Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 1 August 3 August >

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. JForget 22:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edging (masturbation)

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

Article fails

WP:DICDEF. Any encyclopedic material which might theoretically come to light in the future could simply be inserted (ahem) in the masturbation or orgasm control articles. Notability also questionable; as evidenced by complete lack of wikilinks - even in the aforementioned articles. Article has been around for two years with no evidence of advancement. Matt Deres (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teaparty

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

This looks to be a non-notable neologism. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:17, 2 August 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 Minor places in Beleriand. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brethil

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

Not clear why this needs its own article. Noisalt (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inkstains

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

Was planning to PROD this but that has aparently been tried already and the author simply removed the tag with no comment. The article basicaly fail all notability criteria, there is no mention of any coverage by any 3. parties. There is one reference to a band profile site where they say they are working on it and who is involved but that is aparently the extent of what is know about it. Sherool (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you've conceded album would likely (given NA status; definitely) warrant an article after release it seems the logical conclusion is that the future album status is warranted. Since it's a stub article and it's a NA nothing is gained through deletion. It's tripled referenced... two third parties one in print form, how many other future album stubs are tripled cited for a stub?Iforgetsorry (talk) 07:53, 4 August 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 This was a really hard decision to make, seeing as the votes were mainly split between "Keep" and "Merge/Redirect". I decided to close this AFD as "close", partially becuase I believe that this encylopedia is based off the fact that we should improve an article, rather than do away with it. As a result, I suggest cleaning up this article, especially its prose and NPOV. Otherwise, if the article remains in its current state, someone will simply have to merge it to Top_and_bottom#Switch or versatile. Cheers, I'mperator 18:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Versatile (sex)

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

This appears to be a non-notable neologism. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of bad-faith. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never did; read my comment again carefully--perhaps with more attention rather than speed. I did, however, accuse you of sloppiness and shoddy editorial workmanship. You may be a quick reader, but it seems you're not a very thorough one. Owen× ☎ 17:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{

unsourced}}--Meister und Margarita (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The list continues ad libitum. I have no opinion on a stand-alone article or a merge. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my eyes it's okay that also a minority gets the space - but please let's not neglect the mainstream.
Humboldt University Berlin [8], i.e. fullfills all requirements for an undisputable and reliable source. This book was already quoted in the first draft of this article.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Non-notable is not shown.
Neologism is not shown. I offer a refutation of it anyway.
WP:DELETION
gives a handy definition of Neologism: "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms". The usage of the term is shown with RS, ergo it is not a neologism.
The relevance of "dictionary definition" and
WP:NAD is not shown, and in the first instance, not even elucidated; I cannot see even see how this might relate to any article of more than one paragraph, which describes an activity, and the use of the word that describes it. I have taken note from the discussion above that the changing the title to Versatility (sex), as the title is already a noun, does not address the concern about it being a dictionary definition. Ironically, it would seem that elucidation of the use of the word as a noun, as is not currently evident in the article, is called for. Anarchangel (talk) 06:38, 7 August 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 patent nonsense. Resolute 03:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing riddles

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

Totally inappropriate information for an encyclopaedia. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:56, 2 August 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. Icewedge (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shep (American dog)

Shep (American dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I question the notability of this animal. (Touching story though.) Irbisgreif (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khumalo Derivative

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

Original research, published on a personal blog and unrefereed sites, no support or references from anywhere else. The facts that it not only doesn't make sense but is flavored with a dollop of ranting against the imperialism of Western mathematics is the icing on the cake. ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:38, 2 August 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 Satu Mare#Gymnasiums, as most of the content in the article is already included in the target article. Cheers, I'mperator 18:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Creangă Gymnasium Satu Mare

Ion Creangă Gymnasium Satu Mare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

There is absolutely no indication that this school is any way notable, and there are plenty of indications that it is not: it is one of the schools offering education to people between the ages of 11 and 14 8 and 14, so it's not even a high school, and it is located in a rather large but provincial city in Romania (when there is a huge probability that most or all such schools in Romania, the capital included, are not worth separate articles). With or without agreement about

WP:NOT. (And btw, since it includes a primary education section, as per the text in its current form, the title is an obvious misnomer: it's not a gymnasium, it is simply a school.) Dahn (talk) 22:08, 2 August 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 – withdrawn by nominator. Noisalt (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bettsometer

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

Has been tagged as possibly non-notable for two years. I can't find any sources about this at all. Probably doesn't meet the

general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep instrument used by inspectors and maintenance engineers to ensure that the canvas or fabric covering on wings is still OK. A Google search finds lots of talk about the instrument. Contrary to popular belief there are allot of fabric covered airplanes still flying. RP459 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian influence operations in Estonia

AfDs for this article:
Russian influence operations in Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is

