Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 8

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 7 August 9 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 keep. Consensus is to keep, with advice for expansion. tedder (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rabbit

Peter Rabbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this article for deletion because it appears to be chiefly a rehash of the article The Tale of Peter Rabbit. Nothing is said in Peter Rabbit that cannot be said (or has been said) in the primary article. The Peter Rabbit article is principally unsourced, and includes a duplicate plot summary from the primary article. The "list" of Peter's appearances in other Potter books can be effectively merged into the primary article and Peter Rabbit deleted. While Peter Rabbit fans will probably deplore the deletion of this article and Peter Rabbit is a cultural icon, there is nothing in this article that truly merits a stand alone article. At best, I would like to see Peter Rabbit redirected to The Tale of Peter Rabbit and its content merged where appropriate with the primary article, but, failing that, I support the article's deletion. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see no reason to delete this article. It is reasonably well written as it stands and can always be improved. It serves as an introduction to an iconic character and also as a handy summary of the various Peter Rabbit books. Markhh (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the
    reliable sources to draw from. The character appears in several stories, not just The Tale of Peter Rabbit and there are plenty of sources that deal with the character in a broader sense, not just as an element of that specific story. Siawase (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge with The Tale of Peter Rabbit. Doesn't really need to be a separate article. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrewa's argument, with a hint of Siawese's. PR is important enough in his own right and this can easily become a good article. Of course the character has a lot to do with the book, but there are plenty of differences also. The bit about PR being licensed, for instance, should receive treatment separately from the book. There's scholarly work also. I don't know if you all can see this, but it's interesting--a scholarly article on Peter Rabbit the icon/myth/image, not the book (W. Nikola-Lisa, "The Cult of Peter Rabbit: A Barthesian Analysis," The Lion and the Unicorn 15.2 (1991): 61-66.). In other words, Peter has plenty of notability, and AfD is not for article improvement. Won't some loving soul turn this into a Good Article, please? Drmies (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Drmies. Distinct from the book, lots of potential. Cerebellum (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is about a notable character, and much of the article is not replicated in (and shouldn't be) in The Tale of Peter Rabbit, such as appearances in other books. Rlendog (talk) 21:30, 31 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. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy art

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

Original research / neologism. Oscarthecat (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:00, 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 delete. Tone 14:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TripleTree

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

Nothing of note about the company. All sources are company's own website. Oscarthecat (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no citation, no sources available except own web pages, fails
    MaNeMeBasat (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find plenty of press releases from them, and their staff have been quoted in the press but I can find no sources writing about them. -- Whpq (talk) 10:52, 12 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. and recreated as a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices

Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

I think this book has problems with

WP:BK. Nothing on Gnews, Gscholar cites are only from articles written by the author of the book, who I hazard to guess is the author of this article as well (owing to a similarity in name). Contested PROD. RayTalk 06:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    Location (talk) 00:04, 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 delete, AfD participants have apparently found no

be kind to newcomers 19:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

NXTdim

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

This software add-on seems to be not notable as of yet, after a search on the net. 481 results in Google, with no results in Google News. The only websites referenced are the product's offical sites. In addition, the originator of the article seems to be a SPA, only creating articles that are related to a software company called the Cadac Group. Pax85 (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, so NN. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources - Whpq (talk) 10:55, 12 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. Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Broken!

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

An album made by

talk) 06:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons mentioned above:

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
BC13 Mix - EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Astronaut (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Brokencyde sucks. (I guess I should also mention that it's not notable, and has no references) KMFDM FAN (talk!) 16:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more MySpace releases with no chart success, or significant write up outside of social networking, blogs, etc. Astronaut (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:54, 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 23:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corecard Software, Inc.

Corecard Software, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dubious notability. Created by single-purpose account. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I noticed this article when someone added unhelpful links to
    promotion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 17:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew please note this article is about a business run by a Georgia Tech alumni, Leland Strange who has been involved in the company in one way or another sine 1984. The article helps give background on other articles, VisionPlus was created by this compnay prior to them selling the rest of the business to First Data, First Data this compnay was spun out of First Data , TYSYS lists this compnay as a competitor, and one on prepaid cards the compnay makes products to support that market. There is no mention of any of the company’s current products or discussion of their current sales efforts. The artilce is very similiar to the articles on First Data and TYSYS. If you are nomintaing this for deletion then I suggest you do the same for TYSYS and First Data. Finally please note that it was reviewed by Trevor MacInnis and he said it was OK but needed more links which is why they were added to the other places. If the credit card one was not helpful we can delete it. Noswadmot (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying it should be deleted; this is a discussion as to whether the company is notable enough for Wikipedia. I think
      WP:CORP is the guideline there. Read that page, and if you can find some newspaper articles about the company and link them here then the article might be kept. The fact that it was created by a Georgia Tech alumni doesn't necessarily mean that the company is notable. I love Tech, but Wikipedia policies sadly do not take that into account :p —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Would like to point out that this article is a cleanup of a previous artilce that was up for quit some time. The previous entry was not very refelective of what I have seen about other organizations and all I am trying to do is make it similiar to artilces about other companies, please look at TSYS and First Data, compnaies very similiar to CoreCard to judge. Here is a copy of the previous text so you can also compare the original entry to the new entry.

CoreCard Software, Inc. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search CoreCard Software, Inc., previously known as Delos Payment Systems, is a privately-held company based in Norcross, Georgia. The company was founded in April 2001 when it spun out of PaySys International (PaySys) prior to the completion of First Data Corporation’s acquisition of PaySys and its COBOL-based product line. CoreCard's largest investor is Intelligent Systems Corporation [AMEX: INS], a major shareholder of PaySys since 1993. Other institutional shareholders include Oak Investment Partners, Advent GECC, Grubb & Williams and Capital Resource Partners. Comprised primarily of engineers from PaySys’ research and development group, the company retained ownership of the intellectual property resulting from PaySys’ efforts to develop a flexible software platform and then re-wrote its industry-leading, full-featured card management and transaction processing software. Previously, the lack of viable and affordable technologies forced card issuers to either continue using in-house mainframe systems that were becoming increasingly expensive to maintain, or outsource this function completely. With outsourcing, issuers had to contend with lengthy contract terms and costly early terminations fees. Issuers also had to accept the lack of product differentiation, with no real-time access to customer data, and sometimes lackluster service. With three decades of domain expertise in the card industry, the CoreCard team is committed to providing financial service organizations with next-generation card applications that will help them compete both locally and globally. CoreCard’s value-based pricing and its ability to offer Tandem®-like throughput on Intel®-based hardware ensure that even organizations with as few as 10,000 card accounts in their portfolio will yield a return on their investment. CoreCard is currently providing issuing solutions for BankCard, Debit card, Credit card, Prepaid card, Corporate card, Fleet card, Reward card and Private Label card issuing solutions. Corecard's website can be found at http://www.corecard.com Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoreCard_Software,_Inc." Noswadmot (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I see many press releases. What little mention there is that is independent are all in relation to it as a subsidiary of
    Intelligent Systems Corporation which would be a merge target but as of this moment, no such article exists. -- Whpq (talk) 11:04, 12 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. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay D Clark

Jay D Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable musician. Fails

WP:BAND Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:49, 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. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus spring

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

I can find no reliable sources indicating this usage.

T
02:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom! Jesus cat, on the otherhand, is quite noteworthy. [1] JBsupreme (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No relevant mention from google except for mirrored copies of the same article. Greenleaf (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:43, 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. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Percutane

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

Very spammish, and created by an SPA whose username is suggestive of the product's creator. I stopped short of DB-spam because the refs give some suggestion of notability. However, ref 1 reads like a press release, ref2 is unverifiable (paid archive service) leaving only the Herald article. I suspect a notable product would have made a few more news or magazine headlines in the ensuing 9 years, but all the leading google hits (heavily diluted due to the name being a synonym for percutaneous) are for vendors. dramatic (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:41, 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. Tone 14:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proximity Butterfly

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

Non notable band. Belongs on myspace. Does not meet

WP:BAND Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All that I can find is
    talk) 03:09, 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 delete. tedder (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manel Ribera

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

WP:MUSIC, unreferenced, orphan Per Ardua (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:33, 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 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Hanson

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

DELETE. I initially tagged this as a speedy delete (db-repost) but was later informed that it was not a repost. I'm not completely sure about that, but what I do know is that this article fails WP:BLP, lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications, and is about a completely non-notable subject every which way. The outcome should be the same I think. JBsupreme (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:31, 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. unless someone actually produces the sources we can't really consider them

Spartaz Humbug! 22:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Cherie Lim

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

All that I can is one trivial mention, non-reliable sources, and reprints of Wikipedia. She doesn't even have an IMDB page. Her being married to the 6th richest man in Singapore does not show this actress's notability. Fails

talk) 00:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. Huge amounts of coverage in The Straits Times in the early 1990s, nowhere else in English. She's probably notable, it's just hard to find Singaporean sources. Noisalt (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:30, 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. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eldon Hentges

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

An elected local official who does not meet the provisions of

WP:POLITICIAN. Deprodded by the creator who appears to be directly connected to the subject. Crafty (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:28, 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. ... and redirect. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyjuan

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

DELETE. Non-notable musician with nothing in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources. Notability is not inherited by group affiliation, either. JBsupreme (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:27, 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. Tone 14:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Chedid

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

Non-notable autobiography (created by User:Phchedid). Google News only brings one result. After cleaning out stuff like Wikipedia and Facebook, Google only gets 50 results. One of his higher claims, that he is an "Officer of the National Order of the Cedar", gets no results on Google when compared with his name. The article has been deleted three times now and Chedid keeps on bringing it back. Sandor Clegane (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GS search for 'author:"Philippe Chedid"' gives no cites. Must be Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The most liberal WoS search, Author=(chedid p*), reveals on only 4 articles and h-index of 2 – He certainly doesn't make it on

WP:PROF #6 – that would be the only possibility of passing. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:14, 12 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.

Marty Ball (Beach Sport)

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

No GNews or GHits. Fails for meet

made up in one day. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:22, 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 Keep as per consensus.

talk) 12:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

International parental abduction in Japan

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research  Chzz  ►  23:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep: The article could do with more detailed footnotes, but it appears to be reliably referenced, so the simple "Original research" reason given for deletion is not valid here. Nominator could have considered tagging the article as "Original research" first if he/she had concerns. --DAJF (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Footnotes and links added. Will rewrite the article to keep wiki style. Links made to site so it is no longer orphaned. Reason for deletion is not valid. 12:46, 9 August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.64.103 (talk)
  • Keep: Needs to be wikified and sourced, but if a little care is taken with bringing the article up to spec, it should be included. Billbowery (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work, including additional sources, but given current sources appears to be a notable topic, and that is all we should be judging here. Article is currently written from a neutral point of view, which would be my biggest concern. Keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:29, 10 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. Tone 14:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BMX Sports WA

BMX Sports WA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources cited, probably doesn't meet the

general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject may be notable (just barely), but the edit history looks sketchy. I see a substantive edit in 2007, then on;y maintenance type edits. I'll understand if this isn't a valid reason for deletion, but when a site mentions an upcoming event in 2008, the article isn't getting any attention from anyone who cares about the content. The single link is interesting - appears to be a real organization, but no evidence of a meeting after February of this year. --SPhilbrickT 16:08, 10 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Silver State Trio

The Silver State Trio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musical group, deprodded after seven days, 9.5 hours by a new account, consistent with a known persistent sockmaster. Abductive (reasoning) 20:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 07:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are trivial. Only notability is one notable member. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mark Gray. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about this group, other than his involvement. AniMatedraw 03:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non-notable group, though two members having the same name as actual celebrities is kind of fun. AniMatedraw 03:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not the same Mark Gray who used to be in Exile. markgraymusic.com makes no mention of Exile and says that he has been a gospel singer for 23 years, which directly conflicts with the info in Mark Gray. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Whoops. Different guy, different search results. Searching around for a bit, this band doesn't seem notable. Dream Focus 08:36, 11 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. Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural artifact

