what the list would be at 6 Oscars. Hence ... winning 6 is quite a feat and quite notable ... relatively speaking, winning 5, not so much." Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Lean towards delete Why six? I see in the article's talk page that the number has changed over time. If it's an arbitrary number than the list should be deleted, but if its notable in external sources as some sort of magic number indicating something special (as opposed to listing 5-and-up or 7-and-up) than it should be kept. Currently there's no discussion that shows why 6 is that magic number. As a second proposal: getting rid of only the winners of six would produce a list of 25. Then, the list could be renamed to reflect something like "top 25 winners at the oscars". This is another arbitrary number, but its more round and seems a much more suitable cutoff place. ThemFromSpace 23:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete.. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burlodge

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

I declined the speedy, another admin speedied, then agreed to AfD (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dank55&diff=284429461&oldid=284295674). - Dan

push to talk) 19:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purkey

Purkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Page is a biography of a non-important family. Does not need a wiki page and there are no cited sources to demonstrate the importance of inclusion on wikipedia. Werecowmoo (talk) 13:39, April 17, 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm confused; why are you bothering to nom this while it's prodded? Kingpin13 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, was unsure which was correct because the deletion instructions are slightly confusing to me. I was the one who did both tags. If one way is more correct than the other, please feel fre to correct me.Werecowmoo (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I have replied on the user's talk page :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BLP violation renmoved. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, no meaningful sources HeartofaDog (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerly Lyngdoh

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

Possible hoax / unverifiable. Direct rip of metro.co.uk - a non-reliable source. Courageousrobot (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anatropi (TV series)

Anatropi (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no sources, no notability, the host isn't notable, we don't know whether this is some local cable talk show or anything by context. one liner. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you "don't know whether this is some local cable talk show or anything by context" then how did you determine it wasn't notable? - Mgm|(talk) 16:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not for lack of notability, but a lack of content. Basically a substub. - Mgm|(talk) 16:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Non-notable television series. (
    talk) 21:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kibzai

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

Delete no indication that this political tribe of Balochistan is notable. No sources. Speedy had been declined, so I bring it here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna J Watson

Anna J Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable individual. Article claims notability is based on unremarkable, self-published cartoons with no news coverage or Google hits. Author pointed to non-existent awards in a college magazine in a month the magazine was not published. No award exists for author. The site author points to as controversy is based on website, "...created by a group offended by the use of religious tradition in her cartoons." Site has no content and was created at the same time as the Wikipedia article. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've deleted this article via PROD before; it has previously claimed that this person won the Reuben award for best cartoonist when it is well documented who the actual winners are. It also included other claims that various groups of people were up in arms about the cartoons this person has created. As far as I've ever been able to tell, this is a non-notable person who has created non-notable cartoons and the rest seems to be an attempt at promotion. Rnb (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 20 April 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Valley2city‽ 05:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folsom Public Library

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

Although this article does cite two newspaper articles, it does not assert that there is anything notable about the subject. The articles are about the local politics surrounding funding to expand the library, not about the library itself. It is hard to imagine that this stub could be built into a respectable encyclopedia article. ike9898 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 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. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agrovet Market Animal Health

Agrovet Market Animal Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn company article fails wp:corp Oo7565 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 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. MBisanz talk 01:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African Institute for Future Studies

African Institute for Future Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No third party references have been provided in order to prove this subject's notability Oo7565 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Note the preferred English name is African Institute for Prospective Studies.1 Founded by the UN, it collects several notable academic institutes at the University of Kinshasa, publishes books, and organizes conferences. Individual institutes, such s the Centre d'Études Égyptologiques C. A. Diop grant degrees. I'll continue coming up with refs, but Congo is not the most wired place, and the University has not been well funded since the 1990s, making electronic sources hard to come by. The article itself is not an article, but a half translated brochure. I'll tear it down as I find sources. T L Miles (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an obviously notable organisation. I've already issued a final warning to the nominator, who despite repeated warnings is continuing apparently going through
    iridescent 19:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Keep of a bad faith nomination. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:59, 20 April 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. MBisanz talk 01:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Econoception

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

Contested prod. Neologism. Single source. One google hit. Possible COI (see OE username). Wperdue (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, from his comment on the AfD talk page, that website was set up by the author after he input the article and found it was likely to be deleted, so I don't think it is a copyvio. Tag removed. JohnCD (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - in which case the author is in violation of copyright as the material sports no GFDL license or credit to Wikipedia. But in any case, I still maintain deletion is in order as original research amongst its many problems. -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations, if you contribute something you wrote yourself "you retain copyright to your materials. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like." Yes, it should certainly go, but I don't think it's speediable. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Oops! You are right! I stand corrected. But it's still a delete. -- Whpq (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Nobu

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

Underground DJ/ musician that appears to fail

WP:MUSIC. A Google news search turns up one possible reliable source here, but the mention is trivial. Speedy declined in Oct '08. sparkl!sm hey! 16:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omegle

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

nn chat website Gaikce (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is not just another chat site, it's the first to not use identifiers for users - simply "You" and "Stranger". It's revolutionary! ... okay, maybe not, but it is definatly different than most if not all the others - and 3,700 users in under a month from release is quite a respectable feat on its' own., 8:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. It was a fad that had it's time in about a weekend. There were various articles and I saw lots of hype amongst forumers but it's over now. Everyone tried it those first few days, realised how it worked, appreciated it and moved on. Greg Tyler (t • c) 13:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It could use a little fleshing out, which I will take a stab at, but I think its significant enough to have an article. --Milowent (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what I see a are lot of "Website of the Day" type coverage. It seems to me that this puts this into the category of a news item and with it launching only recently, there's no indication that coverage will be sustained to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I understand Whpq's concern and would agree, if all these News hits were in response to a press release. However, this appears to be genuine word-of-mouth, giving the coverage a bit of extra weight. If no-one is talking about Omegle in a few months time then yes, perhaps another AfD. Marasmusine (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is substantially different from other chat sites, although the article definitely needs improvement. Kak Dela? (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete and redirect to Joystick.

Arcade sticks

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

nn neologisms Gaikce (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also recommend merge to Joystick.
    talk) 03:58, 19 April 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 WFMU. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Music Archive

Free Music Archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn website. launched April 10, 2009. Gaikce (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete - copyright violation. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.B. Gaynor

J.B. Gaynor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by author without fixing the issue or discussing on the talk page. Prod rationale by

WP:ENTERTAINER." I also agree, delete. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark-Paraguay relations

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

No embassies, no historic ties, on opposite sides of the world - the usual trivial bilateral relationship. Biruitorul Talk 15:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep (non-admin closure).--Giants27 T/C 19:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Brandstatter

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

Unremarkable local (American) football colour commentator. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 8-0. Any body else? The snowball is melting fast...TomCat4680 (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bid4mybiz

Bid4mybiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company using Wikipedia to advertise. The two references are press releases. JaGatalk 15:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The page certainly has an advertising tone to it, and the creator has this page as his only contributions, suggesting an advertising account.--Iner22 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Written like an ad. The alleged news coverage consists of copies of what appear to be substantially identical press releases without bylines, which are neither reliable nor independent. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Straightforward spam, speedy delete per WP:CSD/G11 TurningWork (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Taylor (footballer)

James Taylor (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by IP without providing reason. Fails

WP:ATHLETE. Stu.W UK (talk) 15:17, 17 April 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. MBisanz talk 01:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Negush uprising

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

Obvious

POV fork of (part of) the article Greek_War_of_Independence#Macedonia. The information is repeating and describes a single event not notable of a separate article. Plus, it was represented in a rather peculiar way, not backed up with any reliable sources (I've searched for such in both Latin and Cyrillic). And anothe plus - it was most probably created and maintained by socks of indef-banned User:Cukiger. Laveol T 20:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete this is a very misinformed and ahistorical article, which twists events in unacceptable fashion. Constantine ✍ 11:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The locals call it Naoussa uprising and it is an event of the Greek war for independence. The town of Naoussa it is called now "Η.Π. ΝΑΟΥΣΑΣ", "H.T. of NAOUSSA" by the locals, which means Heroic Town of Naousa. That means they know what their grand grand fathers did and why. There is no "Naousa uprising" but "Greek uprising" for them. There is not, also "Negush" but "Naoussa" for them. So, there is no Negush uprising because there is no Negush and there is no uprising, too. DELETE IT NOW before I get ungry and write an article about "My PC Room Uprising"...Chrusts 12:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs)

Delete, this is a pseudohistorical article. Jingby (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? Jingby (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm serious, see
WP:AGF. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Constantine. Wouldn't object the adoption of Balkanian's proposal.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:16, 17 April 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. Having X number of subscribers on Youtube does not make you notable. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arbitrary quantity. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Lewis

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

Minor YouTube celebrity that doesn't appear to pass

WP:MUSIC despite a few vague claims to notability. Speedy and then prod both removed, bringing here for discussion. Black Kite 15:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I apologise, I know that it isn't a vote count and I was just stating my opinion, I suppose I just misinterpreted the rules.
    Captain Fishy (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment - Analogue Magazine's listing is just two sentences in a blog and their description "For bonus LOLz.." is not giving me the impression they take Molly very seriously. NME's video site clearly states "The video content provided on this page is generated by YouTube and consequently features user-generated content". In other words, anybody can get on there. NME does not "think that Molly Lewis is notable enough to devote three pages to her on their website", as you wrote above. NME-Video is just a YouTube search engine and no indication of notability or NME approval. The same goes for Istardom.com and AOL Video. Yintaɳ  16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I just made myself appear on that NME-Video page and believe me, I really don't belong there. Yintaɳ  17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether the Analouge Magazine "take Molly very seriously" or not, the point is they mentioned her, I see no part of the rules that states that the subject must be "taken seriously". The reason they say "for bonus lolz" is because they find it funny, I fail to see how that makes her less notable. You are right about the search websites though.
Captain Fishy (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, being a local school board member is not an assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cicero

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

Biography of questionable notability. Only one source can be found mentioning him, and THAT one indicates that he will be stepping down from his post on the Cleveland Heights / University Heights Board of Education; the very fact that made him (questionably) notable in the first place. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Anti-Aging Academy of Medicine

World Anti-Aging Academy of Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

This smells too much like advertising and/or a promotional effort (see the creator's user name!), and fails good faith searches (ex.: [20] [21]). - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based off of non-notability. Even if it were found to be notable, it should be written by someone without a CoI regarding the subject. The DominatorTalkEdits 18:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Shouldn't this properly be the "World Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 17 April 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 main issues here concern

sourced article can legitimately be about events that have not happened. Also, much of the parts that read like original research have been cleaned up (see diff). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Star Wars sequel trilogy