Offliner (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I had a look at your comments from
Dialogue 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. Adequately sourced, there's nothing "POV" about the subject matter itself (particularly since it's well sourced) and the topic is sufficiently different from Estonia-Russia relations to merit its own article.
    talk) 01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Interesting comment, given your comments at
Dialogue 17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Which comment are you referring to? The "per nom"? And what's interesting about it or any other one? That one was a POV fork. This one's not.
talk) 19:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
How can one seriously write that it isn't a POV fork. It is a jumble of allegations from the Estonian secret police, on a range of issues which one can find in
Dialogue 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Please, tone down the language. Kaitsepolitsei is hardly "Estonian KGB", it is normal security agency as it exists in every country in the world. Using such ethnically loaded and highly explicit expressions is hardly suitable for Wikipedia. --Sander Säde 17:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the FSB being called the KGB all the time, and as Kapo is security police, and given its history, it is apt to call it the Estonian KGB. Nothing ethnically loaded about that. Is that all there is to respond to in relation to my merge/delete comments? Because there is plenty to comment on, so let's not get sidetracked with semantics. --
Dialogue 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, FSB is officially the successor of KGB, if you remember. But what do you dislike about Kapo's history - or are you buying the nutcase theory of Kapo existing during German occupation? --Sander Säde 19:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest editors read
Dialogue 08:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The idea that the article is based upon "allegations" is one which you tried to introduce into the article in violation of a Wikipedia guideline. Contravening a wiki guideline and then giving it as a reason for deletion is ... well, not a good reason for deletion.
talk) 00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
No it is not in violation of WP policies and guidelines. It is exactly why in the
Dialogue 00:29, 6 August 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 DRV is

that way. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

List of firsts in the United States

AfDs for this article:
List of firsts in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted by AfD. Recreated. Prod contested. An unmanageable list with vague inclusion criteria (what exactly is a notable "first"?). Also trivia.

talk) 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Inclusion criteria are way too vague. Could be split into "List of population firsts," etc. Specific topics would be good to have "firsts" about, but a list based around the general concept of a first is "completely unmanageable" as Tim Song said. Noisalt (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs expansion. Tsepel Cory (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. needs to be bigger. Tsepel Cory (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More data. 68.192.164.253 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 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 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance (Terminator)

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

lacks independent reliable sources attesting to the notability of the fictional concept. Tagged for sourcing for over a year and a half.

talk) 21:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I note we do not have any limit on improvements, nor do we delete as unsourced, no matter how long it has been unsourced. If someone wants to delete as unsourceable, the burden is on them to show it. DGG (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How would we show that anything is unsourceable? Noisalt (talk) 16:45, 8 August 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. Copyvio. —Sean Whitton / 22:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lora Love

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

Given the accolades this rather opinionated article assigns to Ms Love, I would have expected to get some citable sources out of Google on her, but aside from her apparently being in FHM in the Phillipines, she doesn't appear to have anything going for her. Given the lack of sources, and unless any can be found, I don't believe this can ever become a sourced article so am putting it up for deletion as non-notable. —Sean Whitton / 21:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio of subject's myspace page (under last youtube video in scrolling column at right)[9]. May also qualify for speedy as advertising. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. JForget 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Online

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

Fails

talk) 21:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khumalo Derivative

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

Original research, published on a personal blog and unrefereed sites, no support or references from anywhere else. The facts that it not only doesn't make sense but is flavored with a dollop of ranting against the imperialism of Western mathematics is the icing on the cake. ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable General Hospital characters

List of notable General Hospital characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This looks like a list that is very likely to get very large. It also seems very unlikely to be notable information. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duer Yoa

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

Non-notable athlete. He does appear to be sponsored by an

Location (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. In fact, he meets
    IAAF World Cross Country Championships. "Level" here clearly means "level of competition", not "level of performance" because: 1) the rest of the sentence in WP:ATHLETE would not make sense otherwise (..."usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships"), 2) "highest level of performance" would be hopelessly vague and useless as a guideline, 3) if I'm not mistaken, anyone who ever competed e.g. at the Olympics was thus far de facto considered notable, regardless of his placing. GregorB (talk) 20:27, 3 August 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. (X! · talk)  · @020  ·  23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALF on TV

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

violates

WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a place for indiscriminate lists of stuff mhking (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

--Scouto2 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 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. (X! · talk)  · @171  ·  03:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Bergen

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

List provides little information that is not provided by the category Category:People from Bergen. Yes, the list does specify the birth and death years of each person, but this is not enough additional information to justify the existence of this list in addition to the category. It is unlikely that anyone would be interested in comparing the birth and death years of a group of people that have little in common except for their having been born or having lived a significant part of their lives in Bergen. Secondly, since it is not dynamic, as a category is, it is bound to stay unsynchronised with the previously mentioned category. Aqwis (talk) 19:33, 2 August 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. (X! · talk)  · @171  ·  03:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metal improvement