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

Completely unsourced (the one external link doesn't cover this), and has been for two years, despite being tagged. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 20:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? It's nothing to do with television... ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake. I must have pressed the wrong button. :) Theleftorium 14:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a neglected stub. That alone doesn't warrant deletion; if someone finds it and takes care of it, great. For now, there's nothing contentious about it, the term itself is worthy of an article, and it has the potential to one day become a better article. Seb az86556 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, dammit. AfD is a seriously flawed process, if this sort of stuff can show up. Makes me wonder what gets through Speedy...1,040 Google Books hits for the exact phrase "Cultural artifact". A term used throughout the entire social science spectrum from archaeology to psychology, but more widely used in the sciences noted in the article. (anthropology: Richard J. Watts. The pragmalinguistic analysis of narrative texts. ethnology: Rob Amery. Warrabarna Kaurna!. and sociology: Mary Gauvain. The social context of cognitive development.) 'Cultural artifact' as scientific terminology is over 60 years old, as a Google scholar search for the exact term used between the years 1942 and 1955 shows. Anarchangel (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:14, 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. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rishloo

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

Band does not appear to meet notability standards. Not signed by a major label or recognized indie, no charted songs or albums, scant Google hits (mainly this article and sites controlled by the band). No independent references from reliable sources. I just can't find anything out there that would supports notability for this group. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no nontrivial independent coverage. There are lots of trivial hits on Google News, "beginning to make some noise" and all that. Chances are they'll be notable someday. But not now. Noisalt (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 21:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, almost want to db-band this one. JBsupreme (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about it, but the article had been around a while so I thought AfD was a better course of acttion. By the way, if this is deleted, there are several related articles (band members, songs, albums, etc.) that need to go, too. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:12, 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 redirect to

Spartaz Humbug! 22:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Jane Fisher Sherman

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

Strip out the references to the two (undeniably notable) relatives and one is left with a little more than a very short biographical blurb that is thin on notability and does not seem to lend itself to expansion. The cited sources are not much more than references to her, falling far short of the coverage that typically suffices for

WP:Bio. Maybe her work for the Jewish Agency for Israel does the trick, but otherwise I don't see notability here. JohnInDC (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Max Fisher is possible Billbowery (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Good idea. The substance of this article can already be found in the Max Fisher article, which lists his children, including Jane Fisher Sherman and describing her as "former chairperson of the United Israel Appeal, Inc. (UIA) and former co-chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel Committee on Israel". JohnInDC (talk) 11:08, 10 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. Tone 12:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anais Alexander

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

fails WP:PORNBIO, no reliable sources, no other indications of notability Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Being a Penthouse Pet of the month seems to establish notability, at least every other Penthouse Pet from that year has their own page. WP:PORNBIO specifically includes Playboy Playmates but doesn't similarly include Penthouse Pets, which strikes me as a bit odd since Penthouse is as well known as Playboy. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respond. The Penthose Pet criteria were removed from WP:PORNBIO earlier this year after extensive discussion. The discussion concluded that being named a Penthouse Pet didn't result in the level of independent, third-party coverage that being named a Playmate did. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That seems to conflict with the quote I frequently read in these discussions, that "notability does not expire." 69.253.207.9 (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree. In particular when PORNBIO is being discussed for the moment. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respond. There was a lengthy discussion, started by you, at [3], which showed a consensus that the version of the guidelines you support wasn't strict enough, and you ought to respect the consensus there. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:08, 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. Tone 14:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Belcastro

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

Has been tagged as possibly non-notable for two years. No independent coverage that I can find, probably doesn't meed the

general notability guideline. All the secondary links on the page are dead. Noisalt (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the comment above - notability is questionable at best, and the one potential for notability is a dead link. That leaves nothing to support notability, and few hints that notability might be established with a little work.--SPhilbrickT 16:18, 10 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 22:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bera

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

Has been tagged as possibly non-notable for two years. One source is a dead link, one doesn't mention him, one is trivial. Probably doesn't meet the

general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that notability is not established. Links are dead or don't mention him. --SPhilbrickT 16:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 14 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. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VV Tikves

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

organization fails

WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:59, 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 redirect to

Reading F.C. season 2009-10. I am expediating the closure here in the belief that redirecting a duplicate article with an almost identical title is uncontroversial enough to justify a speedy close. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC) [reply
]

Reading F.C. Season 2009-10

Reading F.C. Season 2009-10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason for deletion is fairly simple, there is another page of better quality and detail and there is no point in having two pages the same See

Reading F.C. season 2009-10
Ajpralston1 (talk) 22:49, 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 keep. The article looks much better now, I don't believe a merge is needed. Tone 14:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boating Lake Park

Boating Lake Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, probably doesn't meet the

general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Despite request for references in 2007, none have been added. Possibly acceptable as secton within
    Cwmbrân. Maybe it will get the referencing attention there.--SPhilbrickT 16:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to Cwmbran. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. References and coord added. welsh (talk) 07:09, 15 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. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinensis Tea Company

Sinensis Tea Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. A Google News Archive search returns no

WP:COI with the company per their comments at User talk:Cunard#Sinensis Tea Company (permalink). Cunard (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination this is textbook NN in terms of how notability is judged on Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All that I can find is
    talk) 23:31, 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 redirect to Monday's Hero. Tone 12:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bock

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

No sources, probably doesn't meet the

general notability guideline. He's only been in one band with a WP page (Monday's Hero), but even that's probably not notable. Noisalt (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Redirect to Monday's Hero. I have no idea if the band is notable, but as a member of the band, the redirect would be appropriate as I can find no individual notability for him. As for the band, it's not up for AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 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. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suzetta Miñet

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

Non-notable actress; has appeared in two video games according to IMDB and has no other claim to notability in the article.  Frank  |  talk  22:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, she is most likely an alias. She has no history, pictures, or interviews to be found. I personally believe she is Debi Mae West due to the video evidence that compares both voices, but that's irrelevant. Regardless of whose alias she is, she doesn't really deserve her own article.--Stripedtiger (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:49, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig L. Russell (software architect) (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Brink

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

May be an important artist, not clear. Sources cannot be found, probably does not meet the

general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:43, 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. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Watson (drummer)

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

I declined a CSD nom for this article because of the implied claim to notability by being the drummer for two notable bands. However, I can't find any indication of notability to build an article with. If such can be found, I'd be happy to help build the article.  Frank  |  talk  23:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources about him other than listing him in the band – only trivial mentions. Fails the
general notability guideline. I don't think this can ever be more than the one sentence. Noisalt (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:42, 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. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Sully (Avatar)

Jake Sully (Avatar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

An article about a character in a semi-notable film seems rather unnotable. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think the film (Avatar (2009 film)) is more than semi-notable, but it won't be released until more than four months from now, so creating articles about the characters seems to be jumping the gun. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough info and too early. - Enter Movie (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:40, 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. Tone 12:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_GameZombie_video_game_developer_interviews

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

This is merely a list of content available from this organization, and should be removed as per

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is already a link from GameZombie to it's web page, which is sufficient. wikial (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I think it's sufficient that the official site already lists the interviews, plus they have a You tube library of all this. If this list was something that supported other wiki articles on the subject, then I'd say keep. But it's not a reference list. Possibly add the link to the You tube library into the main article. Also, the number of game designers interviewed could be added to the main article, with perhaps a few famous designers mentioned, but to list every person is too much. Ebonyskye (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep - The strongest argument for keeping this article is that this library of living, notable video game developers has value to anyone interested in the art and business of interactive entertainment. I agree with Ebonyskye that the list could be enhanced or made more relevant by making it support other wiki articles on the subject. Also, each individual developer interview could be followed by a brief description of the content of the interview, the exact date and game conference, internal links to relevant wiki articles, and perhaps an external link to the interview on the web. Television programs often contain exhaustive lists of episode details. Here is the equivalent for people researching the video game industry. Furthermore, this list calls attention to certain notable game developers for whom a wiki article should exist, but for whom one has not yet been started. Simply providing the external link to the complete library does not sufficiently explain for video game scholars the depth of opportunity for discovery that this rich and growing developer interview archive contains. — CrossfireCT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

    • WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a very good Keep argument. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:37, 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 redirect to

Jack Russel Terrier. I've deleted the other one because it's unprobable. Any useful info can still be merged. Tone 14:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Shorty Jack Russell Terrier and Shorty Jack Russel Terrier

Shorty Jack Russell Terrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

unreferenced OR

talk) 09:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

View AfD
)

unreferenced OR Beach drifter (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with
    Jack Russel Terrier: As a derivative breed, I think the appropriate place would be a subsection under the main Jack Russel Terrier article. Frmatt (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge and redirect to Jack Russell Terrier. Google reveals that "Shorty Jack Russell Terrier" is a commonly used term, but do not break out a new article without using reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. It's a derivative. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 14 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. Tone 11:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eela Tamilakam

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

I believe this article is

Nainathivu.[10] This is enough to prove that this article is OR I think. While some of the information given in the article is correct with regard to Sri Lanka or Eelam, we can safely assume that "Eela Tamilakam" is non-existent. ≈ Chamal talk 08:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Nagatheepam

Hi You cannot justify to delete the article regarding Nagatheepam previously knowns as Eela Tamilakam. First the name Eela Tamilakam was largely unknown to many non tamils as it was present only in Tamil epics. so i changed the most common name known as. i have added more reliable references in it to justify the presence of Tamils and their kingdom in ancient period. As few Sinhala people started showing their real face in Wikipedia too. now this is the matter of disputes. deleting this article fully may results in serious of debate and dispute. if they want to delete certain part of the article they have to edit that part with valid reasons and citations. Chamal can feel free to talk about this to with me. You can assume Eela Tamilakam can be non-existent but you cannot assume the Tanporunai or Nagatheepam can be non-existant. --BlueLankan 12:16,1 August 2009 (UTC)

If that article is about Nagatheepam or Nagadeepa, there is already an article at
WP:OR. I have commented on your talk page about the accusation you have made. Your inline citations support individual facts, and do not talk about a single entity like a "tamil country" in any name, whether it is Eela Tamilakam or Nagatheepam or whatever. ≈ Chamal talk 03:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:33, 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 no consensus.

Spartaz Humbug! 22:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Reading With Rover

Reading With Rover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Attention solely from local media with the a trivial mention in a single source from out of the region. Also, only trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources Cptnono (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: An alternative to deletion could be allowing a stub based on this Seattle based company and the couple other similar programs found elsewhere.Cptnono (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support merging what's there (which is really only a mention) into a broader article on the subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google News has four mentions within the past month, meeting the GNG. Flagged for rescue--can someone integrate these? Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Examiner is not RS. The cool thing is that those all mention separate cities. If local attention is given to those in RS the scope of the article can be adjusted to the movement of such organizations.Cptnono (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in the discussion earlier, this was kept because of its relevance to social trends. Please see the discussion page for the article. These other additions are welcome, too. Wakablogger2 (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping it was a mistake unless we can find valid sources (
WP:RELIABLE) that go into detail on the social trend. If someone finds those and adds them it should be kept. I have had a hard time finding such sources in a few attempts over the last several months. The coverage is not signifigant from what I have found and does not meet the the level of noteworthiness required for the project. Personally, I do find it interesting and think it would be great if someone could find those.Cptnono (talk
)
Here are some links that describe how dogs are being used these days. In the past, dogs were used for rescue or for the blind. In recent decades, however, the social uses for dogs has grown greatly, and the Reading with Rover article is important because it is indicative of that trend and because it is an important part of the culture in Washington State (whose project it belongs to).

[[11]]

  • Dogs for the Blind
  • Hearing and Signal Dogs
  • Assistance Dogs
  • Canine Companions for Independence
  • Assistance Dog International (ADI)
  • Paws with a Cause (PAWS)
  • National Education for Assistance Dog Services, Inc.
  • Therapy Dogs

[[12]]

  • Autism
  • Aspergers
  • Mental Health D/O
  • Dementia
  • Mild Mental Retardation
  • Brain Injury (traumatic or chemical)

[[13]] for children with autism and their families Wakablogger2 (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more, this time from books:

[[14]] A recent growing trend is the training of "service dogs." These animals help physically handicapped owners by fetching dropped objects, pulling wheelchairs up ramps, forcing open heavy doors, and doing other tasks that allow their owners to achieve independence despite their handicaps. - Opportunities in animal and pet care careers by Richard Sandoval Lee

[[15]] An animal may participate with a person in pet therapy at many levels. The most basic function would be to provide companionship and affection, allowing patients to pet and stroke the animal. A higher level of therapy would be the use of dogs that are trained to allow patients to groom them, hold them, and engage in closer care of them. - Spiritual care in nursing practice By Kristen L. Mauk, Nola A. Schmidt, page 261.