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

Delete per

WP:FANCRUFT. This is an article about a set of films that are never going to be made and the article (even the opening paragraph) confirms this - "Lucasfilm and George Lucas have for many years denied plans of making a sequel trilogy, insisting that Star Wars was meant to be a six-part series...currently, there are no firm plans to produce such films". Merge any worthy content to Star Wars, but otherwise this is worthless. Even though Lucas has touched upon the issue, it is trivial. Dalejenkins | 14:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The article is claiming the exact opposite. It says that NO progress has been made on making another Star Wars trilogy. The DominatorTalkEdits 18:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're referring to the quote from
WP:CRYSTAL, but I really don't see how no progress is contrary to that statement. KhalfaniKhaldun 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
We have to exercise some logic here. I mean, there could be a ton of references indicating that there is no chance in hell a sequel to Citizen Kane will ever be made. Yet, we're not going to make an article called "Why Citizen Kane Does Not Have a Sequel" are we? I'm not advocating the deletion of this information completely, but there is no need to have a separate article about something that does not, nor ever will, exist no matter how many nerds have dreamed it should. The DominatorTalkEdits 05:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but at the same time the whole reason this is a notable topic is because according to multiple reliable sources at one point in time Lucas had expressed a desire to create a sequel trilogy. I think the fact that it is clear that at one point in time there were to be more movies made, and for that plan to completely disappear and furthermore be denied by the very people who planned it in the first place is the reason why there is significantly more diverse coverage in reliable sources than just a million sources that all say it will never happen, thus making it Wikipedia-worthy (IMO). Also, see my updated comment about merging the content above. KhalfaniKhaldun 05:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That source is from an internet forum, so therefore fails
WP:RS in a spectacular fashion. Dalejenkins | 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That argument is pure
WP:CRYSTAL. Dalejenkins | 11:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
And which part of that has been broken exactly? Here is not the place to air your views I'm afraid - please read
WP:NOT#BLOG. This AFD is far from distruptive, I sense the sour grapes of a Star Wars fan.... Dalejenkins | 11:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Please see:
It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
This was last nominated 4 years ago by a different nominator. What a silly statement. Dalejenkins | 11:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems much improved since then while the arguments for deletion have not. What new fact have you brought to occasion this discussion? Anyway, I see that your nomination proposes merger and so this discussion should be speedily closed as an improper process for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AFD came to no consensus, so the delete arguments still stand. It's also interesting to note that your keep arguments appear to be the same. Also, whereas myself and others who want the article deleted have stated their reasons in deep explination, you have bluntly said that the subject is notable and have not expanded on it. Remember that AFD is a debate, not a poll. Clearly, you have not read
WP:SPEEDY to. Dalejenkins | 13:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The last AFD was 2 years ago, not 4 ([22]). JulesH (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with your agrument is that all of the pieces that you point out were all actually produced or were in production, whereas the Star Wars sequel trilogy has never even been written or considered. For more detail:
The Star Wars sequels have nothing in common with any of these and, despite the fact that you mention it,
WP:OTHERSTUFF still applies, so I shouldn't have really wasted my time... Dalejenkins | 21:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Still, the speculation about a Star Wars sequel trilogy has received a lot of coverage in its own right. And many people (not just Star Wars fanatics) are curious about this topic. The article routinely gets a couple hundred views each day: [23]. Zagalejo^^^ 21:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether 3 or 3million people view this daily, it still fails
Wikipedia is not a fan site, this content belongs there, not on an academic encyclopedia. Dalejenkins | 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
1) This isn't "unverifiable speculation". The article makes no claims about the future. It simply summarizes what has been said about the possibility of a sequel trilogy. 2) What's trivial to you is useful information to others. It's all subjective. 3) There are several academic journals devoted to pop culture, and at least a few college courses about Star Wars, specifically. Pop culture has a place here. And what the heck, it's not like you're writing articles about T.S. Eliot or Soren Kierkegaard. Most of your articles are about British reality TV shows. Zagalejo^^^ 21:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even going to acknowledge that comment with a response.
WP:ATTACK. Says it all really. Dalejenkins | 22:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm just trying to stick up for the people who spent time working on this article. I'm not saying that your articles should be deleted. I'd probably !vote to keep them if they were brought to AFD. I was just commenting on your argument, which seemed unfair. Zagalejo^^^ 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also read
WP:EFFORT. Dalejenkins | 22:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Extremely reluctant delete. As a strong advocate in favour of Chronology of Star Wars, it pains me to have to agree with this nomination, however, the films do not exist! As a rule, something that does not exist cannot possibly be notable! There are no plans to create the films and the majority of the content of the article is speculation, thus, I must, reluctantly, conclude that it should be deleted, though any decent, referenced material should be merged into Star Wars, though I fear there's all too little of that. HJ Mitchell (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC) (stricken- I'll elaborate below)HJ Mitchell (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I;m baffled by your stance. The Chronology of Star Wars doesn't exist either. Come to that, I'd like to see this argument expanded to cover all those things currently in non-existence. Maybe start off small, with Nothing before moving on to the big ones, like Infinity. After all, nothing and infinity by definition can not exist, they are just concepts discussed by people... oh wait, that's like the Star Wars sequel trilogy. All we need now is some reliable sources, what's that, the BBC? And it's a major part of the article. Well, I do declare. Hiding T 19:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you, I am! However, I'm trying to take an objective view. Much as I believe Star Wars is worthy of the coverage it has, a film series that may or may not have once been planned but has indisputably been scrapped is not notable. The only substantial fact in the article is that the series will not be made! nothing and infinity are, at least, mathematical and philosophical concepts, though, perhaps you'd care to nominate them for deletion and we can continue this discussion!!! HJ Mitchell (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I think there's more than one substantial fact. Fact: Lucas originally planned significantly more than 6 movies. Fact: Gary Kurtz also knew of the sequel plans. Fact: All producers ever involved now deny ever having even considered sequels. Fact: Hamill stated that he originally promised Lucas to return and play a role in one of the later episodes. There's a lot more to the article than pure speculation, and being covered by both the BBC and Times alone is enough to establish notability for any other topic, so why not this one? KhalfaniKhaldun 23:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. It's kind of like how we have articles on
Spaghetti tree et al. This stuff doesn't exist or didn't happen, but the fact that people discussed them and thought they did happen has made them worthy of note. This article can be better written and better sourced for sure, but that would involve people digging up the many print sources that exist. Starburst would be a good place to look. I've just found a great The Times review of ESB which covers the sequels, so I'm going to integrate that into the article. Hiding T 09:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilad Lehmann

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

CV of a non-notable Ph.D. student, failing

WP:ACADEMIC. Wasn't sure if I could make a case for speedy as A7 so brought here first. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. As per nom, also, I'm assuming that if Lehmann were truly notable, he would have had a German wiki page, which certainly isn't sidebar linked if it exists. Fol de rol troll (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that this subject seems not to be notable by English Wikipedia standards, but why should the non-existence of an article in German Wikipedia about an Israeli subject have any relevance to this discussion?
    Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. Watch out for those marbles - they roll away even faster as you get older ;)
    Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 18 April 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.

WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

List of assassins

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

This article is a duplication of info listed within the [[Category:assassins]] tag.

talk) 14:10, 17 April 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. Insufficient evidence of

notability arising from this discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Sydney Rae White

Sydney Rae White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable actress; fails

WP:ENTERTAINER; only sources are from her own CDs and by article creator's own admission, her IMDB profile which was written by her manager and her own website. Was CSDed and declined; was PRODed by User:Orangemike on the 14th with note of: "Unsourced article about non-notable actress who has attracted (apparently) zero attention" and removed by SPA IP User:84.65.38.7 with note of "Expanded article and added intial references - more to follow soon (I hope!))" though no actual references were added. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Her best claim seems to be her role as Emma in the UK version of "As the Bell Rings," but I can't find any
    reliable sources discussing her in that part, either. If the information in the article can't be verified by reliable sources, then there's nothing to say about her on Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete no sources. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is only a reason if such sources cannot be found with a reasonable search. - Mgm|(talk) 19:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just another child star in the local iteration of a minor Disney franchise, and not even reliably sourced for that. Seems to be a bit of an ad for the school she attended, too (three mentions, two wiki-linked, in one short article). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep She has appeared in three major West End productions and has had a lead role on a TV series. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Contrary to the claims made above, two sources WERE provided in the most recent positive edit, although they need to be correctly referenced (Not sure at the moment how you reference information which comes from documentation included with CDs - And please note that the two CDs mentioned are not HER OWN, as incorrectly stated above, but rather the OCR of an Andrew Lloyd Webber show and one produced by the London Philharmonic, and so are not specifically hers and the associated notes in the packaging would not be written with any specific bias towards her). Has also had lead roles in major West End musicals and other stage and TV productions, which are facts of note. Additionally, the most recent positive editor has stated that they are attempting to track down further supporting references to add to the article. To that effect, this article should be retained in order to allow them to find those references. Emma white20 (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Could someone do a LexisNexis search? I would be very surprised if 2 lead roles (the rock opera and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) in London West End musicals didn't receive some paper coverage. - Mgm|(talk) 19:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An excellent point - I sometimes think that a lot of users and editors here forget that other sources apart from online ones exist and are allowed as references here on Wikipedia! Of course, such searches are more time-consuming than the lazy way of just typing keywords into Google and seeing what comes out, because you have to go out of your house to something called a "library" and look in strange objects called "books"... And if she's in a lead role, there's a good chance of her being mentioned by name in some of the reviews, isn't there? Emma white20 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, after you made this post insulting people for not doing this kind of search, I assume that you actually did the search yourself. Did you find any useful references when you did it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you need to learn the difference between insults and sarcasm... And, as a matter of fact, I've just done another Google search (can't do a library search right now, as I'm in the UK and they're all shut as it's the middle of the night here!). If you search for "Sydney Rae White" and go past the first couple of pages, you'll find several probably usable references(for example, here) to her being one of the main cast in the very latest 2009 production of 'Quadrophenia' - I guess that helps establish a bit more notability for her, doesn't it??... Emma white20 (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That article mentions her, but it isn't really about her, and doesn't say anything other than that she'll be appearing in that play. You're presenting the appearance of being a member of her family; can you recall anyone writing a newspaper or magazine article about her, or a book? Have there been reporters around the house interviewing her who might have written about her in more detail? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • How the hell would I know that? - I've got no personal or professional connection to her at all, despite what you may think! All I know about her is what I can find online or from other published sources. Think about it for a second - If I was connected with her, don't you think I'd have a list or collection of articles about her, which I'd be quoting from and using to improve the article??? Or do you think that everyone who supports the career of a lesser-known artist or performer must automatically be related to them, because that's the impression I get from some of the comments which have been made towards me?? (It's true that I AM distantly related to a currently-working British stage and TV actor, but it isn't her, and I haven't contributed to any Wikipedia article about them - if they even have one, as I've never checked to see - so there's no conflict of interest or hidden agenda here...) As for the link I included, that's just meant as an example to show that, despite what some may contend, information can be found online to confirm at least some of the details about her career, and on websites which may qualify as reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines - which gives a lie to those above claiming otherwise... And that link shows that there's scope for further research NOW, which may help to improve the article to the point where notability is established beyond doubt and it reaches the standards required. I haven't examined all of the links I found, as I don't have time right now, but it shows that there's information out there on places other than her official site or IMDb which needs to be carefully examined and followed up before any decision is taken on whether this article is deleted. Emma white20 (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only can, but done. Search for her name, past ten years and searching all available resources: "No Documents Found". Searched for "Sydney White" as well, but all results were for Sydney White (quite a few if anyone happens to be working on that article) Screen shot available if someone disbelieves it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 00:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - Meets criteria for
    WP:CREATIVE. Actress has had significant roles in notable film, TV and stage productions. Untick (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong keep - She's had featured lead roles in various productions in major West End (London, UK) theatres. She's also appeared in a featured role on the original cast recording of an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical and in other productions. Going by what's written at
    WP:Entertainer ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions"), the fact that she's had significant roles in notable productions does establish notability for her too, and so justifies this article being retained. 84.65.38.7 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC) — 84.65.38.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Racers