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

My attention was drawn to this article when an identical copy turned up as

WP:COATRACK. The real problem is that as it stands this is a very elementary level Q and A. I'm not sure, though, whether it should be deleted, or if the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant development, or this should simply be a redirect. If it is a redirect, the term appears in a number of different articles. I42 (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia Dance Party

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

No evidence that the band meets the notability requirements of

WP:MUSIC. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 19:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. blatant advertising -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearshore Call Center Services

Nearshore Call Center Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advert page. I am unable to find any references anywhere that would indicate that this organization is notable. Triplestop x3 19:04, 2 August 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. (X! · talk)  · @172  ·  03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Soghoian

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

Soghoian is an individual notable for one event, that of the fake boarding passes. As a researcher, he fails

WP:ACADEMIC which requires significant contributions to his field (computer security). Google Scholar (since I don't have ready access to Web of Knowledge) shows less than 15 citations for the most cited article, which was not published in a peer reviewed journal. Calwatch (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Well, I think that Taksi deserves considerable credit for learning within five minutes of signing up for an account that autobiographies are called “vanity articles” here, that they are disapproved, and that the significance expected of subjects is called “notability.” It’s almost as though he/she had edited here before. —
    t c 03:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • That's true. Now why don't you turn your dazzling detective abilities onto the link of anonymous IP addresses emanating from Indiana that make up the corpus of this guy's Wikipedia entry.Gpurcell (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Gpurcell[reply]
  • NOTE to closing admin: The subject of the article presented a article at DEFCON 2009 and exposed the practices of a forum, which is currently not very happy with him. There is a forum post that explicitly lists this AfD as a way of getting back at him. Link: [18] --Michael Greiner 03:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true. He posted his Wiki page which was clearly a vanity project. The motivation of bringing up for AfD is rather irrelevent..what is important is that the page in question does not meet Wiki guidelines for academic notability. Gpurcell (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Gpurcell[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy vs Ghostbusters

Freddy vs Ghostbusters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fan film. Gosox5555 (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Ghostbusters

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

Fails

WP:NF. Also a fanfic. Gosox5555 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Also block the user who created it, the article has been AFD 'FOUR' times.Gosox5555 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 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, nomination withdrawn. --

talk) 22:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Vandamattom

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

Contested prod. Fails notability.

talk) 18:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Notability has nothing to do with verifiability. --
talk) 19:08, 2 August 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, nomination withdrawn. --

talk) 22:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Hussey College Warri

Hussey College Warri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable.

talk) 18:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Ehrm, what? According to? --
talk) 19:06, 2 August 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 per

WP:CSD#A7 by John (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 23:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Detective Dan

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

Article's subject is a series of books which has not been published or sold to a publisher. Created by the books' author, as stated in article. bonadea contributions talk 18:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Fontaine

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers notability criteria. Oscarthecat (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Abelson

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers notability criteria. --Oscarthecat (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we losing sight of the guidelines?
  • Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
One significant role in a television show
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Nope
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
Nope
Can't see how she meets these criteria, from the article or from when I've searched for details. --Oscarthecat (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respects, it is important to not let the trees get in the way of our viewing the forest. I do not know what search parameters you used to see whether or not she meets the governing criteria
    WP:GNG
    ... but I found a few things...
  1. In The Stage, Natalie Anglesey writes "Fortunately young Sophie Abelson bailed them out with a terrific performance as the bubbly, blonde Barbara Windsor. She looks incredibly like the original and her delivery as the giggly starlet is spot on. She not only saved the day, she saved the play." Sound like decent recognition from a reviewer for a notable role in a notable production.
  2. In the Manchester Evening News, Alan Hulme writes "The deliberately compact setting of cutaway caravan interior copes with sightline problems in this three-sided auditorium set-up but it restricts physical action. Also, with the exception of Sophie Abelson as Windsor - who gloriously dominates proceedings - the other two leads aren't look-alike enough to suspend disbelief." Sounds like another positive accolade for that notable role in a notable production.
  3. In British Theatre Guide, David Chadderton wrote "Sophie Abelson, however, is absolutely superb as Barbara Windsor. She has perfected her walk, her gestures, her laugh and her voice, but this is more than just an impression and she gives a powerful performance."
So... the television show you grant, along with positive reviews for powerful stage work, kinda push her over the bar in
WP:ENT for me. Her career is more than just what she has done lately on the telly. The article needs work, but that's a matter for cleanup... and AfD is not for cleanup. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:07, 5 August 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. (X! · talk)  · @172  ·  03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Sturzaker

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers notability criteria. Oscarthecat (talk) 18:21, 2 August 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. (X! · talk)  · @172  ·  03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Willison (musician)

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

No indication of notability. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I put a prod on this, which was removed with the message contest deletion because the person is notable in the edit summary. I placed the PROD originally, as the only reliable reference I could find was the staff listing of the place where he currently works - which I added. All the other hits on a Google search were wiki links. The creator of the page the editor who removed the PROD failed to leave a message on the discussion page explaining why this musician is notable. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will not bite at the bait which is not helpful in discussions.Mcharg (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Boulton

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

Contested prod. No references to third party sources (or any sources, for that matter) =

WP:BLP violation. Claim to notability is rather flimsy. The JPStalk to me 17:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Do not delete Jane Boulton, please JPS I will do anything absolutly anything for you if you just leave it and all my wiki's, including thisngs to do with Doctors, alone!