Wakablogger2 (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, we still need to have significant coverage. Your primary sources and google book sources are also more along the lines of
service dogs.Cptnono (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, those sources indicate how animals are being used in society today, an incredible trend that nobody would have guessed just a few decades ago. Here are some cites from newspapers and TV that talk about Reading with Rover:
[[16]] KOMO news: We all know that dogs can learn to fetch or sit on command, but what about helping children with their reading? That's the concept behind an innovative program in Woodinville that's being featured on national TV....Moose and Becky are at Woodmoor Elementary for Reading With Rover, a program she helped create. It's where kids who have trouble reading read aloud to therapy dogs.
[[17]] The Seattle Times: [The dog's] expression never changed, not even when Nicholas stumbled over tricky words like "guava." ...That's the whole idea behind "Reading with Rover," a summer program for children at the Bothell and Kenmore branches of the King County Regional Library System. The program pairs companion dogs with kids who may be uncomfortable reading aloud. The dogs provide their rapt attention and the children can read aloud without fear of criticism or interruption....Wu modeled the Bothell program after a two-year-old program at the Salt Lake City Public Library called Reading Education Assistance Dogs (READ), which also pairs children with trained therapy dogs who listen patiently as children read.
[[18]] The Seattle Times: Reading with Rover pairs trained dogs with children struggling to read. The child reads aloud to the dog, building confidence and reducing stress.
[[19]] Seattle PI: Bourbon is one of eight dogs that visit Woodmoor on Thursdays under a program called "Reading with Rover," designed to boost literacy skills for children who have difficulty mastering them.
[[20]] nwnews.com: Woodinville’s own Becky Bishop, and her Reading with Rover program are once more the subject of attention, only this time, it’s on a national level....A production crew from the show “Animal Planet” came to Woodin- ville [sic] recently to film Bishop and her Reading with Rover teams of handlers and their dogs. They shot footage in the reading lab at Woodmoor Elementary for a segment on an upcoming documentary, narrated by Jane Goodall, focusing on animal-human communication....Reading with Rover began about five years ago when Bothell librarian MieMie Wu approached Bishop about the idea of having kids read to dogs. Wu had heard about a program in Utah called R.E.A.D. (Reading Education Assistance Dogs), which uses dogs to help kids improve their reading skills and increase their confidence. She set out to start a similar program in Washington and named it “Reading with Rover.”
Even more cites can be found at [[21]]. Wakablogger2 (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is all local. It does not meet the requirements required for an organization to have an article. If the article is supposed to be about more than local add to the therapeutic dog article per the sources you mentioned previously or find significant coverage of a national/international trend. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Cptnono (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the Seattle Times and the Seattle PI are local? What is regional? We don't have a Washington Times... The only other thing is the Animal Planet. I think it's an important part of a trend, the articles in the major newspapers give it press. I give up now. Good luck and I hope someone finds a "regional" newspaper. Wakablogger2 (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is local coverage of a local organization. People as close as Yakima and Portland probably haven't heard a thing. Regardless of that, the article has been here to improve for months but it doesn't like it could be. Even if someone would have stuffed information in it would be better in other preexisting articles.Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of notable news organizations that have given coverage to this. [22] Dream Focus 05:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OrINAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VXIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4472,599979
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/snohomishcountynews/2001984144_firstbooks21n.html
http://www.seattlepi.com/moore/267929_moore25.html
http://www.newsherald.com/news/city-71015-panama-rover.html
http://www.etsu.edu/coe/cuai/issues_RT/TN%20READ%202002%201.pdf (pages 27-28) —
Rankiri (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • What kind of locale covers Tennessee Reading Teacher, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Seattle Times and News Herald Panama City? The Northern Hemisphere? —
    Rankiri (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
They are all local coverage of different local groups. If someone can make the article about the push for such programs I would not object but so far I don't see signifigant coverage as a whole.Cptnono (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What can I say?
    Rankiri (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Guidelines for organizations (
    WP:GROUP) state that the subject must be "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale". It goes on to say "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area" Since they are not related organizations, this second part does not allow for the article since it is only of a local scale without significant coverage from non local sources. The information might be better in the other dog related links mentioned above or will have to be worked into an article about the general idea. I think it is a great program and should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia but it doesn't meet the criteria for an independent article.Cptnono (talk) 01:55, 12 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. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Tran

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

Apparently not

talk) 18:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:28, 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. I think

Spartaz Humbug! 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Nicole Levin

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

She has been publishing for two years only, with no awards. Not notable. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete she may be notable from the point of view of insignificant and immature creatures who have a lack of understanding of the real world "children", but that is about it. And what little annoying horrors chidren think is meaningless.--
    Sky Attacker 22:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment Please could we keep this a little more serious...VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If her books are published by Cambridge University Press, she's notable. Additional reviews are needed, however. The length of time she has been a writer is irrelevant, and the comment about children's authors being non-notable is absurd. DGG (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being published by CUP does is not sufficient for notability. She has written several of their stories for children as part of an educational programme. We could include all kinds of people published under the CUP, OUP and Longman graded reader series as notable authors if your statement were true.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. There has been no mention about chidren's authors being non-notable. Rather, children's opinions have no value.--
Sky Attacker 05:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Whether or not you consider the CUP books which form part of a series as being notable, having had 5 independent books published by a reputable South African publisher in one year I think is notable. There are numerous authors included on the database who have had fewer books published with no accolades. Albatross —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albatross555 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:24, 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. hoaxalicious StarM 23:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deford Community Airport

Deford Community Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No such airport exists. Appears to be a fabrication. older ≠ wiser 22:19, 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 keep. Nom withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumino Kinetic Art

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

Propose a merge to "new media art" - the term is no longer in use to describe what Popper originally intended in the 60s, it is now historically-specific. What is found in this article is *NOT* what Popper describes, and is COI with author Mark Allyn who it seems is trying to sell his art under this moniker: http://www.allyn.com/kinetic/kinetic.html Deadchildstar (talk) 03:47, 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, JForget 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In it, he revisits his research from 30 years prior (the 60s) and discusses predecessors to new media art - he refers to it as "High Technology Art" because of the obvious and long-standing problems with the tern "new" media (this is a whole ongoing debate within new media art discourse - is there a better term?). Without uploading the whole PDF, I'll quote the following and you can tell me if it answers your doubts: "That these artists using new techniques participated more than 20 years ago in the first European Light-Art exhibitions establishes some proof of the continuity and coherence of high-technology art and provides an important link with present-day research. If kinetic and luminokinetic art in general can be regarded as a significant starting-point in the context of high-technology art, the specific area of neon art is particularly illuminating as to the continuity of aesthetic preoccupations linked with technological advancement." (Popper).
Also keep in mind that a Jstor search (journals only) brings up 8 references to "Lumino Kinetic" - and more than half are by Frank Popper himself, it's his term. The other articles reference Popper in context of the term. A search for "Kinetic Art" brings up 31 results, and a search for "new media" brings up 235. I'd also agree with a re-direct to Frank Popper, as well as one to Kinetic Art.Deadchildstar (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I'm researching this - one of the external sources listed on the LKA article points to this site: [23] which is published through the Pompidou Centre in Paris. It clearly places "Lumino Kinetic Art" as a subset of Kinetic Art: "There are different forms of kinetic art, including machines and mobiles, as well as lumino-kinetic works involving light and movement." There is no individual entry for Lumino Kinetic Art in their glossary. Deadchildstar (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems I'm talking to myself on this one. I've now researched the crap out of this. No matter what happens to the article, I can tell you that the content of the article as it stands currently has got to go, it's wrong. The term itself is disputed as to it's origins - there was an early cybernetics artist, Nicolas Schöffer, who used the term in the 50s, and then artist/engineer Frank Malina who came up with the Lumidyne system of lighting, and artist Nino Calos working after him who seemed to work with the term "Limino-kinetic paintings." However -

- Oxford Art Online offers the following sentence fragment as part of a larger list, to the topic, under the larger heading of Kinetic Art: "Frank Joseph Malina (1912–81), Schöffer and György Kepes in that of lumino-kinetic experiment." [1] - I searched through each of the aforementioned Popper articles at Jstor - and there is only a mention in passing of the term - If you go to Google Books, and search within Popper's book "Origins and Development of Kinetic Art," [2] you'll see 3 instances of the word "lumino," two of which refer to Schoffer. - It is an art historical term in the context of kinetic art, Popper states as much in the article I referred to earlier - there is no lumino kinetic art after the early 70s; it stands as a pre-cursor to other contemporary cybernetic, robotic, new media-based arts, and is limited to a very small number of (male) European avant-garde artists (part of the New Tendencies movement) [3]. It is also aligned with Op art in the late 60s because the moving lights were spectacular and psychedelic. [4] - I still contend that an article on Lumino Kinetic Art is going to be two sentences, and it's better served in context of

Kinetic Art
, which is not such a terrible article. We can just move these references over there, and more importantly, remove the *advertising* off this current page. Why we're showing the article creator's hack jewelry and not some real examples is beyond me. That is all. Deadchildstar (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are not talking to yourself. I'm on the fence, reading, as I simply don't have the knowledge you have. You have, however, just provided the heck of a good input to a completely revised article on the historical use of Lumino kinetic art. I agree that the current content has to go, but with the revised input of yours, the article itself doesnt have to. I will try to produce a draft change tomorrow, hoping that you will provide the specifics on the refs. Thanks. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as keep Although I stated above that I couldnt care less about this topic, I have nevertheless completely rewritten the article based on the excellent research by Deadchildstar. Please check, as I'm a novice here. The content is to be kept, and whether it should possibly be merged into kinetic art is a discussion unsuitable for AfD. Article improvement has no room in AfD either, but I'm very pleased that an AfD nominator has worked so contructively in providing content. Thx. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated it because it was sitting around in PROD going nowhere.... that, and the article was total bs crap. But nice job rewriting it! Though I still think it' an extraordinarily minor "movement" that doesn't need it's own article, this article is no longer deletion-worthy. I'll tweak it a bit too.... Ugh, do I withdraw the nomination? I don't know how to do that. Deadchildstar (talk) 10:08, 13 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

One Year War. Redirect for now seems a reasonable consensus, the issues with the other articles can be solved elsewhere,. Tone 12:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Operation British

Operation British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT violation. Extensive plot information with no out-of-universe context. The fictional event actually occurs before the series begins and simply referred or described by the narrator during the first few episodes. Article was already prodded last month, but was removed without any stated reason. Farix (Talk) 22:12, 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 redirect to Space Battleship Yamato. Not much content to merge so a redirect for now. Regarding merging the other articles, this is to be discussed on the talkpages, not here. Tone 11:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space Battleship Yamato (arcade game)

Space Battleship Yamato (arcade game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable arcade game. No significant sources available apart from one retrospective fansite page. Wikipedia does not need to have a product page for every video game that ever existed. Ash (talk) 21:56, 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. Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Collier

Adrian Collier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was already speedy deleted once as non-notable. Only notability claim is being an official photographer for the Blue Angels, but there's no references to prove how "notable" that is. Contested prod. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: I have completed this AfD discussion page on behalf of I.P. 98.248.32.178, whose deletion rationale can be found on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:31, 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. I think this is an appropriate application of

DYK nomination is under way. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

A clarification:

1% chance of an AfD turning out with an unexpected result is enough to wait 7 days, which causes no harm. But letting a DYK go stale is harmful, however small in extent. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