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

Non-notable game, just another Xbox Live Community Game, no refs, no assertion of notability, most likely written by developer. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can find no
    notability and allow the article to expand. Someoneanother 14:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Always a pleasure. If you come across any game article you're unsure about notability-wise then you're very welcome to drop me a note, likewise the video game project as a whole has a lot of collective knowledge about what sources might be available for particular types of games and if nothing else could separate lost causes from the numerous articles which can be repaired. Someoneanother 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated. I think the coverage from the three sources is acceptable, but I agree, the two clearly reliable sources are short and the one in-depth bit of coverage is from a source that it is (at best) debatable about being a RS. Hobit (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hobit. There is also a stub article on IGN and a short review here [26]. The game hasn't been out long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagetto (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep but possibly consider making a "Xbox Live Community Games" article that includes the section from
    Xbox Live Marketplace and then a list of games that have received some attention such as this one or "Miner: Dig Deep" - not enough to establish them as full game articles but should not be ignored as usable search terms on WP. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep – the above shows sufficient notability. MuZemike 14:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob game

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

un-sourced article on non-notable playground game UltraMagnus (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XThe Warx

XThe Warx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unconquered (xThe Warx album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Demo (xThe Warx) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
XThe Warx/xThe Wrathx (Split) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(talk) 12:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was merge to

List of Star Wars planets. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Star Wars sectors

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

plot summary and trivia. I realize that lists are more or less a compromise for non-notable topics, but this list contains absolutely no real-world information. Even within Star Wars, "sectors" are just window dressing mentioned in passing; planets and moons might be well-rounded enough and often important to understanding the fictional work, but that's not at all true of these larger swaths of space. Negligible improvement in any meaningful way since contested prod a year ago. --EEMIV (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was redirect to

2006 allegations of corruption in English football. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Nathan Porritt

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

Prod removed (did not realise this had been to AfD before). Player's notability stems largely from a corruption case

WP:ATHLETE Stu.W UK (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The FA link is a dead, although I suspect that source would fail
WP:NTEMP
.
If he played for the England senior squad I would completely agree, but he didn't. He played one match for the under 17s. He hasn't appeared at the highest level i.e. senior squad. As for the transfer case, that's a reason to have an article on the case, not the player (although there's a case to make that even that would go against
WP:ATHLETE, I would also query which of the given sources are non-trivial. Stu.W UK (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
You're still discriminating based on age. U17s have a highest level they can play at too. The only reason they're not playing on senior squads because they legally can't. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no legal restriction on the age a player can play for their national team, or play professional football. An obvious example would be Wayne Rooney, who was playing for Everton in the Premier League at 16, and England at 17.Stu.W UK (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
....and Gareth Bale played for Wales (the full men's senior team) at age 16 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing they mean this one, as the others don't cover enough about him to pass
WP:N. --Jimbo[online] 00:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
If his notability stems solely from the
2006 allegations of corruption in English football, why not redirect there, as decided at 1st AfD? Stu.W UK (talk) 02:33, 20 April 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diva Zappa

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because my PROD tag was removed without any amendment to the article. I don't believe that Zappa is notable outside of being Frank Zappa's daughter. A google search seems to suggest she is a minor actress, but there's no viable source outside of IMDB. I had previously used the 'notability' tag and another editor has added the 'cite' tag, again these were removed with no further edit, but have been subsequently added back to the article. Fol de rol troll (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not suggesting we merge and delete, are you?--chaser - t 23:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what's meant is merge the information into Frank Zappa and have Diva Zappa as a redirect to Frank Zappa, allowing for the page to be recreated if DZ becomes notable. I think :) Fol de rol troll (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Beyond reliable sources, there's nothing here worth merging. Redirecting after deleting would discourage re-creation until she becomes more notable.--chaser - t 16:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication of independent notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:57, 18 April 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SYNC (webcomic)

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

Non-notable webcomic; lack of reliable sources. —Emufarmers(T/C) 11:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Extvia for deletion a minute before I nominated this article. —Emufarmers(T/C) 16:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comic appears to have only started in the last couple of weeks.--Iner22 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google search turns up little other than deviantArt links. No major independent third party coverage.
    TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extvia

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

Non-notable webcomic artist; lack of reliable sources. —Emufarmers(T/C) 11:45, 17 April 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outskirts press

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

I started off trying to fix this article, but came to the conclusion that it is one of the most blatant pieces of promotion that I've come across. However, it does appear that it has published one or two books by reasonably notable authors. What do other people think, please? Deb (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The place is pretty well-known in the writing community. There's probably some reliable sources to replace this with a reasonable stub. - Mgm|(talk) 12:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Keep, passes WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability even though the article requires a considerable amount of rework. Jll (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does it pass these? I don't see many references on google, and most of those that are there are clearly not independent. (I'm not saying it's not notable, but I don't see clear evidence that it is.) Deb (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, forget I said that. You've done a damn good job of cleaning it up. Deb (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Deb. The company has received significant coverage in some secondary sources, for example the Denver Business Journal citations in the article and a review at [28], and I think its having published some notable books strengthens its hand. However having spent a futile half an hour trying to find more good secondary sources, there doesn't seem to be that much out there and so I think it is fairly borderline, and have changed my opinion to weak keep. Jll (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue expanding per [29], [30], and [31]. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is mostly press releases released by this company. This and this are all books released by this company (or the words "outskirts press" in that order, as a coincidental pair), at least five pages in. Gesturing vaguely at Google searches isn't sourcing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, plenty of vanity presses around, this one doesn't seem notable.
    talk) 10:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep and continue to expand based upon a growing number of sources. While using Google and searching for Outskirts Press, the 3rd listing on page 1 offers a 3rd party review of Outskirts Press in comparison with 9 similar companies. In this review of the top 10 self-publishing providers, Outskirts Press ranks 3rd, bested by iUniverse and AuthorHouse (both of which are in Wikipedia). In fact, even the #7 company, Xlibris, also appears in Wikipedia. Seems to me the Gold, Silver, and Bronze companies of this unaffiliated reviewer ( www.top10reviews.com ) should appear in WikiPedia, since The New York Times cited the importance of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia reference. Then, in continuing my Google search, the 4th listing on page 1 offers a thorough review of Outskirts Press from not only a 3rd party source, but from a competitor. This competitor seems to consider Outskirts Press notable, going so far as to compose a comprehensive primer on Outskirts Press on its own website. Going further on the Google search, the 5th listing on page 1 references a 3rd party source for a non-fiction reference book titled “The Fine Print of Self-Publishing” by Mark Levine. Outskirts Press appears in this 3rd party source on pages 121 to 129. Another 3rd party book, “Top Self-Publishing Firms” by Stacie Vander Pol organizes self-publishing companies by size and average sales rank of its authors. This 3rd party book places Outskirts Press as the #1 book in its “Large and Medium Sized” firms category on pages 50-52. Continuing my Google search, the 9th listing on page 1 offers a 3rd party review of Outskirts Press posted by blogger Mick Rooney, posted on July 25, 2008, which states that the current title count on Amazon is 2800+ and further states “One only has to browse reputable POD writer forums in the United States to see how popular this publisher has become with authors looking to utilized [sic] the print on demand publishing option. They happily mix it in the industry with the big hitters like iUniverse, Authorhouse and Lulu.” (By the way, all three of these other referenced companies are in Wikipedia.). 2800+ titles on Amazon? Sounds notable, especially to those 2800 authors, some of which have their very books listed in Wikipedia. I ask, how can a book be listed in WikiPedia and the publisher is not? So I continued my investigation on Amazon.com and did an advanced book search by publisher. Outskirts Press currently has 4,035 books on Amazon. According to Rooney’s post, they had 2800 on July 25th. In 10 months, Outskirts Press added 1,235 new books to its inventory. That’s 120 new books a month, on average. Isn’t that more than some New York Publishers produce? I looked at the number of titles fellow vanity-publisher Trafford Publishing published last month (March 2009) and it published 89. Yet, Trafford is on WikiPedia and recently survived its own article discussion, by producing 31 fewer titles than Outskirts Press. User A Man in Black (above) is right, Google alone isn’t sourcing, yet in this case, Google alone seems like enough to keep this article, along with the Amazon stats, and let’s not forget The Denver Business Journal citations already included in the article itself, as noted by user Jll (above). 20:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before you dig yourself in any deeper. Deb (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for contributing the article. To sign your name and add the date you put four ~ like this ~~~~.
  • The first source [32] looks good to me and I have added it.
  • I am not convinced about the numbers of books argument - using Amazon advanced search (assuming I am using it correctly) shows that Outskirts Press published around 1,600 books in 2008, but this is small in comparison to the 926,000 books in total Amazon lists as published in 2008.
  • The argument that articles on other similar publishers exist is not a strong one since the Wikipedia inclusion criteria is about "notability" and "verifiability" — if one thing is notable and verifiable then it does not automatically mean that all other things like it are.
    Wikipedia:Other stuff exists
    is an essay about it.
  • Self-published books (and blogs) are frequently not considered good sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29), although I have doubts about that here because any book about self-publishing will probably itself be self-published for the sensible reason that it demonstrates the author practices what s/he preaches.
On the other hand, the article now cites two news articles from one source, and links two other independent sources. Jll (talk) 12:56, 24 April 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Musatov

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

To what degree is a screenwriter

WP:RS. He's the credited cowriter of one notable film, but I couldn't find any independent writing about him, and his Wikipedia account appears mainly devoted to self-promotion. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I've found good references confirming the connection of Martin Musatov with this film, and decent evidence connecting the subject to our persistent indef blocked user User:Martin.musatov. I was honestly shocked, I assumed it was just a troll lying for attention. It's possible a clueless Variety author picked it up from IMDB, but I believe it. In any case what we've got here is a marginally notable screenwriter who happens to have delusions of grandeur and a very poorly thought out idea to use Wikipedia to win a million dollars. Dcoetzee 11:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any case I'm going to contact Variety about this. Dcoetzee 11:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The film certainly exists: one can borrow it from Netflix. I don't see any particular reason to doubt that Variety gave the correct list of screenwriters. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 17 April 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Monty