Reply soon,

Redped

xxxx.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Redped (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 August 2009

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

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

The result was SNOW delete . Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youth champions leauge

Youth champions leauge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:57, 2 August 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. (X! · talk)  · @172  ·  03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mullaschery

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

PRODded by me, PROD seconded by an editor from Wikiproject Kerala and then removed by an IP. PROD reason - "NN local family, unable to find any RS refs to support the claim. The name exists as I found a couple of Ghits for it, but nothing at all in Gbooks, news or search to show notability for the family. Also not to be confused with Mullassery which is in northern Kerala and is a family name there, as opposed to this, in southern Kerala." Rationale still applies. Delete. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 16:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of Barry Bonds

The Curse of Barry Bonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

The sources provided in this article only verify stated facts; they do not establish any notability for the subject itself. This article was previously PRODed and two other editors endorsed the reasoning behind the PROD (same as given above).

Phils) 16:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Blogs are not
    Phils
    )
Comment even though I agree with the AfD, I think the article is well written. You have done a good job explaining the curse (if there even is one). TheWeakWilled 11:32, 6 August 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 SNOW delete . Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic Soldier

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

Non-notable, Google doesn't turn up reliable secondary sources. —Sean Whitton / 16:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we did it was under another name - this article has been speedied twice in 2008, but there were no other deletions and no talk page to record a failed AfD. —Sean Whitton / 16:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I nom'd it yesterday and the result was speedy. Beach drifter (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was a a few days ago Beach drifter (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the one I'm thinking of. I knew I wasn't crazy. in that case, 'delete, as failing to meet notability requirements. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I moved the current article from soldier to Soldier so that would be why. —Sean Whitton / 21:18, 2 August 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 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comment - nice detective work! —Sean Whitton / 16:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Encounter

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

This article has gone through AfD once and was deleted, and I'm now putting it up again because once more it fails to assert notability outside of its Catholic camping community. —Sean Whitton / 15:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article demonstrates that the camp has a long history and that it is relevant not only to the Christian camping community but to the camping community at large and to the general public in Edmonton, Alberta.

This article is considerably better researched than the numerous other articles about summer camps on wikipedia (List of summer camps) and cites print sources which these other articles lack. --Hilu 2 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote The camp is not very notable but the article does have some sources. I object strongly to the statement that because the people involved are Catholic their contributions somehow seem to have less value. Please don't mention people's religion in AfD nominations.Northwestgnome (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, this really wasn't what I meant! I was simply pointing out that it doesn't even appear to be notable in the subject of camping, only in the smaller subset of Catholic camping, showing that it really isn't notable at all (in my view). The actual religion is irrelevent - I would have still said it had it been "camping with bananas". —Sean Whitton / 16:40, 2 August 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 SNOW delete . Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letherbridge Central (UK Parliament constituency)

Letherbridge Central (UK Parliament constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictional parliament constituency from the soap Doctors. Can't see that this could meet any notability guideline. In any case, has no hits on google or google news/news archives, and with no references is

unverifiable. BelovedFreak 14:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doublebase

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

This article is pure spam for a non-notable skin care product. Neelix (talk) 13:56, 2 August 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 SNOW close . Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pogba

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

Contested PROD. Original reason for PROD was "player has never made an appearance in a senior competition for a professional club, thereby failing

Jay 13:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diaper cake

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Failed prod. Toddst1 (talk) 13:52, 2 August 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.

247 10:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Ace of Base songs

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
List of Ace of Base unreleased songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both not notable, unsourced (particularly the "unreleased songs" article), repeated info already found in

WP:NOT#IINFO at the very least. eo (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • My objection was that individual list entries don't have to be notable and the list itself doesn't seem to violate any policies (edit: with the possible exception of
    Rankiri (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 13:47, 2 August 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, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith talk 16:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Tel Aviv gay centre shooting spree