No homo

No homo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism. Article has been speedied several times before (and was indeed salted prior to its recreation). Better suited for Wiktionary. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Admrboltz (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Former speedy deletes relate to entirely different articles, that were pure nonsense. The Wikipedia definition of a
    reliable sources. If nominator wants this article deleted, he should come up with a rationale that actually complies with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Lampman (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Actually, again,
    WP:NEO says that neologisms are "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." It also says that although it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society, and thus to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak delete At least one source is non-trivially about the term, but the rest aren't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC) The sources are mostly nontrivial, but I don't know if they really provide enough to make this more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean, all but one of the six sources so far deal primarily with the term; Dave Zirin mentions it tangentially. Lampman (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please explain to me what does constitute reliable source coverage of the term, beyond five articles in highly reliable publications on the subject. Because I seriously don't know what more would meet the criteria if that doesn't. Lampman (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An actual, sourced article on a phrase that is even pretty culturally relevant! Recury (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My initial impression when I saw the article link was "delete", but having read it, it is well-sourced, interesting, and informative. Even in its current state, it is far more developed than a dictionary definition, and it is arguable whether it is a neologism since it was coined in the early 1990s according to the source. Google News has 1,700+ hits, most of which appear to be related to this phrase, and there are even a couple in Google Books.
    reliable third-party coverage. Strikehold (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I can recommend Wikipedia Reference Search, which is calibrated to search only reliable sources. A search I did found that "no Homo erectus is known to have made such sophisticated tools", which is good to know, but not exactly relevant... Lampman (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 05:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 05:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 05:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge there are two parts to this article, one of them is a dictionary definition of the term (which doesn't belong in Wikipedia). The other part is a potentially encyclopaedic discussion about attitudes to homosexuality in hip-hop culture, which should be merged with
    hip hop culture and this title redirect there. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Lampman and Strikehold. Owen× ☎ 11:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The content is fairly encyclopedic and relatively well-sourced, though of course it could use strengthening. The fact that the sources are journalistic rather than "scholarly" strikes me as odd, but that's certainly no reason for deletion. The page is currently an orphan, but there seem to be some pages (e.g. Tori Fixx, Sexual norm) that arguably should have links to this page. Also, the formerly speedy-deleted pages were cited as 'nonsense'; the current page is not that. Cnilep (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sounds like a notable phenomenon and is well sourced. --
    talk) 17:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per WP:NEO
This page in a nutshell: A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing.
Undeniably meets this requirement. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lampman, Strikehold, Cnilep, and Floydian. The article has context, history, usage and contains valid citations within the text. The New York and Slate pieces are specifically about the phrase, the concept, and it's use. Clearly passes WP:NEO as a reason to keep with multiple WP:RS. — Becksguy (talk) 18:56, 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 delete. JForget 22:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Oakland to Iceland: A Hip-Hop Homecoming

From Oakland to Iceland: A Hip-Hop Homecoming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In trying to add sources to this article, I'm coming up short. I found a number of passing mentions and press releases, but only two that seem to get us towards meeting

WP:COI issues with article creator.) Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 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. Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Krhin

Rene Krhin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A played failed

WP:athlete, he did made a professional; debut on a official competition. Matthew_hk tc 20:06, 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 21:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Mott

Jonathan Mott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable educational administrator DGG (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One difference is that
WP:Prof #6. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC).[reply
]
Ahh, makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Billbowery (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Try searching for "Jon Mott" - if there was a way to link "Jon Mott" to "Jonathan Mott" then you'd see a lot of references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.220.218 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article provides strong evidence that he doesn't pass
    WP:BIO or any other similar criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 11 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 22:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity-based learning

Curiosity-based learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable method; the claimed inventor is not the first to use the rather generic term , according to GScholar; highly promotional article DGG (talk) 19:24, 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 per

G7 by Allen3. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

List of amateur radio repeaters

List of amateur radio repeaters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory Wtshymanski (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a directory but a list. Lists are allowed and the scope of this list is appropriate for Wikipedia. Please read the the guidelines here: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists and WIkipedia:Stand-alone lists. --kf4yfd (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Delete - As KF4YFD states, this is not a directory page. This is a legitimate list, well within the scope of Wikipedia. There is absolutely no reason to remove this from the site. It clearly specifies the criteria for a repeater's inclusion, and it's a useful list. It needs to stay. Having seen what's underneath, I'm inclined to agree with Chromacity. This could become a potentially unmaintainable list. Sorry!
talk) 21:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC) edited 11:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Having looked at the sites below, I'm inclined to agree that this will be unmaintainable and too big a job to be worthwhile, so Delete seems the best option.--Michig (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Repeater lists are notoriously hard to maintain, are out-of-date the moment they're published, and change frequently. There are already plenty of lists far better than this attempt at one on the web anyway; see for example this one (which is publicly updatable), this one, and this one, and this one (which aggregates several other sources). K5EHX alone has nearly 25,000 entries in his database; importing all this data into Wikipedia and keeping abreast of the changes and updates just from K5EHX would be a full-time task. And none of these databases receives regular updates from any of the frequency coordinator bodies. Sadly, I think this effort cannot be maintained at an acceptable encyclopedic quality, and as such the list should be deleted. Chromaticity (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chromaticity. Such information is unmaintainable here. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the votes are in and everyone have a point. This list would become overly large and complicated fast as the number of repeaters is stupendous worldwide. I will find some other way to post such data. Many thanks to all. Delete --kf4yfd (talk) 13:18, 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 deleted

G3, and sorry, no lulz from me. NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


Oswald schwarzkopf

Oswald schwarzkopf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious hoax. I brought it here for the amusement value, and a snow delete. DGG (talk) 18:58, 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 per

talk) 12:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Vueling Airlines Flight 9127

Vueling Airlines Flight 9127 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-notable aircraft accident. Nobody was seriously injured, just eight minor injuries on the emergency slide. See

talk) 18:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I've read the proposal and it's well thought out. The most important point is that information about those incidents that aren't much more than current news will at least be mentioned somewhere. As an alternative to a !keep or !delete, it provides clear directions on where information can be mentioned (such as in a section about the airline, or a type of aircraft problem) as an alternative to a full article; and it results in fewer separate articles than the current WP:AIRCRASH essay envisions. Whether you agree or disagree with Thryduulf's suggestions, they are [[worth looking at. Mandsford (talk) 13:30, 11 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 22:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forex Tester

Forex Tester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails

WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to SatNet Radio. Even had an affiliate tracking link as the "official" site. Using Wikipedia for self-promotion and product placement is not the route to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:06, 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 23:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Knuckles Up

Knuckles Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per

WP:NALBUM, no independent coverage in reliable sources Dlabtot (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Citations must be to reliable sources. I see that you are attempting to use jesusfreakhideout.com, as well as a web user submitted reviews on sputnik.com and absolutepunk.net - these do nothing to establish notability. about.com... eh, I don't consider it reliable but I know many think it is borderline... the only real reference you have there is the christianitytoday.... in all, it does not add up to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that this passes
    WP:RS, one of the most basic rules on WP. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 14 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 22:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waves of War

Waves of War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per

WP:NALBUM, no independent coverage in reliable sources Dlabtot (talk) 17:36, 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 keep. JForget 22:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snuba

Snuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost completely unreferenced. Appears promotional. Powers T 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - The article needs cleanup, but there are plenty of reliable sources on this recreational activity. In fact, it has become rather popular in the Carribean. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 80 800 google hits for snuba. -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've done my best to clean up unencyclopedic language and sorted out the sources into online refs. It still needs some cites, but is now clearly notable and reads much less like an advert. It will still need to be watched to keep it encyclopedic, but is a decent start-class article now, in my humble opinion. --RexxS (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - After a quick Google News search, I've added several articles as online references. I agree with RexxS, it is a good start-class article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misshannahmay (talk • contribs) 22:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is one of the best references for anything new.... My information on Snuba was first gathered from Wik...Don't delete!69.224.222.179 (talk) 22:35, 12 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. (

talk) 15:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Solar bowl

Solar bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to be non-notable macbookair3140 (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm unfamiliar with the deletion proces, and have no idea why macbookair3140 would take the trouble to ask for deletion. First of all the Solar Bowl is mentioned in one of wikipedias articles on solar thermal concentrators, but not explained. Second of all it is a distinct, different technology in the solar concentrator with genuine benefits. That is the reason why I created the initial wikipedia entry (under development). I will have a commercial interest in developing the technology, but that is no reason to keep the knowledge from the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunreign (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - on the surface, seems to be a bad nomination. The subject is apparently notable[29][30][31] and the article, such as exists at the moment[32] is sourceable and perhaps sourced. It was nominated for deletion in less than one minute after creation,[33] The article creator admits to a potential
    a little extra slack. Hopefully they will review their "welcome to Wikipedia" package and look to emulate the methods, style, and tone of some of the better articles they can find around here. There are "templates" you can use to indicate that you are in the middle of an article and requesting a little time - I won't point you to them because it's useful to learn the ropes by climbing them. I suggest the nominator withdraw the nomination, watchlist it, correspond with the article creator about any concerns, and consider re-nominating it later if they still believe the subject to be non-notable. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep See Wikidemon comment. -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quote relevant to this discussion:

"Most people will never see the differences between high regarded non-obscurity or, the more important, obscurity in high regard"

— Michael Eric Bridgewater, 2007

This does need not apply in all situations, (but perhaps in this one?) Delete--

Sky Attacker 21:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Never mind, give that article some time to develop.--
Sky Attacker 21:48, 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 Keep. The foundation of the push to delete this article is based primarily on two arguments: (1) it is an old article (by Wikipedia standards) and (2) it cannot be salvaged to meet Wikipedia’s editorial standards. Neither argument has the strength to support a call for deletion. The age of the article is irrelevant – whether it was written in 2001 by Mr. Wales and Mr. Sanger or whether it was written yesterday by an anonymous IP editor doesn’t matter and is not a policy-based issue. The second argument that the article cannot be salvaged is strictly an opinion, and one that does appear to be supported in consideration of the ongoing clean-up efforts by Mr. Wolfowitz (who was cited in the nomination) and the additional editing that began after this AfD nomination was put forth. For expanding the article, a Google Books search for “nude celebrity Internet” puts this subject into a historic perspective regarding the rise of Net culture (including references to using the Net to distribute fake nude celebrities photographs, which is an aspect not currently covered in this article). BLP issues can be addressed with mature editing, which also appears to be going on. As for the lack of photographs, well... :)

talk) 00:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Nude celebrities on the Internet

AfDs for this article:
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OK, this is an unusual one, and needs a longer statement than the usual AFD.

This article is a genuine piece of wiki-archaeology. This was one of the original Wikipedia articles in 2001, and a version from 2004 became a Featured Article (those who say Wikipedia hasn't improved might like to try assessing that against the current Featured Article standards). Many significant figures of Wikipedia's early history - Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, David Gerard... - have been involved with it in one way or another over the years.

But, Wikipedia has changed, and despite the fact that this was one of our better articles when Wikipedia was finding its feet in the early days of the decade, it doesn't really seem appropriate any more. The original article was written before our policies were in place so the authors can't be blamed for its problems. However, although

biased statements based on personal opinion
("downmarket", "in high demand"...).

An earlier AFD nomination resulted in its skin-of-its-teeth survival, based on assorted "all these problems will be easy to fix" statements - but in the two years since then, the issues still haven't been fixed. Meanwhile, our standards have risen; what wasn't out of place five years ago, when these articles were considered Featured Article standard, looks very out of place today. The page is virtually orphaned when it comes to mainspace links, and although it has a respectable number of links from non-mainspace pages those are more an artefact of its longevity than of any particular significance, in my opinion.