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

This actor appeared in a single film. I found a single review that called him adorable, but other than that, there is no significant coverage about him or any indication he won any awards. The article fails

WP:GNG and should therefore be deleted Mgm|(talk) 11:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy/snowball keep. The notability of geographic places is well established.--chaser - t 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crow, Texas

Crow,_Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Fails

talk) 06:38, 17 April 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Scribner

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

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines
. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the

General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 23:36, 16 April 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. Wizardman 17:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Semerano

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

Minor League Baseball player who has not played in any league higher than an AA (this year) and does not pass the drafted (with much consensus)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines
. There is debate within WP:Baseball about minor league players qualifying as "fully professional"

Good faith search brings up passing mention in articles about the team, no significant coverage of the subject, which means he fails the

General notability guidelines. kelapstick (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

My mistake, the references need to be checked to make sure they are substantial coverage, not just a passing mention.--kelapstick (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment player does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball which is a more lax guideline than the proposed notability guideline either.--kelapstick (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've added a number of sources to the article, as well as info about Baseball America ranking him a number 3 prospect in New York State. While I'd like to see more, I think this nudges him over the line.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although Fabrictramp found a couple of articles profiling him, they appear to be from his hometown paper; I'd like to see significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. BRMo (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor leaguer who does not meet requirements according to
    WP:ATHLETE. Mandermagic (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock legends of Ukraine

Rock legends of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating for deletion, as non-notable commercial recompilation of material available on primary albums. Galassi (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 17 April 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. Arguments for retention focus overly on giving the benefit of the doubt to the editor and do not fully address the issues of the stated

userfication request for further work Fritzpoll (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Thomas R. Vozzella

Thomas R. Vozzella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable performer and arranger. Only 264 Google hits, and apparently most are websites which sell his arrangements. The editor who created the page only contributed to this article, plus a few composer biographies where he tried adding links to said commercial websites. Jashiin (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no idea how to fix my mistakes on this article. I am doing this for a friend of a friend. Some said to put external links, so I linked his compositions to composers of the compositions. Now the article is up for deletion. Some newbies could use more help and patience from experienced users. Not everyting that is done is on purpose, just don't know what to do. Help, and patience, please? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicTex (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

It was not the authors’ intent to break Wiki rules. It was purely an attempt to do what another suggested. Everyone wants to be helpful, but sometimes the assumption is that there is some overt intent to get away with something, etc. that needs to be exposed. Well it was a pure mistake. This article has been challenged prior, with regard to its worthiness on Wikipedia, and was retained. This was the authors first attempt at an article, a mistake or two were made, and it is being put up for deletion again. A little help would be nice, rather than condemnation. This author has done every suggestion, or at least tried, although wrong, without suggestions to fix is a pretty difficult when you are new to Wikipedia, and or have very little experience at writing articles, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicTex (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the AfD process is not a "condemnation", as you put it. It is a discussion on whether to keep the article or not, and the result of this discussion still may be to keep it, depending on the consensus. Second, you didn't make any "mistakes". This discussion is here not because of how the article is written, but because the subject of the article may not be notable enough for an encyclopedia. So there is no need to appeal for help and patience, noone is judging you. We're merely trying to determine the subject's notability. So the only way you can help here is by citing more
reliable sources: published reviews of Vozzella's work, articles on him from other encyclopedias, references to his works in publications by others, recordings of his music, etc. --Jashiin (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional material was added in support of this article. Just as a note: Just because submissions cannot be proven via the web, does not denote their non-existence. Many of the Journal references, etc. are not available on the web. Old fashion library research is required. All of these references, etc. are sited. In order to prove the existence of compositions links to these sites are required. They have been removed as they have been said to be commercial. Some of this is a two edged sword; wrong if you do, wrong if you don't. This person is highly involved in the choral conducting field, because of his work in the church; visibility on the web is minimal (but in terms of those in the church music field 200+ hits on Google is great). Having choirs perform and ACDA and MENC events is not a small accomplishment. Having choral compositions published is also a huge accomplishment in the choral field. Dr. Vozzella, is notable, and his achievements supersede many in the field. If he were an orchestral conductor and did not work in the church, his visibility would be increased ten-fold. I do hope you will re-consider removing Dr. Vozzella for deletion, in consideration of the above. Also, this author is open to corrections, suggestions, etc. and has, to his detriment followed the suggestions of others, as can be seen in the history of this article.MusicTex (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC) MusicTex (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicTex (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I would prefer to give the article's author the benefit of the doubt in his claim that web-based content relating to the article's subject, as a means of validating notability, is minimal. However, I would point out that listing the subject's 'private label' recordings and private commissions do not establish any claim. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this article has added additional references, and deleted compositions that have no web based references. The published compositions had links previously. However, it was suggested that these links were too commercial in nature. Thusly they have been removed. The recordings have been up-dated to include the distributors of the recordings. If this is not acceptable, they will be removed. Each thing that this author does is to follow the suggestions of the many people that make them. There might be too much help coming, as everyone has their own ideas and thoughts. Probably after all the suggested changes, additions etc. are made, the article may revert to the one originally published. That article did not have this much attention, and/or suggestions. Again, this author is making all the changes, etc. that are suggested. I respectively ask that it be left, and allowed to develop. Thank you! MusicTex (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Based on the article in its present state in line with Wikipedia:Notability (music). The key criteria here is that the subject has " been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician . . . and reliable." If there are bona fide independent reviews of the subject's work, I'd be happy to reconsider. --Kleinzach 10:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jashiin, Kleinzach. Eusebeus (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Said compositions are published by firms that specialize in choral music. The articles and published reviews are in the Choral Journal. News paper articles, where available, have been link to support claims. Maybe looking at the items and fixing things would be helpful. Isn’t anyone free to edit. Well edit, and check the sources. Just because you haven’t heard of them, doesn’t constitute their validity or lack thereof. There seems to be a push to delete without true discourse. MusicTex (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. I'm rather concerned by the original author's recent behaviour, and I'm inclined to recommend delete, as well, but I'm going to spend a bit of energy cleaning it up until it's inevitably done away with (yes, I really do expect its deletion). I must be going soft or something. --Aepoutre (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person seems to be notable in his field, having performed in the White House, etc. If someone wants to form a "gang" to delete all articles that do not really meet WP's strict notability standards please let me know. I will be glad to join. Soon 90% of WP will be gone and that will be a great thing all around. Until then there is no reason to single this article out for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is everyone who performs at the (Washington) White House automatically notable? To Steve Dufour: all publications need to decide what they should, or shouldn't be covering. That's unavoidable. What we are trying to do here is apply rules that are fair and even-handed, and lead to objective decisions. Do you want to take part in the process? --Kleinzach 03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is why I take part in AfD and other discussions.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, the user in question started editing in early November 2008. Hardly a "new user". --Jashiin (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there are paper based sources, then surely these could be listed. I'm inclined to believe that that Vozzella has minor notability and that a poor article is not reason alone for deletion. Fol de rol troll (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me share, once again, that in the choral field, the number of compositions he has published, journal articles and reviews, as well as major performance venues is more than many of the bios in Wikipedia that have gone un-challenged. Ones field, publications, etc, may vary. In the field of church music, Dr. Vozzella is a leader in the field. Choral conductors and church musicians, as stated above are not as high profile as orchestral conductors. However, on the merits of having 29 years experience, and his accomplishments, he far exceeds in the field of church music, which seems to be his primary field of practice. In choral music, a single choral composition that is published is equal to one recording (1,000’s of copies, and used by 1,000’s of people). He performs weekly on radio, television, and live web casts, and pod casts. And, again, many who challenge this article are relying solely on web references. There are numerous references that are hardbound that will be added. However, that takes a bit more time than just surfing the web, as has much of his research and published works taken. He is the sole authority on the music from T. S. Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral. All of these achievements together are more than enough notability in the field of choral and church music. MusicTex (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeatedly stated that choral composers, arrangers and conductors are "not as high profile as orchestral conductors", that "in the church music field 200+ hits on Google is great", etc.; and from your words it seems that church and choral music are fields shunned by most, obscure, and difficult to study using online resources. However, some simple Google searches produce, for instance, choral composer/arranger John Rutter: 346,000 Google hits, a great number of compositions and arrangements, recordings produced by various artists other than Rutter himself, published compositions, reviews.. anything you want. Or here's another choral composer/arranger/conductor, less prominent: Alice Parker. There are 82,000 Google hits for her, and again, massive lists of compositions, recordings, reviews, etc. And both Rutter and Parker are living persons. Seems to me that contemporary choral music isn't that obscure, and that 200+ hits are not particularly great.
According to you, plenty of paper references exist that "will be added", but when will they be? Your article is 6 months old, plenty of time to add some. Suppose you didn't know you should provide references. But this AfD is 11 days old, so you've known about the references problem for more than a week, AND you have an opportunity to ask Dr. Vozzella personally - but the article is still not referenced properly. The "Worship Arts Journal" seems to be something really, really obscure - there are five Google hits, two of which are to your mentions of it on Wikipedia and CPDL. And what are the Choral Journal articles? Does "James Jordan review" stand for a review of Jordan's work by Vozzella, or a review of Vozzella's work by Jordan? None of the issues cited are available at the Choral Journal website. If those are reviews written by Vozzella, they're not really references showing his notability.
To recapitulate, your main points are that (1) choral composers are generally obscure, and (2) plenty of references for Dr. Vozzella exist, only not available online. However, (1) is easily disproven with Google, as I have demonstrated. As for (2), we have only your word for it. The way things are now, it looks like Dr. Vozzella has composed two choral pieces (and produced a dozen arrangements) and released some self-published records of own works. And the entire situation looks like a textbook example of
WP:COI, complete with tries to advertise the subject by adding commercial links. --Jashiin (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I appreciate everyone’s assistance. If it is still here when I get to a library, I will work on it, if not, it will be gone. I tried, oh well, lesson learned. Thanks! MusicTex (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again? MichaelQSchmidt: You've already given us your opinion once before (see above 17 April). --Kleinzach 23:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Sorry. Struck earlier userfy vote based upon continued good faith wish to improve. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean towards Delete here, doesn't quite tick all the boxes and seems to rely too heavily on one source I'd call questionable. I think we're into areas of wondering if the article is a little self-serving. Hiding T 13:51, 21 April 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.