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

Delete Wiki is not a current event site. Nor is it a News Site

talk) 13:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Ok so if I waited five more minutes this wouldn't be a current event? The source is from today? How is that inline with
talk) 13:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, you could have allowed it to develop for a little longer than five minutes... "current events" aren't forbidden on Wikipedia. There's an
•wicke 13:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
perhaps you should read the link I sent. You are writing a news article nothing more. We are not journalists. see also
talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Thats precisly my reasoning in NOT having the article on the attacks yet. Right now it's only reactions we don't know anything, I think it best to wait and see if it has an impact and how.
talk) 13:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It has already united supporters and critics alike. --
•wicke 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Great, I'm not suggesting it isn't sad just that thios is a news article and based on peoples opinions nothing more. It's a newspaper article not in anyway encyclopeadic. I'm sorry and do not mean to disparage your work but this is how ZI feel and understand Wiki policies.

talk) 14:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

That's fine, I respect your opinion.
•wicke 14:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

_Withdraw Nom. While I still conside unencylopeadic and anews article this is clearly a

talk) 16:04, 2 August 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 per

WP:A7. TNXMan 13:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Biblesnippets.com

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

Non-notable web site. I am almost tempted to speedy. Gordonrox24 | Talk 13:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Csd shoiuld gpo through for spam or non notable site.

talk) 13:18, 2 August 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 Memorial Stadium (Bristol). JForget 00:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial ground

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

Non-notable

pitch used by a local amateur club. PROD denied by author. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails to establish
sources. Additionally, the article's title is quite generic. Noir (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birrong Girls High School

Birrong Girls High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

way too short and no references Extremepro (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Berry Hill, Texas

AfDs for this article:
Blue Berry Hill, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blueberry Hill is not a "community" in any sense of the word. All of the other CDPs listed in Bee County have post offices, fire departments etc. and are organized communities. Blueberry Hill is a small subdivision with absolutely no services or organization of it's own. It is part of Beeville and should be considered such. The article should be deleted. Vandersontx 11:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Theatre Season, Monaco

British Theatre Season, Monaco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet notability guidelines. It appears this was a one off event Mark E (talk) 10:18, 2 August 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. Views about equally split, with no policy coming through one way or another. Enough debate has taken place so no need to relist at this time.

247 10:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

List of characters in Batman: The Brave and the Bold

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

Fancruft directory of characters that appear in the cartoon series, primarily reliant on summary of episode plot. There's nothing to establish that these appearances or character variations are notable in of themselves, and its only out-of-universe content (naming the actors who voice the characters) is in a way redundant to the purpose of the far more concise Cast list in the main article. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:06, 2 August 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. At first glance, this would appear to be a keep closure. However, some of the keep rationales are using

OTHERSTUFF arguments, and as such, I have given little weight. Despite these, it's not enough to be a delete closure, so it's a no consensus. (X! · talk)  · @175  ·  03:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

List of vineyards and wineries

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

Main issues are

verifiability. Inclusion criteria is unstated and thus it will never be complete or maintainable. This list will forever be skewed geographically towards whoever puts the most time into it giving the reader a biased impression of where most vineyards are. –Moondyne 09:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Strong keep. This article clearly passes
    WP:NOTDIR, as it is not a business directory as such and is not a loose association of articles. That it may not be finished, and that it may be biased is a risk for every wikipedia article, and certainly not grounds for deletion. This argument has been had before - see the first AfD discussion. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I didn't say that it was impossible to state the inclusion criteria, but that it was impossible for the article to ever be be complete without such criteria. Apologies if that was unclear. You're saying that the criteria is stated and from that I can only deduce that any and every vineyard and winery on the planet is eligible for inclusion in this list. Is that what you're saying? How would one
    verify every such item? My father-in-law has a few vines and bottles his own for family and friends. He describes this micro-operation as a winery. Should I add it to the list? –Moondyne 11:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. —Bduke (Discussion) 11:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from bluelinks I think it's reasonable to expect the other listings to be made verifiable by a citation to a reliable source. The purpose of this AfD seems to be addressing an editing issue rather than whether the list article itself is worth keeping. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , adding "notable" to the title, and included only ones with Wikipedia articles--exactly as usual for all such lists. The necessary sourcing will be in the original article linked to. It is true that a complete list of all vineyards in the world would be unencyclopedic, so that is not what this should be. As CoM says, an editing problem. DGG (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with DGG. All links should be to vineyards that have WP articles. The very long list of Australian vineyards shows what would happen if that was done for all countries that produce wine. Note that pruning that list will need care. Most of the links that are not red links do not point to an article on the vineyard but to a town or something that has nothing to do with the vineyard. Just look at the first two under "Victoria" for a start. Earlier I looked at a block in the middle and they were all wrong too. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument is always coming up. We have lists and we have categories. They can serve different purposes. Some readers like lists and others like categories. In addition I have no objection, when we get this to reasonable bounds, to add a brief comment after every entry, e,g "Penfolds Vineyard: Famous for Grange Hermitage" or similar. The point above is that we should not be listing non-notable vineyards that will never have a WP entry. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equally thoughtless is asserting 'management' problems and then offering the 'solution' of categorization. You want to categorize all the winery articles, you go right ahead. This article isn't stopping you. Anarchangel (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what is rather thoughtless is commentary on a field that one has little to no experience in actually "managing/maintaining" articles in. As a member of
WP:WINE, my philosophies do not fall into "deletionist" or "inclusionist" but rather encyclopedist with the singular concern over whether or not this article makes Wikipedia a better wine resource for the reader. The answer to this is a resounding "no". Take a moment and try to conceptualize how a reader would find any encyclopedic use or value in this article. The title of this article is List of vineyards and wineries-so basically a feeble attempt at listing all (popularly estimated) 56,000+ wineries in the world. What would a reader coming to this article actually be looking for? To confirm that Chateau SoandSo has an article? Well a quick search would take them to the actual winery article rather than to this article. Would it show where the winery is? Again, I would think the actual winery article would do a better job. What if the reader is interested in how knowing ALL the wineries in a particular wine region? Good luck trying to get that useful information from an article that will barely have any hope of being even 3% complete and accurate. Heck, even if they are only interested in knowing what wineries have Wikipedia articles, it is far more likely that a region specific category is going to be more up to date and accurate then this article. So what encyclopedic value are we providing the customer? With this article, the answer is pretty much none. AgneCheese/Wine 16:38, 7 August 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kailin Gow