This is potentially a contentious AFD nomination, because of the article's history - it's one of present-day Wikipedia's last surviving links to the wild-west

iridescent 16:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete It's been two years since last AFD and only one reference exists. Not many references added since that time seen here. It's been claimed that sources on google books exist yet no one adds them since that two year span. Antonio López (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Internet pornography. Notable and widespread subtopic. Barring that, isn't there some place we could archive this? Some sort of hall of fame? As a historical artifact it has some value in that respect, even if not as a modern article. Powers T 17:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Internet pornography, making up roughly 12% of all websites, is a pretty broad topic and celebrity pornography is itself a broad sub-category. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but that doesn't translate to needing a lot of coverage. Powers T 17:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject. Needs more photos. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep have had a look and found some sources for the existing cases mentioned (took 5 minutes, can people who tag these articles not do this???). I think in order for it to be kept there needs to be more cases listed with valid sources.Mark E (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how anyone can argue it's not a notable subject based on the number of sources discussing the phenomenon and examples of it. The title of the article seems like it could maybe be tweaked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone here saying it should be deleted as it's not a notable subject (although most of those Google hits are false positives). I think you may be misunderstanding the issue here; this isn't a matter of notability, but of verifiability, BLP violation, original research, bias, and indiscriminacy. – 
iridescent 21:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Why not just delete the parts that are disputed and/or add citation needed tags. I haven't read much past the opening paragraphs, but BLP violations, bias and original research should just be removed.
Am I marked for Wiki-life for having made an edit to the article? I already did work on food and sexuality article. At least no animals are involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, CoM, the almighty pendulum impacts all arenas of society; if you are still alive when the neo-Victorians take over, I'm sure you'll be subject to public character assassination. Enjoy! Unschool 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the issue. While it may meet notability guidelines by way of coverage in secondary, reliable sources, that doesn't necessarily make it suitable for an encyclopedic article. One could find plenty of sources discussing nude celebrities nearly anywhere. I could probably make a DYK out of Nude celebrities on boats; same goes for Nude celebrities in parks. But that becomes indiscriminate. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Nods.) Read my reply to ChildofMidnight, above. This isn't a matter of notability, but of verifiability, BLP violation, original research, bias, and indiscriminacy, and I don't see any way these issues can be fixed - over any timescale. – 
    iridescent 19:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment If this was a featured article why does it not have a star showing that it was in the upper right hand corner? RP459 (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is no longer featured, so the star was removed. Artichoker[talk] 03:25, 13 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 as per consensus.

talk) 12:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Fashion (Heidi Montag song)

Fashion (Heidi Montag song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this song fails WP:notability (music) because the song has never charted nor has it been covered by lots of artists etc. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Pokerdance;
    WP:NSONGS, specifically "ISongs 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." Cheers, I'mperator 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: Montag's version actually was released as a promotional single, it just failed to chart. Regardless, the fact that it was re-recorded by Lady Gaga, another notable artist, assures the song notability per
    WP:GNG.

    I would like to know how you think a merge would work. Not only was this released as a promo single for Montag, Gaga's version was featured on both a film soundtrack and a television episode. POKERdance talk/contribs 09:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment (directed at Lil-unique1): Montag's version was released officially as a promotional single. And two notable artists recording the song does make it notable. Its lack of airplay and chart performance is irrelevant. Perhaps you should read
    WP:NSONG again. Also, there are good sources. Unless you would like to argue that Us Weekly, E! Online, and Entertainment Weekly are not good sources for entertainment. POKERdance talk/contribs 19:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: How can you say this article fails
    WP:GNG as I have previously stated, and general notability > specialized notability, otherwise the GNG wouldn't exist.

    The article may need clean-up and more references, yes, but a delete, redirect, or merge is completely unnecessary, since the song clearly passes the notability guideline for songs. POKERdance talk/contribs 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment since i nominated the article i am not allowed to vote but i would like to point a few things out. First of all WP:notability (music) point out that a song is notable if it is covered by several notable artists. Lady Gaga is notable but Heidi Montag is not cus she has yet to release an album. Secondly the rules point out that a song should be notable if it has recieved multiple awards or charted numerous times - this song has never done so. Finally the song has not recieved extensive critical acclaims or review and will always remain a stub because it was only ever a promotional release. It clearly states in WP:notability (music) that songs which are released through promo are not generally considered notable. remember that the number of credible sources for this song will be low because it was never properly released. i cannot understand the need for an article of this level of trivialness, it could easily be merged into Heidi Montag's page and Lady Gaga. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: Your nomination was essentially a vote. Your second delete vote was striked because you were making it appear to be someone else making a vote to delete. Regardless of the fact that Heidi Montag has not yet released an album, she is quite notable. She meets criterion #1 and 2, amongst others, at
    Hot Dance Club Play chart in the United States. POKERdance talk/contribs 15:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: While the song clearly meets notability as having been recorded independently by several notable artists, you acknowledge that the song has received significant coverage. That would cause this song to meet the
    WP:NSONG, general notability > specialized notability. Otherwise the GNG serves no purpose. POKERdance talk/contribs 07:46, 15 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. The dictionary entries are the prevailing argument here. Tone 13:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exergaming

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

delete as per

WP:NEO
. this sounds like a marketing term. the neutraity of the article is questionable. large quantity of OR.

Strong Delete - for above reasons Jw2035 (talk) 16:08, 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 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French Nation State

French Nation State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. This is an essay, possibly a term paper, and not an encyclopedia article. Fails wikipedia policy on

original research andy (talk) 15:46, 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 deleted upon author request (

be kind to newcomers 19:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Nazar Amadin

Nazar Amadin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined the speedy because of claims of importance (lasting impact, national tour), but in trying to reference this article I'm coming up short. Just a single non-wiki ghit, and zero gnews hits. It's possible that language and transcription issues are hindering my search, so bringing to AfD. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:43, 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 keep. (

talk) 04:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Paul Cantor

Paul Cantor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author that has written 4 books, none of which have articles. No external sources, no proof of notability. LK (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I withdraw my nomination for AfD, given David Eppstein's contribution below. LK (talk) 10:58, 12 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. Tone 12:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ni†eCrawler (2010 film)

The Ni†eCrawler (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, I can't find any sources tha tsupport inclusion. wiki is not a crystal ball

talk) 14:04, 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 22:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Derek Presents… Sweet Memory Sounds

DJ Derek Presents… Sweet Memory Sounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All that I can find is

talk) 13:16, 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 redirect to Continental_Airlines#Minor_incidents. While this incident does not have the same impact as a crash with several fatalities, it is still covered in various sources. However, a full article may be inappropriate and since the incident is already covered elsewhere, the reasonable choice is to leave a redirect there. Tone 13:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Airlines Flight 128

Continental Airlines Flight 128 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe that an aircraft encountering turbulence in flight, resulting in no deaths and a small number of injuries is notable. If you look at the debate on incident notability on

talk) 11:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

One of the reasons I rarely participate in AfDs is because I am uncomfortable with the incredible ease so many editors determine certainty in these matters. The article in question is classic. I don't see how anyone can be "strong" delete or "strong" keep. This is not an easy call. I understand User:S Marshall's point about coverage in the media, but you know what? We're all going to see in time that contemporary coverage will not automatically translate into long-term notability. Wikipedia is not a news source, and if we truly were to adopt the standard that SMarshall (and many others) so blithely promote then we will become a news source (and ultimately, a news archive). On the other hand, calling this an easy delete is also not very thoughtful. Something very unusual happened here. It may well be that we may learn something from this that changes airplane maintenance, or something like that, forever afterwards. And really, just having 14 people hospitalized is a very big deal, even without landing in the Hudson. Regardless of the ease with which participants here declare these to be black and white issues (and some, of course, are), I think that many of these articles fall into a gray area. I wish I could come across more people acknowledging that. Anyway, I'm going to vote in favor of preservation, in this case, but I do so without the assuredness that so many of my fellow editors possess. Unschool
  • Barely Keep, for reasons stated above/ Unschool 13:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Unschool, a major benefit of the GNG is that it does enable certainty in many cases. An editor can easily determine for themself whether the GNG is passed, and if it is passed, the editor can create an article with confidence that their hard work will not be deleted. And that confidence is important, because it enables people to write without going through a committee process first.

    That's why, where I see an article at AfD and the GNG is passed, I tend to use strong, clear language to indicate that fact.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, Marshall; they are thoughtful and clear. But I think that if it was a cut-and-dried as it appears to you, that AfD would be a much less contentious place. Wikipedia guidelines appear at times to be like scripture: Anyone can find support for whatever he is looking for. Indeed, in the very same policy that you use, just a few paragraphs down, it says, it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. To me, that makes it seem clear that we simply cannot yet know whether or not this article possesses notability, since that line appears directly applicable to this event. I still see lots and lots of gray. Unschool 14:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Meets
    WP:AIRCRASH - Air carrier criteria - It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier. An occurence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition. Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - great story but
    no relevance. Plane suffered turbulence, got diverted. Nothing special here. If it were a case of "airline safety saves the day" (compare Grayrigg derailment, for instance), things might be different, but there's no assertion of anything other than "it was covered in the media". If this incident meets other criteria, those criteria serously need to be reviewed. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete It should be remembered that
    WP:NOT#NEWS), in favor of finding some way to keep any recent news event. To consider historical notability, let us suppose that there was turbulence on a Piedmont Airways flight in, say, 1967, and some people were injured. Would it be considered important 42 years later? It's not likely, nor is it likely that anyone would write a series of articles about 20th century airplane flights that made news at the time because of turbulence. WP:AIRCRASH is recentism of the worst kind, and it is simply a list of keep arguments. The delete arguments, from WP:NOT, are what should be followed. Mandsford (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Per
    WP:NOTNEWS. There is nothing historic, significant about this crash. Sure an investigation is underway, but that happens for most accidents in general, as does injuries and whatnot. Triplestop x3 18:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment - The aircraft was damaged and there was severe injuries reported. Zaps93 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I also just nominated

talk) 18:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - the incident is already mentioned at

talk) 07:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • We don't decide based on what
    might happen in the future. Things like NTSB reports don't count, primarily because they will be made at every incident. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:50, 13 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 22:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture.ca

Culture.ca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The site no longer exists and notability was not established for the long term (

WP:BEFORE satisfied as the site has been tagged for improvement for over 18 months but no editor seems prepared or interested enough to justify an encyclopaedia entry for a non-existent website. Ash (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - the entire article reads like a press release and never seems to have gained any traction -- Whpq (talk) 15:04, 12 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 keep Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon (461–480)

List of Pokémon (461–480) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article starts "This is a selected listing of twenty of the Pokemon species...". The article only has 10 sources - do the math. None of these sources seem to support this selection as they either cover Pokemon in general or other selections such as the "Top 5 Lamest Pokemon". The article thus violates our policies that Wikipedia is not a

notability guideline in that this topic - "Pokemon 461-480" - is not covered by reliable, independent sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