Tickle torture

The result was Nomination withdrawn. I'm honestly surprised that people would rather have a bad article than no article about a subject, but I accept the consensus here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It seems there is little hope for improvement and it would better be gone than stay in its present condition. I must admit, it made me laugh, especially the part about the goat licking the salt solution. But this is not the place for humour. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I seem to remember this as a commonly used term. Perhaps we can redirect to Tickling? - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cull to one or two lines, include a few of the existing tenuous references, and Merge to the tickling article, in particular, the purpose of tickling section (i.e., the purpose of tickling as 'torture'). Hazir (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim to a very short paragraph and merge to Tickling. This doesn't appear to be a notable enough or real enough topic for a stand-alone article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge Needs to be cleaned up and sourced better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Embarrassment to wikipedia is not a deletion criteria. There are plenty of articles on this site that cover topics some may consider embarrassing to read. But this article does appear to fail in other areas. Since the term is common enough to be notable, I think the article needs cleanup rather than deletion.—RJH (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not Censored is the relevant policy about embarrassment., but I can see a merge. DGG (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This nomination is an embarassment to Wikipedia. It provides no evidence to support its assertion that there is little hope that the article will be improved and I have just refuted this by adding citations to a couple of good sources which I found amongst the hundreds of possibilities. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this
    WP:AFTER and discuss further sourcing and article trimming on talk page. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep There are references confirming it does exist, and it has been used as a form of torture in the past. Dream Focus 11:53, 19 April 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. MBisanz talk 01:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse scandal in Cloyne diocese

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

No evidence of particular notability is given here. Seems like just more piling on, and Wikipedia is

NOTNEWS. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse scandal in Miami archdiocese, where there is a keep consensus. Also, this affair is very notable in Ireland, you would know it if you read the Irish newspapers on a regular basis. ADM (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the Miami article covers events over a couple of decades. This appears to deal with the fallout from a report required by processes which were put in place and then ignored. If it had caused the processes to be put in place in the first place, I'd agree it was notable enough for an article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: See
    WP:OTHERSTUFF
    - you'll have to show that the subject of this article is notable enough in it's own right.
  • Keep. The subject-matter is quite obviously notable, a major scandal involving Church and State - so notable in fact that it has prompted the involvement of the Pope (would you like to tell Benedict that he's made a mistake?) PiCo (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On quite a few counts, yes--but not this one in particular. I don't think papal action necessarily indicates notability in this case, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination - Wikipedia is
    talk) 12:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that if it's one event with several aspects, then those aspects are remarkably widely-separated in time.

I suppose it's a tenable point of view that this is "one event" that spans several months, but I should think that stretches the meaning of "one event" rather too far.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically a series of related events comprises an episode. (The distinction between an event and an episode canbe argued endlessly, it's basically a matter of analytical convenience.) One Episode is still
WP:NOT#NEWS for the details of that episode. It should be included only if and to the extent that the episode casts light on the broader issue. Rd232 talk 22:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death Note Vs Detective Conan

Death Note Vs Detective Conan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Well produced but obvious hoax, no sources cited, no external (English nor Japanese) sources back up its claims, and there's not a shred of evidence that this is anything more than a hoax. Hoax and PROD tags removed by original author.ShakingSpirittalk 10:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously a hoax. The "references" and external links don't mention any such crossover. It has been created by an editor responsible for another hoax on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freddie Mercury Duets 08), and there may well have been more. I'm surprised this has not been speedily deleted under CSD G3. Astronaut (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having watched the anime show, I can be pretty sure this is a hoax.--Iner22 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ergonized

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

Content management system being promoted by its developers. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - I couldn't find all the product features noted on their web site. But instead found the "Ergonized Ecommerce Features" section in its entirety at this site. Bizarre! -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

WP:RELIST. COnsensus is for the mateiral to be included elsewhere. This seems the obvious target from the discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Footy tipping

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

This article does not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Sure, there are quite a few mentions of "footy tipping" but it's scarcely discussed in a non-trivial way. The fact that many people participate in online/office footy tipping does not make it notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. We don't have articles for e.g. NCAA brackets, NFL suicide pools, AFL last man standing contests etc. This article is of no encyclopedic value and it exists purely as a vehicle for spam. There's nothing in it that couldn't be summarised in one or two lines and added to Australian rules football culture. I would be happy to do this. Hazir (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge. Per nom, does not meet
Sk8er5000 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep If you look hard enough (try adding site:news.com.au or site:theage.com.au etc to your google searches) you find more than just trivial coverage, ie the sociology of tipping, the business of tipping and the politics of tipping. Some are promotional in nature, but I'm sure that someone, somewhere has done a PhD on tipping! The-Pope (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first article does discuss footy tipping in a non trivial way (while giving a few sites a plug along the way) but there's nothing substantive in it that couldn't be summarised neatly in Australian rules football culture. The latter two articles are specific to Tattersall/footytips.com.au and have little relevance to a general article about 'footy tipping'. Hazir (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, thanks, this nom reminded me to put in my NRL tips for this week! =) Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Unsourced at the moment but I doubt sources would be too hard to find. Definitely notable enough for a standalone article IMO. Querey merging with similar betting competitions? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Definitely" notable because you "doubt" it will be hard to find sources? This is not really helpful. What content is there that necessitates a stand alone article? Have you looked at Australian rules football culture? This is where the article could be easily merged. Hazir (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well it took me all of 30 seconds to find those three non-trivial sources. In response to your dismissing of the business side of footy tipping, I think it's what makes it notable... if it was just a pub/office type of thing, then it should be hidden away in a culture article. Given it has become big business, with politicians using it as a key election platform and businesses based on it being sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, I think that's pretty notable. The history and failure of Tipstar might be worth it's own article, but for now would fit nicely into a footy tipping article, but not really into a Aussie rules culture article. Yes, the article needs a lot of work, yes it appears to be a target for some vandalism/spamming, but that isn't a valid reason for deleting. The-Pope (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history of Tipstar has no place in a general article about footy tipping. It certainly does not fit 'nicely'. If we are to include this content, then what about Oztips, AFL.com.au tipping, NineMSN tipping, Realfooty tipping, Bigfooty, Lastmanstanding? I'm sure articles could be dug up about the trials and tribulations of many footy tipping enterprises. I maintain that there's no need for a stand alone enclyclopedic article about footy tipping. It's just a betting pool game that people like to play in Australia. Some do it in the office, some do it online, there's various sites, some are free, some are not. This is easily summarised in a few lines and added to Australian rules football culture, where it is not such a magnet for spam. Hazir (talk) 18:03, 23 April 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. Also hundreds of sources in news archives. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Krom

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

Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bartolo Nardini

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

Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:56, 17 April 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. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bart N. Locanthi

Bart N. Locanthi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bart Locanthi is, as an AES and ASA fellow, and AES Gold Medal recipient, very notable. Pent112 (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not notability. If you want to easily prove Alan Liefting's pretty much nonexistent rationale false, cite multiple independent reliable sources that cover this person's life and works in depth. I see that you had already cited one (a page-long article in the JAES) before the article was even nominated. Cite some more. You'll give the closing administrator something clearly and strongly founded in deletion policy to hang xyr hat on, which cannot be said of that nomination rationale. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it says he's a guy of vision and genius. MyDog22 (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A search of Bart Locanthi with google delivered hundreds of hits. A few of them:
    • [36]
    • [37]
    • [38]
    • [39] Pent112 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's more like it. That gives the discussion specific sources to address. If you can find and cite sources that are primarily about Locanthi, discussing him in depth, that will help to make your case watertight. Uncle G (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Needs clean up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable US person. Ronroth (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per sources found by Pent112. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources are available to establish notability. --Jmundo 20:43, 23 April 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triune Continuum Paradigm

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

Non-notable topic of research and

WP:COI. The article and Google / Google Scholar indicate few if any coverage which the article author and inventor of this "paradigm" did not co-author. Contested PROD, see also the article talk page.  Sandstein  09:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The issue with "Non-notable topic of research" was discussed in the article talk page. The non-notability was disapproved by the factual evidence: existence of verifiable and reliable sources (refereed academic publications by international publishers who are completely independent from the article's author).
The only remaining issue seems to be a suspected conflict of interest; the existence on the conflict does not look justified (see the discussion from the article talk page). (Aipetri (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Also, the factual evidence disproves "Google / Google Scholar" argument of Sandstein. Here are some publications that were not (co)authored by the article's author, that refer to the
Triune Continuum Paradigm
and that were found using the aforementioned Internet search tools only:

[1] J.P.A. Almeida, G. Guizzardi. On the Foundation for Roles in RM-ODP: Contributions from Conceptual Modelling, Proceedings of 4th International Workshop on ODP for Enterprise Computing (WODPEC 2007), the 11-th IEEE International EDOC Conference (EDOC 2007). Annapolis, Maryland, USA, October 2007. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/EDOCW.2007.21
[2] P. Balabko. Situation-Based Modeling Framework for Enterprise Architecture. PhD Thesis 3234, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology – Lausanne, EPFL 2005.
[3] P. Balabko, A. Wegmann. Precise Graphical Representation of Roles in Requirements Engineering, Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Engineering Methods to Support Information Systems Evolution, EMSISE’03, Geneva, Switzerland, September 2003.
[4] R.M. Dijkman. Consistency in multi-viewpoint architectural design. PhD thesis 06-80, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, University of Twente, 2006.
[5] R.M. Dijkman, J.P.A. Almeida, D.A.C. Quartel. Verifying the Correctness of Component-Based Applications that Support Business Processes, Proceedings of the 6th ICSE Workshop on Component-Based Software Engineering: Automated Reasoning and Prediction, pp. 43-48, Portland, Oregon, USA, May 2003.
[6] R.M. Dijkman, D.A.C. Quartel, M.J. van Sinderen. Consistency in multi-viewpoint design of enterprise information systems, Information and Software Technology, Volume 50, Issues 7-8, pp. 737-752. June 2008, Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2007.07.007
[7] R.M. Dijkman, D.A.C. Quartel, L.F. Pires, M.J. van Sinderen. An approach to relate viewpoints and modeling languages, Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2003, pp. 14-27, September 2003, IEEE publishing. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/EDOC.2003.1233834
[8] R.M. Dijkman, D.A.C. Quartel, L.F. Pires, M.J. van Sinderen. A rigorous approach to relate enterprise and computational viewpoints, Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2004, pp. 187-200, September 2004, IEEE publishing. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/EDOC.2004.1342515
[9] M. K. Farooq , S. Shamail , A. M. Mian, Reference model for devolution in e-governance, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Vol. 351. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pp. 123-129. December 2008, Cairo, Egypt.
[10] S.I. Herrera, M.M. Clusella, G.N. Tkachuk, P.A. Luna. How System Models Contributes to the Design of Information Systems, Proceedings of the First World Congress of the International Federation for Systems Research (IFSR 2005): The New Roles of Systems Sciences For a Knowledge-based Society; Kobe, Japan, November 2005.
[11] D. José, A. Wegmann, G. Regev. Expressing Systemic Contexts in Visual Models of System Specifications. Proceedings of the Workshop on Context Modeling and Decision Support. T. Bui, A. Gachet (Eds.) Paris, CEUR-WS, Volume 144, July 2005.
[12] K. Lano. A compositional semantics of UML-RSDS. Software and Systems Modeling. Volume 8, Number 1, pp. 85-116. February 2009, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg. DOI 10.1007/s10270-007-0064-x
[13] K. Lano. Using B to verify UML Transformations, Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Model design and Validation (MODEVA 2006), B. Baudry, D. Hearnden, N. Rapin, J. G. Süß (Eds.), pp. 46-61; Genova, Italy, October 2006.
[14] L.S. Le, A. Wegmann. Definition of an Object-Oriented Modeling Language for Enterprise Architecture. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (HICSS’05); p. 222a. Hawaii, USA, Jan. 2005, IEEE publishing. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/HICSS.2005.186
[15] L.S. Le, A. Wegmann. Meta-model for Object-Oriented Hierarchical Systems. Technical report No. IC/2004/47, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - Lausanne. EPFL, 2004.
[16] R.A. Lopez Toro. Estimation des risques d'incohérence liés à l'emploi d'UML pour le développement des systèmes. PhD Thesis No 961, Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Toulouse, 2009.
[17] O. Ukrainets. UFO-element presentation in metamodel structure of triune continuum paradigm. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technologies, CSIT’2006. September 2006, Lviv, Ukraine.
[18] A Wegmann, A Kotsalainen, L Matthey, G Regev, A. Giannattasio. Augmenting the Zachman enterprise architecture Framework with a systemic conceptualization. Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2008, pp. 3-13. doi/10.1109/EDOC.2008.49
[19] A. Wegmann, L.S. Lê, G. Regev, B. Wood. Enterprise modeling using the foundation concepts of the RM-ODP ISO/ITU standard, Information Systems and E-Business Management, Volume 5, Number 4, pp. 397-413. September, 2007; Springer. DOI 10.1007/s10257-007-0051-3
[20] A. Wegmann, L.S. Lê, B. Wood. Multi-level System Modeling Using the Foundation Concepts of RM-ODP. Technical report No. LAMS/2006/03, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - Lausanne. EPFL, 2006.