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is recommended that each article be nominated individually. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soap Opera "supercouples"

AfDs for this article:

Delete. All of these articles are excessive

WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as I looked through and some articles were clearly notable - these were not. DJ 08:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

*merge all to "List of characters of X" type articles. No reason the material can't be covered, but they don't need their own articles either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG - speedy close and renominate after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. These are better handled individually as some may have notability, but it is highly unlikely that anyone will take the time to research them individually, instead just voting on a general principle (as I myself did.) Those who dislike article on fiction will vote delete, those who like such articles will vote keep, and those who want compromise will vote merge. No actual discussion of the notability of the subjects will take place in this format. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for being so honest about this, ThaddeusB.
talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
you have examined them all? You have checked for sources for each of them? What are your arguments for each one of them. You may be right, but it takes more than bald assertion. DGG (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and nominate individually per DGG. I'm not sure how many of these should be kept,and this mass deletion makes it next to impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. AniMatedraw 20:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all A notable aspect of a notable work of fiction. The relationship of these couples, is what is featured on most episodes, and what they center around. It is the reason women keep watching these types of shows, they interested in relationships. Dream Focus 10:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERESTING fail. DJ 10:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't say keep the article because it was interesting, I said that a key factor in the show, was the relationships. As such, this most important component of these series, deserves mention. Dream Focus 19:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Kennedy and Susan Smith I believe that this article should be deleted. The reason being both characters already have their own pages and the supercouple page is really just repeating what is already on these pages. --5 albert square (talk) 14:06, 9 August 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 closed and both redirected to Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud per original author's request. R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic Load Balancing

Elastic Load Balancing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Also nominating:

Elastic IP address (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Both are one-sentence entries that do not explain the topic in the title. They are also promotion for Amazon web services. These seem like clear Speedy Delete A1 cases, but they were both declined. Possible G11 speedy as well. Hairhorn (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't work for Amazon nor promote them, I created these because they didn't exist but where linked to. If it was advertising I would have put more content and/or opinions about their service. --Abc518 (talk) 16:36, 2 August 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. Equally split views, with no particular side coming out with a strong policy reason one way or another. Enough debate has taken place so no reason to relist for now.

247 10:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Disney animated feature film source material

Disney animated feature film source material (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Nothing but a list of links with some OR guestimates. Fails

List of fiction works made into feature films -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, and Improve. I would so want to delete the article, as I completely agree with you. However, in the interest of trying to save articles that could provide value, I suggest it be renamed to List of Disney animated source material and all reasonably well-known items kept. The obvious OR items can be purged, but the classic film material is fairly well-documented as to what the original sources were. From there, we just need to be more diligent in keeping the cruft off the page. SpikeJones (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article on each film should contain the information on its source material. An article on the Disney films as a whole should also discuss the various types of sources used. I don't see a reason to put a list together of this aspect of each film, besides which most are obvious from the titles. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Sources obviously exist, and list could conceivably be useful. Should definitely be renamed to a list, and heavily tagged as needing citations. Purge OR and cruft as necessary. Noisalt (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' - Agree with Noisalt. Although each film article could and should discuss sources, having all the sources in one list is beneficial for users, so they do not have to look up each individual article. And while an article on the Disney films as a whole should also discuss the various types of sources used, there is much more to discuss in such an article, so this information would not be as accessible, or may be eliminated to save space. This is not to say the article doesn't need improvement, but needing improvement is not a reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Northwestgnome. This information really belongs in the individual articles, otherwise you lose essential context. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a useful alternative organization, and there is no reason why this information can't be both here and in the individual articles. The source material for Disney films is a very frequent subject in reliable sources, especially those that are based on real incidents. Obviously significant cleanup of OR is required. Powers T 13:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Northwestgnome.75.142.54.211 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 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.