This is still a disruptive
WP:POINT nomination and you don't give any valid reasons why one or any of the lists should be deleted besides the fact that it's an "indiscriminate list" (which it isn't because it's clearly about the Pokemon).--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The nomination provides three clear reasons - that the list is arbitrary/indiscriminate; that it is game guide material; and that the topic is not notable. An additional reason is that it is a redundant
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I have addressed the notability concerns in my rationale below; also it is not a content fork, as
WP:POINT, which seems pretty clear at this point, is not a personal attack. Artichoker[talk] 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Getting rid of the Pokemon (no, I will not add the é to everything) won't do anything, because someone is liable to create the articles all over again. In a list format, it's much easier to maintain, edit, and source. You can't dispute that at least some Pokemon are notable enough for their own articles, so getting rid of the rest makes no sense. Not to mention that Warden only nominated this one because he was angry and he chose it on purpose for its particular lack of sources.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Angry - why would I be angry? We note though that you are the original author of this article. The lack of sources was there from the start as you left it in a completely unsourced state. As there were no citations, please tell us where got the content from? Bulbapedia or what? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm, could you explain your response here a bit? I must admit it has left me a little confused - I don't think Sesu Prime was suggesting every single pokémon article be deleted. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - And I'm going to fire off a whole accusation that this entire fiasco is a case of
    User:Bws2cool, User:Artichoker and several others. The reason for the separate lists has been, simply put, there is too much information to put on one megalist and the nominator has been informed of such. Requesting this nomination be closed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I don't know why it was nominated, but I think we should have a serious discussion about the validity of the lists. Perhaps this particular AFD should be closed on keep and the discussion about the bigger picture continued at
sesuPRIME 11:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The lists were created as a long-standing merger to keep the information, well, at least somewhere on wikipedia after it was deeemed a bad idea to have 151+ individual articles that would never proceed anywhere, let alone be of Good quality. See here for some of it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be of the mindset that this information needs to be on Wikipedia. Why is that? -
sesuPRIME 12:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Take a look at every other character list and consider the fact that while the characters aren't notable enough for individual articles, they have been repeatedly deemed notable enough for character lists. It's not a concept unique to Pokemon by any means. Also this is a strange stance coming from someone who used to go ballistic over the lack of an accented "e" in Pokemon...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I still get quite annoyed when I see Pokémon spelled incorrectly (seen my
sesuPRIME 12:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I just wanted to check something Sesu. No offense meant.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check what? -
sesuPRIME 13:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Strong Keep - The lists are notable. As notable as character lists from any other tv series/film etc, plus there is alot of sourced information in the articleMark E (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As observed by
    List of Pokemon. Why do we need another list which duplicates part of this. What is notable about #461-480 and where are the sources which demonstrate the notability of this selection, please? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I am working towards getting these lists where they need to be. This is NOT the best they can be. They are pretty easy to fix from one pharagraph to two or three. There is just so many of them, it takes a while, and I seem to be the only one doing anything about it. People like
    Talk·Edits) 14:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I would also like to note that alot of the Pokémon that I redo, they already have the Bulbapedia summaries in the article. They might be tweeked a bit, but they are still from Bulbapedia. So I am not the first one to do this.
Talk·Edits) 15:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Please read the article which contains much unsourced game guide material like "Rhyperior can learn a move that no other Pokemon can - Rock Wrecker. This move is very powerful and leaves the user immobile in the next turn (similar to Hyper Beam, Giga Impact, and Frenzy Plant). As well as this, Rhyperior has a huge Attack stat and has strong Defence.". Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's information that should have been deleted, but it doesn't merit the deletion of the entire article.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trim These lists are good ways of keeping information on characters not notable on their own. However, there is wayyyyy too much unsourced cruft information on these things. Triplestop x3 18:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - this has been said before, but this is obviously a
    Deoxys for example; which was used in NASA space promotion for kids) Artichoker[talk] 18:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You have said nothing about this particular article. Suggesting that many Pokemon are notable is irrelevant. The question here is whether Pokemon #461–480, as a group, are notable. I've not seen one piece of evidence addressing this from you or any other editor. You seem to want to keep this article on the general grounds that Pokemon and parts of it is notable but notability is not inherited and so you have to demonstrate the notability of these particular details. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep
    WP:POINT nomination per Artichoker. Items in a list don't need to be individually notable. The list has a clear definition and sufficiently sourced information to write a small blurb on each individual 'mon; it just happens that most of them don't warrant their own articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong keep Very notable series, would be a mess to try to combine all the lists into one, the lists just need some fixing up as said above. Knowledgekid87) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most individual Pokémon aren't notable, the collection of them as a whole are definitely notable enough to warrant an article listing them. Ideally this means that we should have a single list, but Wikipedia has really strong guidelines about pages being too large -- editors get twapped for letting that happen. So separate sublists it is. If there are crufty sentences in the list, that's a reason to clean them up -- or better yet, get out of the way of editors who actually are doing the work, slowly, one entry at a time. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have a single list -
    List of Pokemon - and this does not seem too large. Why do we need another list covering a fraction of same ground? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • List of Pokémon is nothing more that a collection of names of every single Pokémon, providing no content at all. If anything needs to be deleted, it should be that. Artichoker[talk] 20:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That list is structurally superior. It provides numerous sortable columns, such as the name in differing languages, the differing numbers used for indexing and the primary game attributes. And it is complete. The list to be deleted, on the other hand, is not really a list at all - it's just an arbitrary anthology of non-notable articles, thrown together for no better reason than that they would be more likely deleted if left by themselves and so huddle together for mutual protection. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completeness is not a valid argument; please remember that
      Wikipedia is a work in progress. List of Pokémon has absolutely no content. Artichoker[talk] 22:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Indeed - see also
    WP:SIZERULE. Seems if everything was merged into the one giant list page we'd have a page that is far too large to be usable. I also fail to see how this is any different from any other List of Character article, which is a very standard, long-established, and well-accepted article spinout. 76.124.70.1 (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

SPEEDY SNOW KEEP per Ten Pound Hammer, the otters, the bat and the hammer.--

Sky Attacker 21:22, 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 redirect to

Spartaz Humbug! 15:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Close suspended for one week to allow further discussion at WP:HK. I suggest no further articles are nominated pending a conclusion there. Please prod me in a week to revisit this. .

Spartaz Humbug! 23:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Shek Mun Estate

Shek Mun Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable apartment buildings. 20 English Google hits, 48 Chinese Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 08:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your evidence is wrong because there are more number of links shown in Shek Mun Estate or [39], which gives more number of the artciles than you claimed. You'd better to think about any valuable topics to contribute Wikipedia, rather than criticizing others' articles. Please don't do these silly things again. Ricky@36 (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those Google searches are done without quotes, and still I see nothing resembling a secondary source among them. According to Henrik's tool, Shek Mun Estate gets 2.5 page views a day. That does not convince me that this housing project is of broad, encyclopedic interest. Abductive (reasoning) 09:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Few people browse it, but it does not mean that it needs to be deleted. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A topic needs
secondary sources to justify an encyclopedia article on it. This estate hasn't got those. Therefore I have nominated it for deletion. You and I can post back and forth on this forever, and the closing admin will completely ignore us, because it consists of the nominator (me) arguing with the article creator (you). Obviously, the nominator feels that article should be deleted, and the article creator feels it should not be. Please allow the AfD process to run its course, and if people put forward convincing arguments for keeping it, the article will not be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 09:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I added secondary source for it. OK now? Please close this deletion tag. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube and a forum posting aren't reliable sources. Please, please read
WP:RS. Abductive (reasoning) 10:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
How about another one? Ricky@36 (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it just requests secondary sources, I think you just add secondary source tag rather than suggesting deletions. Ricky@36 (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that there are any reliable, secondary sources for Shek Mun Estate, and I don't want people to waste their time on an article if it has no hope. How about I add a reliable source to a different estate article, supporting something the article says? Abductive (reasoning) 10:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see you will help to find sources for the estate article. The only way for you is to find reasons (or excuses) to delete them. If you really help, I think you changed mind and I am very happy for it. Ricky@36 (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I thought I might get that reaction. Please note:
  • I identifed you as lacking adequate sources before deleting your links, not after. Even with the links, it was inadequate.
  • I deleted the links because they were irrelevant. A discussion of rent ceilings (on one source)? There was nothing in the article on that, so it was irrelevant. (And don't put in a discussion of rent ceilings just to justify putting the source back in; that's not a sufficiently significant topic to belong in the article.) Same was true of the other "sources" I deleted. They weren't supportive of the article.
I stand by my statement: No significant coverage in
reliable sources. True when I wrote it, true now. Sorry. Unschool 16:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment to other editors. Please make sure you actually open up the links that this editor has placed in the article. I deleted four of them as having absolutely no supportive value to the article, and the other two I was unable to open (my current computer's fault, not the links). Anyway, the editor has restored the links, despite my explanations. I'm not getting into an edit war over what I think is an obvious delete, but I just wanted to share this with anyone who, with a cursory glance might think, "Wow--six sources!" Cheers. Unschool 18:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Just by virtue of being a major public housing project, it is assumed extensive government records exist, from proposal to construction to management. --Oakshade (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, I don't see why it matters that there are extensive government records. There's government records on every street that has been built in the town I live in, yet I wouldn't be so egocentric as to think that the one on which I live is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Having said that, I think I have discovered why Ricky@36 is so determined to have this article continue to exist. Why shouldn't it, when this exists? Holy cow, I feel like I've picked up a board in my yard and discovered a colony of termites right next to my house. What in the world makes each of these dozens of complexes noteworthy? I'm 100% totally baffled. My initial impulse would be to propose the entire category for deletion, but I'm sure that someone can explain this to me, right. Unschool 01:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it safe to assume that I can now create articles for
Cleveland? (And that's just the "A"s.) Unschool 01:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you can do this. As you said, if there are enough sources, you can do it. Why not? You just restrict your thought. If you want to be a "deletion specialists", I suggest you trying to delete Category:Public housing estates in Hong Kong to finish your "whole target". You can say you (or your "friends") don't know Hong Kong buildings. What is Shek Kip Mei Estate, Sai Wan Estate, Sau Mau Ping Estate, Model Housing Estate, Wah Fu Estate? Do you know them when you are not from Hong Kong? Then they are not notiable and should be deleted. If you are confident, you can ask for their deletions. Ricky@36 (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Government sources are considered reliable independent sources per
WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Oakshade, given the emphasis that I placed earlier on Ricky needing
noteworthy? That was my point in my previous post. Since I can find government records detailing the construction of the street I live on, can I not write an article on it, as well as the street I lived on five years ago and ten years ago and forty years ago? And can I not write an article on every one of the thousands of public housing developments in the United States, since plenty of government sources exist on those? That is the question I am now asking. Unschool 04:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you bringing a
Altgeld Gardens, Chicago, Stateway Gardens, Robert Taylor Homes and First Houses, for examples.--Oakshade (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Oakshade, of course there are noteworthy housing complexes. But did you look at Category:Public housing estates in Hong Kong? Do you believe that there are 188 "noteworthy" complexes in Hong Kong? To read their articles, none of them appear to make any claims at being noteworthy, other than the fact of their existence. That was my point above. Unschool 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge, but don't bluntly delete. I have opened a discussion to figure out what should be done with Hong Kong public housing estates in general at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. I believe that it is better to discuss the issue in one place rather than have User:Abductive tag one article per day and initiate a discussion with different sets of users each time, using basically always the same arguments without possible alternative outcome than a pure deletion. Yes I believe that the topic of Public housing in Hong Kong is of high importance, one reason being that about half of the population lives in some sort of publicly sponsored housing. I believe that these estates have a value as a set. Maybe we do not need an individual article for each of them, but a simple deletion is not appropriate, and some part of the material will re-emerge anyway in the future when other contributors feel that it is time to have the topic covered. Again, please have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong and contribute your thoughts there. Thank you. olivier (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, olivier, for your reasoned suggestion. Inspired by your post here I have replied to the discussion at WikiProject Hong Kong Unschool 00:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending the outcome of the broader discussion about public housing in Hong Kong. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as with many other articles on Wikipedia in all cities. Large housing developments on this scale are always be notable--and there will always be references if they are looked for. The Googles are not appropriate for this sort of subject. Printed newspapers are. There is always enough steps in the planning to get articles in the appropriate general and specialized news sources.DGG (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prove it. This place was built in 2009; surely there should be sources? Hong Kong has newspapers that are online. I say that it is more likely that nobody thought it was interesting enough to write about. As an experiment, pick some recently built high-rise apartment building in you area, and it won't have sources either. Abductive (reasoning) 00:17, 10 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ensemble (operating system)

Ensemble (operating system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Defunct project that never achieved notability. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 08:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Doesnt appear to meet
WP:N, All its references seem to be off its own website. Harlem675 09:38, 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 with a touch of

talk) 12:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Russia – South Ossetia relations

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

pr

Republic of Georgia. Termer (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep Disruptive nomination. It is not a POV-fork. It is an article outlining the bilateral relationship between Russia and South Ossetia; whilst South Ossetia is not internationally recognised, neither is Kosovo, yet I don't see you nominating any of the articles in
Dialogue 07:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Kosovo? Its independence is recognized by 62 UN member states. This is very much international recognition unlike the Republic of South Ossetia that is currrently recognized by Russia who controls militarily the region and Nicaragua.--Termer (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does international recognition have to do with bilateral diplomatic relations between two countries? As long as they recognize each other, diplomatic relations do exist.
Offliner (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment bilateral diplomatic relations between two countries? Exactly! the problem is that the region controlled by the Russian military which internationally is considered a part of the Republic of Georgia...are not "relations between two countries" as a fact but as an opinion. The bottom line, South Ossetia is not a country but disputed territory with whom it's impossible to have "relations between two countries". --Termer (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "relations between two governments" then?
Offliner (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Very much international recognition? Come talk when it is admitted to the United Nations, which is generally the best litmus test as to whether an entity is very much internationally recognised. Other than that, this is a disruptive nomination on your part. In fact, your very answer has shown that. You won't go and nominate the Estonian-Kosovo article, even though it has absolutely NOTHING in it, yet you delete this article, which clearly shows that there is a
Dialogue 08:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, South Ossetia is not a state but Georgian territory controlled by the Russian military. I don't have anything else to add.--Termer (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Termer, do you have a tertiary education in
Dialogue 08:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm glad you brought this up what matters is what reliable sources say Kremlin announces that South Ossetia will join 'one united Russian state' and others speak about the Russian occupation of Georgia (Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly - Working Papers).--Termer (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am glad that you brought it up also, because I now have the opportunity of directing you towards
Dialogue 08:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
You're kidding right? Kokoity don't speak for the Kremlin? You could as well rename the article Russia – Russia relations and everything would be according to the facts, not fantasies, and you'd get speedy keep also from me. Happy editing!--Termer (talk) 08:54, 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 keep Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orly Taitz