Here are some projects that use the paradigm applications and that also were found using the aforementioned Internet search tools only:

[1p] Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland.
Project: Systemic Enterprise Architecture Methodology (SEAM)
http://lamswww.epfl.ch/reference/seam/theory_tool

[2p] Exia Corporation, Ottawa, Canada.
Project: Advancements in Software Factory and Domain-Specific Language Implementations
http://www.exia.net/content/advancementsinsoftwarefactory.pdf

[3p] Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA.
Project: The Alloy Analyzer
http://alloy.mit.edu/publications.php

[4p] Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Project: UML 2 Semantics Project
http://research.cs.queensu.ca/~stl/internal/uml2/bibtex/ref_uml2semantics.html

[5p] Universidad de Málaga, Spain; Universidad de Córdoba, Spain.
Project: www.rm-odp.net
http://www.uco.es/~in1rosaj/rmodp/publications.html

I sincerely hope that this evidence, in addition to the references that are already present in the article, convinces everybody that mentioned by Sandstein suspected paradigm's non-notability is actually untrue. Aipetri (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I do understand your point of view. You are developing a new theory, which becomes published in several notable publications, and other institutes start to have interest in your work. But in Wikipedia this is not enough. We only accept subjects, which have some sever coverage in reliable, third-party, published sources, no mater how much you publish yourself. If this third-party coverage isn't their yet, then we classify the topic as not-notable. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The third party reliable sources exist ([1]-[8] on the article page). I didn’t reference any of my self-publications. All of the referenced publications were published by reliable third parties which are not affiliated with me. My affiliations are only: Triune Continuum Enterprise and Creative View S.A., - the publications of these organisations were not referenced as sources. Aipetri (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. I think you lost me. You are claiming the 1 to 8 reference in the Triune Continuum Paradigm article are the third party reliable sources!? The reference section list:
  1. the first source, your PhD thesis from June 2002, published the Triune Continuum Paradigm
  2. six other of your publications, and
  3. one publication by your thesis professor A. Wegmann.
All your publications (in Wikipedia) are considered first party sources and your professor's publication second party source. These are no third party reliable sources -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of Wikipedia rules "third party" refers to publisher (as opposed to "self-published" material) and not to the authorship. So in this case the mentioned publications are all third party sources (see explanation below). Aipetri (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another wannabe
    defy any attempt to make sense of it. If someone can explain, in plain English, the difference between a computing "paradigm" based on Tarski's semantic theory of truth, as opposed to another "paradigm" that's supposed to somehow use, say, a correspondence theory of truth - only then will I accept that this isn't hyperinflated nonsense created to sound lofty and difficult without containing any actual insight. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Tarski’s theory of truth was used to formulate the Triune Continuum Paradigm, because it allows for formal reasoning about expressions made in a system modeling language. The application of Tarski’s theory to general system modeling makes it possible to express system models in a computer interpretable form and to employ computer automation to unambiguously demonstrate:
  • adequateness (or inadequateness) of modeling representations with regard to the agreed conceptualizations of a universe of the modeling discourse;
  • coherency (or incoherency) of interpretations within modeling representations;
  • limits of the application scope of a modeling language (in particular, showing where the language is formally inapplicable).

As for the mentioned correspondence theory of truth, I can be mistaking, but as far as I understand, it can be considered as a generalization of Tarski’s theory; and unlike Tarski’s theory, the correspondence theory does not provide a logical formalism that would allow to formulate Tarski’s formal semantics and to apply to them subsequent computer automation.

More details on the application of Tarski’s theory to general system modeling can be found in the following publication:
[21] A. Naumenko, A. Wegmann, C. Atkinson. "The Role of Tarski’s Declarative Semantics in the Design of Modeling Languages", Technical report No. IC/2003/43, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - Lausanne. EPFL, April 2003.

I hope this explanation clarifies the story. Aipetri (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Leaving aside my inclination to wonder whether the expression 'Get a life' could have been applied to the people concerned, there is definitely notability in the cases of Russell and Tarski, and quite a few ghits for the third component and the paradigm itself. I do feel that the article strays from the encyclopaedic in being rather incomprehensible. I realise that to most people this sort of stuff sounds like gibberish (I include myself in the majority there), and wish that someone would translate from jargon into English. (This applies to many expositions of both Logic and Philosophy, which could explain the unpopularity of both subjects...) Peridon (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may be mistaking (if so, please share a pointer to the corresponding rules), but I do not suppose that Wikipedia is only for light reading. As you said, there are many expositions of scientific subjects included here that are difficult to comprehend to most people. But, in my opinion, this doesn’t make the articles unencyclopaedic. Indeed, according to the definition of
the article’s main page). Aipetri (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not unfamiliar with older philosophy (having addressed an audience on aspects of Schopenhauer's thought), but modern philosophy and logic seems to be deliberately designed to be totally esoteric and impenetrable. Bearing in mind that people use encyclopaedias in many cases to find out what a subject is about, I feel that a section giving a summary in ordinary English would be advantageous. I am not calling for deletion - I would go for Keep pro tem at least - but for what to my mind would be improvement. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article can be improved, and I planned to work on it, adding more details and explanations. I hope to continue this work as soon as the current discussion will conclude and the article will be kept in Wikipedia. Aipetri (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See references [1]-[8] on
the article’s main page. If you think that these sources are unreliable, then please explain why you think so. Aipetri (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, I should have said third party reliable source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, please explain why you think that the publishers of 4 refereed international journals, the publisher of two refereed editions of “Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology”, the publisher of refereed proceedings of an international workshop and the best Swiss technical school are not reliable third parties. Thanks. Aipetri (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Systemics. This topic is beginning to get some attention in third party sources, so I guess this topic could be kept for now merged into Systemics, and listed as a application there, untill it draws some more attention. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, based on “primary, secondary, and tertiary sources” rule. Aipetri (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Explanation of the difference between a self-published and a third-party published source.

Since it appears to be a reoccuring argument, I would like to clarify that in order to distinguish between a self-published and a third-party published source, it is necessary to check the publisher:

  • If the publisher is the source's author or his/her affiliated organization, then it is a self-published material.
  • If the publisher is not the author or his/her affiliated organization (and not Wikipedia, who is considered to be the second party), then it is a third-party publication.

Aipetri (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just explained it is not about the publisher, but about the author. There needs to be articles written by third party authors. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I think that in the context of Wikipedia rules you are mistaking. In Wikipedia rules “third party” is opposed to “self-published” and not to “self-authored”. There is no such thing in this context as “third party author”, because there is no “second party author”. To the contrary, “third party publisher” is opposed to the “second party publisher” (Wikipedia) and to self-publication. Aipetri (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am about to make my 50.000s contribution to Wikipedia after five years. Could it be, you are mistaking? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be talking about you and me, we should talk about Wikipedia rules. In this particular case I have well founded reasons to say that Wikipedia rules are on my side and not on yours. Aipetri (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, when we are talking about third party sources, it is always about the author. Ask any other wikipedian. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Also Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources, see here. All your work are considered primary sources.
I see what you mean. I agree on the rule about primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and on the way you applied it to the article under discussion. However, let us also agree that the rule on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and the rule on self-published work are two different rules. The former refers to authorship while the latter refers to publisher origins.
If you are saying that “self-published sources” rule was designed to refer to the authorship rather then to the publisher origins, then it is a poorly (misleadingly) stated rule and it needs to be changed to “self-authored sources”. However, I think that this rule (unlike primary, secondary, and tertiary sources rule) must be about the publisher origin. This is confirmed by the usage of word “third-party” that in everyday life refers to a party who is independent from the two parties involved in some sort of relationship. In our case the relationship is between a Wikipedia’s article author and Wikipedia as a publisher. The rule suggests that a Wikipedia’s article author should not rely primarily on self-published sources, but should rely primarily on third-party sources (that is: not self-published and not Wikipedia-published).
The article under discussion satisfies “do not rely on self-published sources, but rely on third-party sources” rule. But, I agree that the article’s subject currently appears relatively weak with regard to its coverage in secondary sources (“primary, secondary, and tertiary sources” rule). Additional research is needed to show more of the secondary sources (if they already exist). Aipetri (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources talkpage is the place to ask more general questions about Wikipedia rules. I personally don't think there are exactly two different rules here. In Wikipedia everybody can make up the rules, so several rules could relate to one subject. In this matter I think the termology might be confusing. Also reliable third party sources aren't always about the author, it can also relate to a website where the author is unknown. There are a lot of ins and outs in Wikipedia rules. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:18, 24 April 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Castro (singer)

Michael Castro (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

WP:MUSIC. Yes he did appear on American Idol but he didn't even make it to the final cut down show. So essentially, we have an article on him because he's the brother of Jason Castro, who appeared on Idol as a finalist in season 7. Really no notability beyond that. All of the references are either about his Idol experience or are in some relation to his brother. He's never released an album, even locally. Just fails almost every notability test. User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Agreed- fails everything in the 'notable' req's. When in doubt, just ask: would you find this entry in an encyclopedia?65.215.94.13 (talk) 16:23, 22 April 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. MBisanz talk 01:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Morss and Brett Tyler