247 10:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases

Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article duplicates material already presented in other articles; material in this article is too detailed; Wikipedia is not a police blotter Richard (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for deleting this article

Article was created by

Catholic sex abuse cases
and how much should be moved to subsidiary articles.

In addition, ADM may not have been aware of the article titled

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country
which includes most of this material.

Moreover, there are articles about the sexual abuse scandal in specific countries. These are:

  • Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States
  • Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Australia
  • Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Ireland
  • Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Canada

The material in this article is primarily in

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country
or in one of the above country articles.

Also, consider the existence of these articles about the sexual abuse scandal in specific dioceses:

  • Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Boston
  • Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago
  • Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic diocese of Honolulu
  • Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles
  • Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic diocese of Orange
  • Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic diocese of Palm Beach
  • Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Philadelphia
  • Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Portland
  • Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin
  • Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Melbourne

In a nutshell, there is a hierarchical structure of articles with

Catholic sex abuse cases
at the top and then descending to the country and diocese level. All the material in this article could be moved to one or more of the articles in this hierarchy.

I also am skeptical that a reader would want to focus specifically on "Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases" outside the context of the sexual abuse scandal either as a whole or in a specific country or diocese.

To me, this article winds up being a more or less arbitrary collection of information that does not provide the appropriate context for the reader.

Even if this article is deleted, there will still be more cleanup work to do on the main article (

Catholic sex abuse cases
) and its subsidiary articles. Deleting this article is just the first step in the cleanup process.

--Richard (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I strongly disagree with that. The
Catholic sex abuse cases article is way too large and should be scrapped by at least 90 %. The rest ought to be put in those other entries. There is a good reason for the category on the subject, it makes the avaiblable content much more readable. The current entry is not easily readable and looks a lot like a thrashy notebook. ADM (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep : Agree. Sturunner (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Speedy deleted

A1, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Tom the Pissed Off Roofer

Tom the Pissed Off Roofer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Basically nonsense, article with same name as user, no sign of notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 04:20, 2 August 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 Kwantlen Polytechnic University. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kwantlen Student Association

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

non notable student organization of non-major university Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you misunderstood what I meant by major-this means one well known outside of its geographic locale, say, like McGill or Todai or UCLA. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but.... please don't kid yourself. How many graduate programs does Kwantlen have? Zero. It's certainly not a major Canadian university. Even calling it a "university" is stretching it. Hairhorn (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The school itself is likely not notable, as it has very limited degree-granting programs (it barely qualifies as a University). The student association is certain not to be notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ogorgeous

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

Non notable product. Article also makes claims that do not meet

WP:CRYSTALBALL Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:43, 2 August 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

I Am… Sasha Fierce. JForget 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Broken-Hearted Girl

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

No sources to support this being a planned single of any kind. Charted as an album track at position 194 on one chart, which I don't think qualifies as a "charted" song for purposes of

WP:OR. —Kww(talk) 03:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: After further research, not even the 194 position can be verified. Based on that, I would describe the song as uncharted.—Kww(talk) 18:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The chart position can be verified, but it isn't easy to find the information. I agree that it should be considered as uncharted, as
snigbrook (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Originally, the song was the sixth single, but there are no sources for the song being the seventh single or if it's going to be a single at all. The 194 chart position is very unnecessary for a complete article. The article lacks many sources and seems to be an open article for show. I say delete it and we'll see what happens. Charmed36 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The song should stay as there is a music video and an album cover and that the article does say it is the 7th single with may be true for that she released 2 sasha firce, normally she will release one of every cd but this time 2 of one so it is kind of oveous to know that may be she will release 2 i am and make them the the last 2 singles for the album. plus even though the song wasn't released thier is still a possiblity that she will re-release it for if she isn't then she would have never posted the video that was made or made the single cover. yeah their is little sources but if it does become the 7th their will be more info and refercnes to be noted. The chart listing will change if it is released but until then that is the only thing so far. the article should not be deleted as there is the possiblity of it being released and the video and cover is real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladgy (talk • contribs) 07:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cover is fake. Anyone can tell. Charmed36 (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Charmed36 you can't tell if it is a fake and it dosen't really matter if it is or not, because if its not she will make an offical one for if it is released, and if is well then it is proof that its possibly the the next single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladgy (talk • contribs) 08:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beyonceformen - broken hearted girl i think it should because it has an video and its sounds like it woulod be a single and she will release this it just was pushed back because she want it sweet dreams first so this should stay up.