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

Prod declined. Fails

WP:NOT#NEWS. RayTalk 21:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Earlier AFD nomination for the page:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly taitz, which resulted in deletion. Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: That was in January, and so we're looking at this again 6 months later.IncidentalPoint (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the OC Weekly, but I wouldn't click on a WorldNetDaily link if someone pointed a gun at my head and told me to or he'd blow my brains out. And that Daily Show thing was a one off bit, she'll be forgotten. Jon Stewart probably already has. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OC Weekly = free local newspaper. So it's not enough by itself. But I think combining it with the others gives us the multiple reliable sources required by
WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I question the notability of the lawsuit and her idiocy in being "honored" in getting facebook friends.--Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you misunderstood my message. No doubt that the facebook incident would NOT be a reason to make her notable. The question is: is she notable? If yes, then we keep the article, and the facebook incident stays (as it is notable given that the article exists). If no, then we can't merge the information in the article into the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. It would simply not make sense. Therefore, the options should be KEEP or DELETE, not MERGE (I take a redirect to mean a merge). Dems on the move (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, previous AfD - Note sure exactly how to make a box for it like you see in other repeat nominations, but
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly taitz (note lower-case "t") was the first go-around for this. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Restore to a redirect to
    WP:ONEEVENT; absent her amateur interest in the Birther movement, Taitz would be absolutely unheard of. Minutiae about facebook controversies are not relevant to the discussion, and in the end really nothing new has happened since the initial AfD. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
She has made a lot more media appearances and gained a lot more noteriety since the initial AfD. Dems on the move (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More media appearances and more alleged notoriety for the same, single event, yes. If anything, you prove my point even more. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from
WP:BIO1E: "However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." The added media coverage since the last AfD is clearly an instance of her role growing larger. Whether it is large enough to justify a separate article is what we're discussing here, but it's far from the foregone conclusion you make it out to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
More media appearances means multiple events. Hence,
WP:BLP1E does not apply. Dems on the move (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
David, the event (Birther-gate) has not grown larger, though, it is only propped up by a bevy of non-
reliable sources. The few RS that do touch upon it only do so to note the overall conspiracy/nutty nature of the movement, they do not give credence to the allegations, and Taits is not the focus of their reporting. Taitz is not the leader of the Birther movement and has been actually condemned by other Birthers for going too far on occasion. She is, ultimately, a bit player in all of this, and unworthy of mention beyond what is already in the main conspiracy article. Contrast her to the likes of Philip J. Berg, who has been involved in several high-profile conspiracy movements. He is more than worthy of his article. "Dems on the move" here does not appear have a very firm grasp on BLP policy. Tarc (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi Tarc, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I came across her first in an AP article, and then on NPR before coming to her page and seeing this AFD notice. Taitz is part of the continuing controversy and mentioned by reliable sources. Mattnad (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
my apologies i misinterpreted that AFD article, but even so there have been repeated atemtpst to against this article on both its branched article and on the previous AFD and I feel that its unfair and somehwat biased against the subject, since it is clearly notable and covered in multiple independent, prominent sources. quite frankly, i think that this article is an assett and not a liability to Wikipedia as a whole and quite frankly it is as important as the article from which it was originally progenited, regarding Barack Obamas conspiracy theories against his citizenship/eligibilty to the Presidenthood. does that clear it up?? User:Smith Jones 21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's on television frequently. Chip Unicorn (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly a noteworthy figure at this time.IncidentalPoint (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She wouldn't be the only disagreeable opportunistic charlatan to be memorialized on WP. She's achieved both "notoriety" and "notability."--Mack2 (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable. I disagree that the nomination is
    pointy, however. Crafty (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I agree that the nomination is in good faith, even though I disagree with the nomination. In my opinion,
WP:BLP1E applies to people who have had their 15 minutes of fame, not to people who receive the limelight for a prolonged period of time. The nominator and a few others have a different opinion, and that is why we are having this AfD. Perfectly legitimate. Dems on the move (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah. I was referring to Smith Jones' comments above. Crafty (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! So far, I've seen her on Colbert and Jon Stewart, and heard mention of her on several prominent news outlets. The woman is clearly noteworthy. She is also clearly a whackadoodle, but frankly, I think the fact that anyone could be smart enough to make it through both dental school and law school and still dumb enough to believe what she's saying about Obama, is noteworthy enough on it's own merits. It's enough to make one wonder if perhaps she doesn't really believe what she's saying, and is only doing this to get herself in the news enough (What's that they say about no such thing as "bad publicity"?) to become the Republican Arianna Huffington. Stephen Colbert hinted as much on yesterday's episode when he had them both on his show. As nauseous as she makes me, she's noteworthy, and she's not going anywhere any time soon. B7eema (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)B7eema[reply]

I'm suprised at the debate. Fifty, hundred years from now: student researching the first black president; interesting footnote about controversy re- birth, etc., a bit of background info on one of the more public faces in the controversy wouldn't hurt. Its not like wiki is running out of disk space or anything ... Of course I realize that my view doesn't count (as I'm not part of the Wiki cabal), but geez couldn't the effort being put forth here to remove this article instead be directed at something productive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.165.136 (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your view does count. There is no such thing as the Wiki cabal; on the contrary,
anyone can edit it. Everyone's opinion is valued and welcomed here. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I thought it might be worthwhile to compile a brief list of others who appear in Wikipedia whose article could be nominated for deletion based on the arguments I'm reading here (only involved in one controversy, "15 min of fame", etc.): Roy_Hoffmann, Anita_Hill, Juhan_Aare, Mary_Mapes, William_I._Robinson, Glenn_Kable, Bill_Burkett, Kenneth_H._Dahlberg. Don't get me wrong, the woman is whacked, but that isn't a reason to remove an article about her. Deleting her article at this point doesn't pass the "smell test" for the appearance of censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.165.136 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a serious difference between those individuals, given their involvement in their situations, as opposed to a lawyer bringing a suit and getting a little media attention in the meantime. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take the bait. You're actually being terribly witty and really clever and
using your !vote to object to this AfD, am I right? ;) Crafty (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:POINT is about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and this opinion is not disruptive.  Frank  |  talk  13:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Casting a sarcastic vote to protest against the evil and allmighty COLD (Cabal of Obama-Loving Doom) is about as pointy as one can get around here. Tarc (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally regard Ms. Taitz's arguments as absurd, but that doesn't make her any less notable. —
    David Levy 14:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep The subject shows up in enough press of late to meet notability. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep May well be a crackpot, but a notable one, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. We only feed the conspiracies by trying to treat people involved with these theories differently from other articles. Alansohn (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see why the BHO Citizenship Conspiracy Theories page passes muster. It is BY FAR the most biased and defamatory page on the entire Wikipedia. Redirecting Dr. Taitz to that page is an obvious attack on her character. Killigan (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC) — Killigan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I don't see how
    WP:BLP1E applies here at all. Here's what it says: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." (italics in original) One event does not mean one issue and she has hardly remained low profile. --agr (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It applies because she's only covered in the context of the birther suit, and she is otherwise unnoteworthy. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- To quote
    WP:BLP1E, "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." To be quite blunt, this woman is not even remotely trying to stay low profile. She's been all over the media, trumpeting her cause, even filing a "real" birth certificate, and gaining even more press because of it. I therefore think that BLP1E does not apply in this case, and the article should be kept. Umbralcorax (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment (I already !voted above): On August 3, MSNBC devoted almost seven minutes to an interview with Taitz. This was one example of the coverage she received in connection with her latest court filing in Keyes v. Obama. She's more notable now than she was when the AfD began. Also, on July 15, she and one of her clients, Alan Keyes, were interviewed by Lou Dobbs on his radio show. [41] JamesMLane t c 09:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
but with all the coverage (and meta-coverage), she is. riffic (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but you're missing the point -- you've got it exactly backwards. That she's an "attention whore" removes the concerns addressed by BLP -- she's obviously not harmed by the existence of a WP article if she actively solicits attention. Is she then also notable? Once we're comfortable that the article would not harm a living person, BLP has no opinion. (But that's she receives significant coverage by reliable sources strongly suggests that she's notable.)--TheOtherBob 20:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not missing the point, which was that self-promotion should not be championed when deciding notability. Tarc (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely missing the point. No one is asserting that Taitz's self-promotion makes her worthy of an article. We're saying that it doesn't make her unworthy of an article. And at the same time, it eliminates any possible concern that Taitz wishes to maintain a low-profile existence. —
David Levy 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
A person seeking attention does not automatically qualify for an article. BTW, calling here a "attention whore " is not exactly the polite way to put it and such phrase should not be used here.--
talk) 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
1. Again, no one is asserting that a person seeking attention automatically qualifies for an article. We're saying that a person seeking attention isn't automatically disqualified from having an article.
2. I didn't use that term. Did you mean to reply to someone else? (Your message is indented directly beyond mine.) —
David Levy 20:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
(After edit conflict). My apologies, David. My comment was in reply to the whole thread above.--
talk) 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for clarifying.  :) —
David Levy 21:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Tarc's use of "attention whore" just confirms that this deletion discussion is distorted by people's contempt for Taitz's cause, motives and modus operandi. I share that contempt but I don't see how it's relevant. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Tarc was responding to a comment in which John Kenney used the term "fame whores." But yes, I agree that some of the sentiment in favor of deletion appears to be fueled by personal dislike of Orly Taitz (which I share as well, but which is entirely irrelevant). —
David Levy 21:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comments like this puts you on my trustable NPOV "high-list". With other words, you're on my watchlist by now, (in a good sense).--
talk) 22:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
For "real" coverage. If it wasn't bc of WP I already would've forgotten about her.--
talk) 22:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Could you define real coverage please? As WP:N doesn't have such a requirement other than "non-trivial" I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I'm mystified that anyone is paying attention to her, she is getting noticed. Her appearance on The Colbert Report seals the deal for me as far as notability goes.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She was on "The Colbert Report"? I really have to see this to see the magnificence.--
talk) 23:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep The article has sufficient background information on the subject, who has been increasing her notability in American political circles whether we like it or not. --Tocino 03:22, 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 delete as hoax. ... discospinster talk 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asla (singer)

Asla (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)


  • Googled this singer and nearly nothing came up. Non notable, but does not qualify for a speedy.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as evidently NN except for loads of unsubstantiated, unreferenced or dubious claims. Looks like a spoof. Greenleaf (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete A bunch of unsourced original research, at best. Probably a pack of lies. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear hoax. I ran through most of the stronger claims, just to make sure, (eg 2006 VH1 Fashion Awards, Maxim's Top 100), and, unsurprisingly, all proved to be false. Of course, having the nickname "A-Hole" did ring some of its own alarms. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, and the part "Consisting of her most personal friends HauS of AsLa (often abbreviated: HO-A)" which made me guess the spoof part. Greenleaf (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Another music hoax article. What number does that make it for this week in AFD?
    talk) 14:29, 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. While some articles do not need peer reviewed sources, those, that deal with scientific issues, such as health, do. If this is to be a serious article, it needs relevant basis. If those are found, the article should be written again. Until then, no article is better. Tone 13:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health effects of wind power