Timothy Morss and Brett Tyler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Talk 20:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Icewedge (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that coverage of a crime is a BLP1E item - it is coverage of an individual in addition to or in place of coverage of a crime that BLP1E addresses. However, a redirect to the appropriate section in
Whole life tariff
is a viable solution, as it renaming the article to make it more obviously about the crime, and the aftermath.
While we're at this, in the Timothy Morss and Brett Tyler section in
Daniel Handley murder case. SilkTork *YES! 09:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I've renamed the Daniel Handley article and merged in material from Timothy Morss and Brett Tyler. So I'm changing now to Redirect to Murder of Daniel Handley. SilkTork *YES! 09:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future (musician)

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

No reliable sources to indicate notability. Google doesn't turn up anything, the links given don't mention him, and the MySpace link is broken. Similar article was previously speedy-deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jalik Rashad Perry. Radiant chains (talk) 06:27, 17 April 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. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PinoyExchange

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

Notability in question. I cannot find 3rd party sources in local newspapers that verifies its notability. Claim of being the Philippines' biggest message board is verified only by one site called big-boards.com (big claims require multiple sources) Lenticel (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - but a very weak keep, only because it seems to have enough different people editing it over the years. However I do take issue with their self-published sources (I have tagged the article) and the whole thing is a little too advert-ish for me. Re: notability, google shows over 1mm hits for that term - however only 446 are from outside the site itself, and many of those are worthless link exchange sites. But again, multiple editors. JCutter (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The website has an alexa ranking of under 10,000 and a Google Page Rank of 4, and the traffic within it's demographic seems very high. There are probably sources out there which can assert notability, although I have not been able to find them with a casual search. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I personally consider PEx as the most popular online forum/board in the Philippine web, but then I'm not a reliable source for that assertion. :-P FWIW, PEx won the People's Choice Award for the Community category in the 2001 Philippine Web Awards: [40]. --seav (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Shys. MBisanz talk 01:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kweskin

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

Non-notable keyboard player. Articles makes no assertion to notability. No awards. Member of a garage band that's released two album which have no history of having charted

talk) 08:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–South Korea relations

Iceland–South Korea relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random country combination, the extent of relations seems very limited: http://www.mofat.go.kr/english/regions/europe/20070818/1_990.jsp? doesn't appear to be any bilateral or trade agreements? LibStar (talk) 04:33, 17 April 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 RADIUS . MBisanz talk 01:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of RADIUS standards

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

Straightforward violation of

WP:NOTLINK. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Colonomos

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

I see nothing to establish notability here - even if MSI Music were notable (and I don't think it is), that wouldn't justify this bio. JaGatalk 04:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not appear to meet
    WP:BIO; very little chance that any of the content will be reliably sourced. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:26, 17 April 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. Jamie☆S93 00:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson de Carvalho Barbosa

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

prod was contested. I still have no clue why this guy is notable. Person who deproded says he plays for a pro team and that makes him notable. I don't know anything about soccer but I do know a bit about sports in general and do know there are many pro athletes who never make it off the proverbial bench or maybe play in only one or two games. In essence, the back up to the back up kinda player. This article gives me no clue as to why he is wiki worthy. Is he the Pele of his time? Or is he the bench warmer? Or is he somewhere in between? I have no clue cause the article doesn't tell me! And as a encyclopedia, Wiki authors should not keep their info to themselves but share their info to educate us ignorant on the subject at hand! Postcard Cathy (talk) 03:26, 17 April 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. MBisanz talk 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of algal culture collections

AfDs for this article:
List of algal culture collections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

This article was nominated for deletion a few months ago as a pure external-link farm, but ended as no consensus. Several editors asserted that it could be salvaged by reformatting.

A few months later, no substantial edits have been made to the article apart from to add further external links.

Wikipedia is still not a web directory or a list of external links. There is no salvageable encyclopedic content here, and I feel the original arguments made to delete it seem only more relevant. Lists are useful as a means of navigating and summarising Wikipedia articles, but it's really not the function of an encyclopedia to provide directories of all the web sites on a topic.~ mazca t|c 20:44, 9 April 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 03:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a classic violation of
    Dialogue 04:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - I believe this is one of thoes few instances where
    use common sense. The links are directly relevant to the article and are equal to Citations proving that each place does house a collection. (Feel free to convert them to actual Citations, they do seem somewhat brutal in their current format.) Just because the Article is sparse on prose (at the moment) is not reason to delete a encyclopedic list that would not be found anywhere else. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    If there was a significant article and those links were present in the "external links" section, I would remove them per
    WP:ELNO #13 # Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. As this would be the same as page-blanking, there is absolutely nothing worth saving in this article. The sources aren't third-party sources, so they don't assert notability, nor are they the preferred sourcing for verification. ThemFromSpace 07:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No, its not. The article is about a list of algae collections, not a specific algae collection. If there were an article about each of these collections, than the link would be relevant as the official link, but in a list collection like this there really isn't any one "official" link. The links aren't directly relevant to the article at all as they are about a different scope altogether. ThemFromSpace 08:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not an Article about a list ... It IS a list. Each link is to an official page. That is my application of common sense. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:31, 17 April 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 Strands. MBisanz talk 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyStrands

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

Declining db-spam; taking to AfD. The yahoo.com ref is okay, the others are iffy, and this is a new service, possibly not in full operation. Also, tone is too promotional. - Dan

push to talk) 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

per AFD guidelines, I should point out the comment above is from the article's primary poster. JCutter (talk) 14:49, 10 April 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 03:18, 17 April 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. MBisanz talk 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Baltzer

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

Non-notable political activist; "sources" are mostly her own websites and

fringe political publications with strong biases in her favor; no evidence of notability, but much pushing of her ideology and claims. "Sources" proposed on the talk page of the article are mostly cover-jacket-blurbs without sourcing, and the like (including one alleged e-mail to a Wikipedia editor). Orange Mike | Talk 03:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the sources provided by Eudemis below. Cleanup is necessary to keep it in line but that's not for AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the controversy surrounding Palestinian issues and the online propaganda war being waged by both sides, it is easy to overlook her independent press coverage. While not the cover of Time Magazine, she has been the subject of several published articles from independent secondary sources that would qualify her as notable under the guidelines. The Missourian [49] The Providence Journal [50] The Gazette (Cedar Rapids, IA) [51] The Salt Lake Tribune [52] Golden Triangle Newspapers [53]--Eudemis (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Delete My concern looking at the earlier versions of this article is it was extremely POV. The originator may have a
    WP:COI in terms of editing and promoting this. I am also concerned that Baltzer is generating her own coverage rather than being truly notable. The articles seem to be human interest stories for a local speech to an interested group - I give talks, but it doesn't make me notable. Mohummy (talk) 18:01, 22 April 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. MBisanz talk 01:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Peru relations

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

another random country relationship, non resident ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing Point (band)

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

Disbanded group with no label asserts no claim to notability per

WP:BAND. JaGatalk 02:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waseem Kayani

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

This article now is a

WP:BLP1E as he was released without being charged with a crime and is otherwise non-notable. MBisanz talk 01:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedy delete as recreation of material already deleted,

G4. TeaDrinker (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Bournemouth University Boat Club

Bournemouth University Boat Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable university sports club. An earlier incarnation of this article was also deleted via AfD: [63].

talk) 01:21, 17 April 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 consensus seems to be that he meets the general

WP:ATHLETE). Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 23:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Dean Bouzanis

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

A year has gone since his previous AfD and he still hasn't played a game so still fails

here for multiple examples Stu.W UK (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll plead guilty to that. I'll try to atone. My real point I guess is that once so much has been written about someone by reliable sources, it's not up to us to say he's notable. The media has already said he's notable for us. And notability can't be removed. If you were notable but then fade, you're still notable in relation to wiki policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My only concern is if this sets a precedent where anyone who signs for a big team from a small (in footballing terms) country will be notable because they'll get written about regardless of whether they ever play a game. Stu.W UK (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it sets any precedent. The general notability guidelines are that precedent. Regardless of any games played or not, if someone's writing about them specifically in a major newspaper then that demonstrates a certain notability, thus the GNG. Many inane, boring and unimportant things pass these requirements. Need I remind you of the former featured article Spoo? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criteria

A7
(web content with no indication of importance.) As this was the subject's sixth speedy deletion, I have also temporarily salted it.

Conra

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

Non-notable freeware MMORPG. A Google search does not confirm notability that meets

talk) 00:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Street nerf

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

Appears to be game 'made up one day'. No Google hits, no refs. Prodded this already, now nominating for deletion. JNW (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as pure vandalism (CSD G3) — Gwalla | Talk 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Polar Bear

The Polar Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a

WP:BAND. Nothing in the "history" section is able to be verified with a quick google search (was hip hop and heavy metal even around in the 1950's?) Their website is in primitive condition and is definitly not that of a famous 50 year old band. ThemFromSpace 00:26, 17 April 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. Although "delete" wins the headcount 9-5, both sides have presented valid arguments; also, some of the issues like

original research have since been fixed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

List of words that comprise a single phoneme

List of words that comprise a single phoneme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list of single syllable words in a handful of European languages. Unencyclopedic. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, this is clearly synthesis. The only information from external sources is dictionary pronunciation guides. The conclusion that these pronunciations encompass a single phoneme in the relevant language, and the further conclusion that that cross-linguistic observation constitutes a class are conclusions original to the page's editor(s). The fact that the conclusions appear relatively easy ones to make does not obviate the fact that they are original. Of course, I will be proved wrong if Francia–magyar szótár states explicitly that /ɑ̃/ is a French word consisting of one phoneme and compares this to the Hungarian word /ɛ/, but I'm not holding my breath. Cnilep (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blowdart game

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

Declined PROD, non-notable game that looks

made up ViperSnake151  Talk  00:12, 17 April 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 into Human (Brandy album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True (Brandy song)

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

this article should be deleted as the level of information available is poor and it is unlikely that more information will be made available. additionally is there really the need to have a page for every song that charts but wasnt officially released by an artist? this information could be included on the page Human or brandy's discography Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant, sourced info in to Human (Brandy album)#Singles (even though it wasn't a single), and delete this one. I personally don't see the point in keeping it as a redirect due to the non-plausible nature of the title as a search term. The Bubbling under charts aren't notable in themselves, since her #18 position actually equates to #118 on the Top 100 R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart. Not enough for a stand alone article I believe.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plausible or not we cannot delete the article history of merged material.
    GFDL - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was redirect to

9/11 advance-knowledge debate#Israel. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Urban Moving Systems

Urban Moving Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable. Some Israelis working for the company were questioned and released in the days soon after 9/11 before them and the company went back to Israel. There's a theory that they are related to Israeli intelligence, but other than that, there's nothing notable about this company which no longer exists. IIIVIX (Talk) 23:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to
    9/11 advance-knowledge debate#Israel (or possibly other related article) as it is a common enough search term and is discussed there. No evidence that it needs its own article though. Rd232 talk 18:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If anyone wants a copy of the text to source and merge with