Just because it "sounds like it would be a single", does not mean it will be a single. PopMusicBuff talk 18:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ospina & Oscar P Club Remix for beyonces broken-hearted girl and some info here - Beyonce will release “Broken-Hearted Girl” as her third single from the “I Am…” this is a copy form the source http://www.ifuseekmusic.com/2009/04/broken-hearted-girl-remixed-for-the-first-time/ but the artwork on this one is fake un like the one on the page possibly. plus the source of the artwork on the page is here http://moremusicmayhem.blogspot.com/2009/06/broken-hearted-girl-sneak-peek.html so there are some refernces which will be added to the site. the page should be kept.Ladgy (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blogs are not suitable sources for album/single artworkd and neither is the website you have given to confirm single release. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note: I have seen mention of Broken-Hearted Girl being the single behind the Platinum Edition re-release on beyonce's official italian website. These does clearly state it.

"Il singolo di traino della Platinum Edition di "I Am..Sasha Fierce" sarà Broken-Hearted Girl (canzone presente anche in entrambe le versioni di "I AM..Sasha Fierce" attualmente in vendita) che potrete ascoltare in radio da Settembre."

It says it's going to impact radio in september

RatiziOne 20:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I just heared this song and its alright, just like halo and if i were a boy it has that i am sound wwhich is why i believe it the page should stay i mean i could be like the italian single like that guy said before and just because it was canceled that doesn't mean it won't be released. Keep the page!!!!!!Beomama (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC) — Beomama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Beyonceformen - this should stay up broken hearted girl is an single she says it on extra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladgy (talk • contribs) 07:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Regardless of whether or not it was confirmed as a single,
    WP:NSONG
    says:
"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, 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."
So, first of all, the fact that it may or may have not been confirmed as a single (I do not understand the language in that reference) does not grant it notability for an article. Secondly, there is hardly any verifiable content in the page, which is a violation of
WP:GNG. Which is why this needs to be redirected to I Am... Sasha Fierce until the song establishes its notability. POKERdance talk/contribs 00:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Ayala

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

DELETE. This is a textbook example of

WP:BLP1E and besides that she just really isn't all that notable (at all). JBsupreme (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Lola

Hey! Lola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible hoax. Show not listed a the Nickelodeon Website. Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:34, 2 August 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 (G12) by

Nja247. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Thompson's WaterSeal

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

looks to me like an advertisement, created by

ZS 02:10, 2 August 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. Four deletes with nom, two keeps. Policy guidelines favour the majority of the views expressed, ie to delete as notability of film doesn't extend to this actor.

247 10:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Simon Curtis (actor)

Simon Curtis (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable actor. A few bit parts on TV. Prod declined, saying "He starred in the movie Spectacular!. And he also appeared in a television series." But a quick check shows this is a TV movie. Not yet notable, perhaps in the future. Hairhorn (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The (TV) film he starred in was notable, it got 3.7 million viewers and was instantly a hit. He then continued his career, appearing in an episode of Hannah Montana. He is a notable actor who just started his career. And his career may grow, so he DOES deserve his own article. GreenBayPackersfan09 (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what you have said is true, but only to an extent. He hasent been in much, Yet, but that dosent mean he wont get to some level of fame in the future. I know for a fact that he is quite well known on blog sites and various indie pop music sites. He has a downloadable album and has been in various stage produtions growing up in Tulsa, Oklahoma where he was born and rasied not Canada, like the page says. I think people want to know about him and even if its only a small amount of people, I think he should have a page on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Millaa Mercer (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)— Millaa Mercer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"... that dosent mean he wont get to some level of fame in the future". That doesn't mean he deserves an article right now. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 23:17, 8 August 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. Wrong venue. Redirect currently being discussed at

WP:RFD (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Archaeological Site of Great Importance

Archaeological Site of Great Importance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

This redirect appears to be unnecessary as if other artciles are created with titles such as Archaeological Site of Great Importance (USA) there is great potential for confusion. Originally prodded, but I was informed that that is not appropriate for a redirect. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Morgan

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

Non-notable pastor.

Talk 19:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

He is a published author, his books are sold in major retailers such as target[[25]], amazon[[26]] and barnes and noble[[27]].While there is not a lot of newspaper coverage his name is fairly splattered all over the religous sites. that seems to be 3 of 5 of those articles under

talk) 19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"his name is fairly splattered all over the religous sites" if it reasonably depicts his coverage. Selling well doesn't provide information for an article even if it suggests he is notable- what can you put in the article except that he sells so many books if you need sources from which to derive content? Unless you want to label all the religious sites frivolous or irrelevant, it would seem they are reliable sources about themselves if they have more editorial oversight than a blog and more than a few readers would suggest notable. Is there a specific wiki policy that says CNN has to mention them or even an essay on frivolous mention/sites? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:37, 2 August 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_August_2&oldid=1142645707"