Creativity Movement, I'll be happy to provide it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Festum Album

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

Seems a bit of a neologism to me. The only Google hits I'm finding for the phrase "Festum Album" are postings on Yahoo Groups and things of that nature. It doesn't appear to have been reported on by any news media either, and the article itself indicates that the holiday was created in 2002. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The religion itself isn't likely to receive media attention, let alone its holidays. However, the holiday exists as does the information about it, which I included in the references section. Besides, unlike mainstream religions, it's relatively new and as such it has no political or economic clout; therefore it's not likely to have much media attention. --scochran4 (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that per WP:Notability, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. I understand your argument that the holiday is unlikely to be covered by the mainstream media, but all we need is some reliable secondary sourcing. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to cite

Ignore All Rules. The holiday exists and information exists outlining its reason for existence, history, and rituals. The purpose of the article is to accurately outline and detail the aspects of this religious holiday. Deleting this article would be counterproductive to that end. --scochran4 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree with Scochran4 that the article should remain. It is a recognised holiday that is part of a recognised religion. Thoughtcrime69er (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the
Creativity Movement is not a religion, really, it's an atheistic white supremacist movement, and not a particularly big one so far as I can tell. Any content that can be verified through RSs can be added to the parent article later. John Carter (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The
Creativity Movement has been recognized by U.S. federal courts as a religion in that it gives its adherents a notion of morality. --scochran4 (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Is there proof of this? And precisely which movement is this--the "Creativity Alliance," "The Creativity Movement" (a/k/a "Skinheads of the Racial Holy War"), the "TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation," or the "Church of the RaHoWa"? Drmies (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since not notable; reliable sources saying anything about this "feast" do not exist. I looked. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – (edit conflict) lack of any verifiable that can establish notability of this holiday. MuZemike 02:08, 17 April 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 into Jerry Garcia. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. Garcia

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

This is a very POV article ("these ties reflect the psychedelic spontaneity of his music and life" "his neckwear has become the eye of many teenagers looking for that certain style" "new patterns based upon Garcia's work have been added, all of which have enjoyed great commercial success") which appears to be about a non-notable subject; at any rate, not supported by any third-party references. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Appears to have received plenty of independent press coverage over a number of years, including several articles specifically about this brand in
    LA Times[66] and Daily News Record[67][68]. Pburka (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, per Pburka. Also, here's one from the San Francisco Chronicle. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Merge. This product line is really not notable on its own even though there is a feature article about it. Any notability really extends to Jerry Garcia and the novelty associated with a necktie being named after him. I find this a difficult article to stand up on its own and has a number of other issues. I have removed some of the NPOV issues from the text but still it is an orphan article with limited content and references. I find that there are rarely derivative articles of this sort (example: Derek Jeter's cologne, Paris Hilton's perfume, Mary Kate and Ashley Olson's clothing line or any other derivative products that spin off from a celebrity) on Wikipedia. As a result, I would propose merging this article into a subsection of
    TALK ◄| 18:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable page, under the world of fashion, excellent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.238.113 (talk) 05:49, 19 April 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. MBisanz talk 01:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitality House of Tulsa

Hospitality House of Tulsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not feel this article passes notability requirements for

WP:ORG
currently has the following to say about that:

"attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability"

and, under non-commercial:

"Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead."

Author has made it clear on the talk page that they are dealing with this article as they would a home page (information for guests, donors, and volunteers of the house) rather than an encyclopedia article. It may be suited as a redirect to

House of Hospitality, but I don't believe it should be a standalone article. 132 03:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

-Thank you again for your help. I appreciate your help in making this entry better.

I reviewed the WP:ORG information, and further edited the Hospitality House of Tulsa entry with more references to other news sources. I feel that because Hospitality House of Tulsa has been featured in at least four separate news sources in two cities, it has "demonstrable effects on society". Each article demonstrates the impact this organization is having on people not just in Tulsa, but also people who have traveled from numerous other states for treatment in Tulsa.

Could you please help me understand how Hospitality House of Tulsa still fails to meet this guideline in WP:ORG: "Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." I understand from this guideline that smaller organizations such as the Hospitality House of Tulsa can be "notable" just as larger organizations like the Ronald McDonald House, if they have "demonstrable effects on society." I am having trouble understanding why Hospitality House of Tulsa does not meet this standard, when four other hospitality houses have their own Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_hospitality

Please help me understand why Hospitality House of Tulsa does not belong with these other Wikipedia entries.Mbjohnson1 (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. I would move to keep. Pustelnik (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See
WP:N, and not because of superficial resemblance to other articles, which themselves may either merit deletion, or may have reasons to be kept that this one lacks. Please base your arguements on the merits of this article only. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

-Thank you to everyone for your feedback and help in making this entry better. It is so appreciated. Mbjohnson1 (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – written like an advertisement or otherwise material that could be placed on their own site. This is not what Wikipedia is for. There also seems to be a
    ownership going on here. MuZemike 02:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algie Composite Aircraft

Algie Composite Aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

talk) 15:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Nope. This, you may have noticed, is not a car, much less a car about which Haynes Manuals have been written. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I see a bunch of generic trivial descriptions and mirrors, but nothing that would close to independent and significant in coverage. MuZemike 01:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -
    WP:UPANDCOMING firm that doesn't even have a product yet. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:01, 17 April 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.--chaser - t 03:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justo Arenas

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

Declined speedy, non notable judge. Appears to be COI too.

Talk 18:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak Delete
    verifiable (although that is not shown), I don't know that the subject is in the press with sufficient frequency to develop an article which extends beyond the information provided by sources close to the subject (such as some, as yet not found official bio); the exclusive reliance on which will surely sway the article toward the positive. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete concur with above regarding magistrates being generally non-notable, and no evidence to the contrary presented here. These are generally temporary positions. JJL (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I see a whole bunch of legal documents, but nothing providing anything independent or reliable to establish notability. Oh yeah, clear
    copied from somewhere, but I cannot find where. MuZemike 01:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Per nom. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Lev

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

Removed PROD. No assertion of notability. Fails

vecia 18:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ShrekOfVulcan. Looking at several of those articles really quickly, there seems to be enough significant coverage in reliable sources. MuZemike 01:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears notable, but this needs to be better demonstrated in the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Distribution

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

I'm unsure about the notability of the company; the only thing I could find in Google News was the story regarding the recent buy-out of the company by Burton Snowboards, nothing else in the way of reliable sources talking about the company. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 22:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- This article is a clearly promotion or advetisement to that company. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – nothing that I can find can indicate any notability of this company. I only find the same press release of the buyout, which is not independent. MuZemike 01:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- couldn't find any assertion of notability. Website just says "talk to your sales rep". — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:50, 17 April 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.--chaser - t 03:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niyazi Silsila

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

Declined speedy, non notable order.

Talk 16:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 April 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.--chaser - t 03:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wen Peixin

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

This is supposedly the "wife" of He Tianhao, which was deleted by consensus a few weeks back, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/He Tian Hao. This has similar problems: no sourcing, and I couldn't find any non-Wikipedia sources on the internet. This person is listed on several literature-related lists (see the Special:Whatlinkshere/Wen Peixin) but they don't have sources either; perhaps they were just copied from the categories. If this is deleted I suggest those links be removed. Rigadoun (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 April 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. Although this fails a headcount, "Four square regional is mostly schoolyard rituals and chants, which will never have citations" is grounds for deletion; Wikipedia is not a "holding tank." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four square regional

Four square regional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is a mere list of unsourced rules. It is a bit of a

talk) 11:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 April 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. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill College Junior Common Room

Churchill College Junior Common Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Organization does not seem to meet requirements set out in the

organization-specific guideline. There is a single outside reference for this article, which itself does not actually mention this organization at all, but is an obituary for a professor at the school. I don't see any evidence that this is a particulatly notable student group, and it seems that unless some independent references materialize, this group is not notable enoigh for an article. Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Steve Sidewalk

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

non-notable DJ Brianga (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 00:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the only thing I can find that comes close to anything reliable is this post from the gaysocialites.com blog, but that's it. Everything else looks trivial or are unreliable. MuZemike 01:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - D-lister, no national tour, no contract for a CD, no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 20 April 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. MBisanz talk 01:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Brown (goaltender)

Mike Brown (goaltender) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete as an unsourced BLP that fails the

WP:GNG. Tavix |  Talk  18:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete – looking at the first couple of pages of the Google search of "Mike Brown" goalie, I get a few trivial mentions from reliable sources but nothing I would consider significant to meet the general notability guideline. MuZemike 01:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just misses notability, as things stand. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes
    WP:ATHLETE on account of having played professional hockey. There are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia of players with Brown's level of achievement and notability. Here's a full article about Brown...[69]. Don't forget, while significant coverage is more than trivial, it may be less than exclusive which more often than not is the case for minor-pro hockey players. You may find a few articles based on them, but they will be mentioned throughout the media. I've added some beef to the article. – Nurmsook! talk... 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Per Nurmsook. Patken4 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reference Nurmsook found is an article saying that he has not yet had a significant career. DGG (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reference I found was also published three years ago, and looking at his statistics, he has clearly been playing professional hockey in each of those three years since. Regardless, 40 minutes in the AHL still means he has "competed at the fully professional level of a sport", which means he passes
      WP:GNG. Thus, I would argue that DGG and King of Hearts' arguments are essentially moot, as where does it state that an individual had to have a significant career? And further, how do you define significant? Following WP guidelines, this guy is a pass. – Nurmsook! talk... 00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete - I would have to agree with DGG, since 40 minutes of ice time isn't much of a career. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's played almost 100 games, almost 5,000 minutes, in professional league hockey in North America. That career passes WP:Athlete. Patken4 (talk) 01:00, 24 April 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.--chaser - t 03:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Depeche Mode

The Complete Depeche Mode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Deproded by an IP. This article is unreferenced and non-notable. It is a list of albums that is redundant to Depeche Mode discography. A listing that the Depeche Mode catalogue is available through iTunes Store is NOT notable, and that is what this article is about Esasus (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Shawn. There is a minimal amount of notability there. Good enough IMO. MuZemike 01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable collection of songs, these iTunes box sets (if they can really be called "box" sets) are not notable. A mention in their discography article is enough. TJ Spyke 01:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for now. The NME & Spin ref's only provide the release dates and a quick run-down on what is in it (it looks like a slight rewording of the same press release too). Not exactly significant coverage in my view. And why would they, the albums and songs have already been covered in detail in their own specific articles. The mention in the Depeche Mode discography is more than enough, unless it goes on to break some sort of sales records, or one of the previously unreleased songs hits the charts or something.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Esradekan's cogent arguments. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no significant coverage of a non notable collection. Iam (talk) 02:52, 17 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_17&oldid=1142646092"