Health effects of wind power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. This appears to be a legitimate article at first glance but, following extensive Talk page discussion, it has become clear that it is actually without peer-reviewed medical sources and is mainly original research and media hype. It promotes a theory and book by Nina Pierpont. Sister article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind turbine syndrome and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Pierpont. Johnfos (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits have reduced the emphasis on Dr. Pierpont, since, as Johnfos notes, this is an important subject that entails much more than just her work. --Kerberos (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, be on the lookout for a bunch of sockpuppets/meatpuppets to show up here. Drawn Some (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV and factual accuracy are matters for editing, not deletion. --Kerberos (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well what I'm trying to say is it's a POV fork, which is a matter for deletion - rst20xx (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By its nature, the subject of health effects, like those of
wind farms, not to mention the numerous individual articles about wind energy companies and facilities, deserves its own article separate from the main article for proper treatement. You seem to think that just acknowledging the well documented issue (which really exists and is a growing concern) is evidence of POV. --Kerberos (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I think that the focus on the pseudoscientific research of Dr Pierpont is evidence of POV. Her research has no scientific rigour.
The research in the book purportedly provides scientific evidence for the condition, but in fact contains a study of 38 individuals from 10 families, who were living near wind farms and approached the author to complain about their symptoms, before then being surveyed. Only 23 of the 38 individuals were actually interviewed; further, Pierpont tells us that, “One family member was a baby born a few days before the family moved out, so there is no data for this child on sleep or behaviour during exposure (which was in utero). Thus the sample size of subjects for whom we have information about experiences or behaviour during exposure is 37.”
With such a small and biased sample, it is difficult to take the results seriously. There have been no peer reviews of the research in reputable scientific journals. A handful of scientists are quoted as having endorsed it, but that is all. This makes for very poor research, and some of the claims made therein are surprising to say the least. For example: “An additional core symptom is a new type of internal or visceral sensation which has no name in the medical lexicon. Subjects struggled to explain these sensations, often apologizing for how strange their words sounded. A physician subject called it “feeling jittery inside” or “internal quivering.” Other subjects chose similar words, while others talked about feeling pulsation or beating inside. The physical sensations of quivering, jitteriness, or pulsation are accompanied by acute anxiety, fearfulness, or agitation, irritability, sleep disturbance (since the symptom arises during sleep or wakefulness), and episodes of tachycardia. I call this sensation and accompanying symptoms visceral vibratory vestibular disturbance (VVVD).” 11 individuals reported such symptoms, and suddenly the disorder has its own name.
It is possible that some people living too close to wind farms experience problems related to the levels of noise coming from them. But any further conditions have not been properly researched at all. The listed symptoms are similar to those that would result from chronic sleep loss, and it seems could more easily be caused by mass hysteria amongst individuals already sceptical of wind farms before turbine installation, than be caused by the actual turbines themselves.
And yet this article, like
Environmental effects of wind power, and that is where they should return - rst20xx (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
One sentence, about a case where the residents didn't live close to the turbines, is not adequate coverage. And health effects, which are widely reported,[43] do not begin and end with Nina Pierpont. --Kerberos (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a POV fork because Wind turbine syndrome has been deleted. This is all well sourced. No peer reviewed medical publications required for WP articles.Biophys (talk) 05:18, 15 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. (

talk) 04:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Special Herbs: The Box Set Vol. 0–9

Special Herbs: The Box Set Vol. 0–9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. This is a non-notable box set / album of which only 7500 copies were made. JBsupreme (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an official release from a major hip-hop artist, that has received significant coverage in mutiple reliable sources. It's a limited edition release, so the argument that "only 7500 copies were made" is not relevant to notability.--Michig (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michig. Notability is established by sources provided in the article. Europe22 (talk) 23:18, 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 delete. JForget 22:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authentik Artists

Authentik Artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested on the grounds that "Authentik Artists is a significant label, with a well-respected team and artist roster." Problem is, Google News doesn't back up this assertion. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:46, 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 re-userfy and move protect. I have been sending this user messages over and over again explaining why the person is not notable yet, and his creation of a new article now is totally inappropriate. But I don't have any problem with letting the user keep it in their userspace to dream. No prejudice, though, against someone starting an

MfD to delete the userspace version. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

note: Since the user created the page by doing a copy-paste, rather than move, the version in userspace was still there. Thus, rather than moving the mainspace one, I just deleted it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarey Savy (Singer/Songwriter)

AfDs for this article:
Sarey Savy (Singer/Songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Constantly recreated article lacking references to support

WP:MUSIC. Lacks GNEWS and GHits of substance to support notability. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:02, 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 Withdrawn by nominator --B (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Marley

Rohan Marley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Son, husband, father. But WP is not the Social Register. (See also WP:NOTINHERITED.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. When nominated for deletion, this article was primarily about a celeb hubby and dad. However, it did also say: He played pro football in Canada for the now defunct Ottawa Rough Riders. [...] He is currently the owner of the Tuff Gong Clothing line. Neither of these putative assertions of notability was sourced, but anyway merely "playing pro football" (without any elaboration whatever) for this or that team hardly seemed like an assertion of substantive notability (it didn't even assert that he'd appeared in a match), and owning a "clothing line" (company? trademark?) didn't either especially as that "line" didn't itself have an article. So he looked like a nobody to me. Well, it seems that playing pro football does confer notability and anyway there's a substantive amount of news coverage of him doing it. Good work Zagalejo. -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've stubbed and sourced the article. There's a lot of room for expansion. Zagalejo^^^ 07:25, 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 as offensive nonsense. --

"talk" 20:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Bake a Cake With My Nigga Joc

Bake a Cake With My Nigga Joc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google search shows no reliable sources for this supposed "song"; this is most likely a hoax. I tried to nomiate this for speedy deletion, but it didn't work.

talk) 01:50, 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 Withdrawn and Merge. I know that there is a template to add to an article when the result is merge, but I don't know what it is. I wouldn't merge it myself because I usually suck at merging.

talk) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Royal Heights Elementary School

Royal Heights Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All that I can find is

talk) 00:50, 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 keep. JForget 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead In The Water

Dead In The Water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable film; fails

WP:NF. Deprodded with note of "contest prod - film won a couple notable awards & was reviewed by several reliable sources (see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0235333/externalreviews) - add referenced claim of importance; add cats; will trim excessive plot section & expand ASAP", however IMDB is not a reliable source and the "notable awards" are one film festival award and a minor DVD award. The reviews linked at IMDB are not reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • keep it is true that IMDb isn't a great source, but we can easily source the award directly to the notable film festival's webpage if needed. It won best picture, best director, and best cinematography at New York International Independent Film and Video Festival, which is a major film festival. That's 3 notable wins. Of the film reviews, at minimum AMC's Filmcritic.com and Epinions.com are major nationally known sources. Probably a couple of the others qualify as well (Rotten Tomatoes considers them worthy anyway), but I'm not an expert. (A film review can't be "unreliable" - the criteria for establishing notability is whether the source is nationally known, not whether it is "reliable"). Additionally all 3 of the lead roles are notable actors - Henry Thomas, Dominique Swain, & Scott Bairstow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional coverage can be found under its Brazilian title: [50]
ePinions is NOT a nationally known source nor is it a reliable source. They are user submitted reviews. Film reviews are just as reliable and unreliable as any other source. The film, again, fails
WP:NF. A Film Festival win is not a major award nor notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Acyually, Epinions is a nationally known and accepted source, themselves oft quoted by numerous relaiable sources [51]. Not all their reviews are simply "user submitted". One can easily confirm if a review is from Joe Sixpack or from a nationally respected reviewer. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the epinions review was an editorial review, not a fan review, but I could be wrong. (I am well aware the site allows fan reviews - I am not that dumb.) Let's just throw that one out. Apollo movie guide is certainly well known and reputable, as is Reel Film Reviews. Here's a review from trade publication Video Business and one from Allmovie.com].
Also, how exactly can someone's opinion of a film be unreliable? It can't! That is why
NFILMS uses the language "has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" instead of "has received full length reviews by two or reliable sources." NFILMS also specifically states that, while there is no clear consensus about which film festivals are major that a major film festival award can establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
ePinions is purely user reviews, they are not editorial reviews. Anyone can join and post reviews. And yes, an opinion can unreliable. ANYONE can post a opinion about anything, that doesn't make it reliable for Wikikpedia purpose. "nationally known critics" = reliable sources and REAL critics, not a user site that just happens to have national coverage
WP:RS or any other guideline or policy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I already said to discard ePinions so I don't know why you are still arguing about it. An opinion can't be unreliable in the normal sense of the word, which is why the nationally known clause exists. For purposes of film, as you said a nationally known critic is the equivalent of a reliable source. Again, I don't know what you are arguing about here as I am certainly not saying a fan review at a well known site is a "national known critic." --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you had bothered to look above or below your own comments, you might have noticed User:MichaelQSchmidt's attempts to inflate the importance of ePinions by doing exactly that. --Calton | Talk 05:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And with respects Calton, if you had yourself bothered to look at the timecodes, you'd see my comments were made after his, and in response to an earlier assertion by the nominator, as ThaddeusB is correct in that were are allowed to consider the reviewer himself. Had a epinion review been offered that had come from Joe Sixpack, rather than from someone who is themselvves a nationally recognized, respected, and oft-quoted reviewer, my comment would have made little sense. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the specific review from Epinions is from respected reviewer Daniel Fienberg, who also writes for such as
Daily Pennsylvanian, and many others... and is himself quoted by still more RS. His opinion matters. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
As was already noted above, the reviews you point to are not reliable sources. Some random ePinions review? User submitted and not reliable. Reviews have to meer
WP:RS the same as any other source, as I think you already know. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
As was pointed out above, I did not pull a random, user-generated review, and specifically shared in the edit summary the pedigree of the reviewer whose work is being quoted. Or are you saying a nationally recognized reviewer's work counts only dependent upon where he offers it? That would be akin to saying Roger Ebert's opinion only counnts if it is in
New York Times. If a reviewer has a recognized and accepted reputation, then it is his opinion that matters... not where it might be found, as not all RS have been so qualified in RS, and the reviewers have been quoted in sources that are RS. Context... context. If Joe Sixpack gives his opinion and then Roger Rbert gives his opinion, it is the reputation of the individual (or lack) that gives or removes credibility, not where they offer it. In this case the "reliable source" is the individual who has created his own reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Ebert has it, Sixpack does not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Prove the ePinions person is the same national critic quoted by the other sources, while keeping in mind that ePinions does NOT vest any profiles, names, etc. Users register and begin posting and can write pretty much anything in their profiles they want. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my good faith in the name and the context. However, since you doubt that this review was actually written by Fienberg, I have removed it from the article and placed it on the article's talk page for discussion. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:34, 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. Tone 13:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Devine

AfDs for this article:
Alex Devine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO (one nomination in entire finished career does not satisfy second prong) and general notability guidelines. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What point of
    WP:ENT is she supposed to fullfill, and where are the third-party independent secondary sources covering her carreer or her person? (and she was only nominated?) That prod should have never been removed. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Passes
    WP:ENT criteria 1. Actress has appeared in over 140 productions. WP:PORNBIO are criteria for inclusion, not exclusion. Chuthya (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment: None of them significant roles nor significant films. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strictly speaking, PORNBIO is neither a criteria for inclusion nor exclusion. It is simply short hand for determing if something is likely to be notable. The only inclusion criteria, is always, coverage in reliable secondary sources. This article fails ent, as Chuthya and KevinOKeeffe have explained, fails PORNBIO, and has no demonstrated significant coverage in reliable secondary sources Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Plenty of movies, notable events and info. Just nobody bothers to put them down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.136.39 (talk) 20:22, 12 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.

Richard Bachman (disambiguation)

The result was Delete

WP:SNOW JHunterJ (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Richard Bachman (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation page with only 2 entries - hatnote on primary page points to only other person. PROD was contested. ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tunday Akintan

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

Artist does not meet any criterion of

WP:Band. -- Ankimai (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lots of references, but nothing which established notability. Indeed, one would guess from reading the webpages on which he appears, that they are all either self-written or based on Wikipedia. It's all circular, and leads to my thinking to delete. Unschool 22:23, 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 no consensus. Coverage does seem to exist in apparently reliable sources, but there are reasonable points made that these sources may not actually be independent. The answer to that dispute is unclear; but in the absence of a consensus either way we shall default to keeping the article. ~ mazca talk 00:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BY2 (band)

BY2 (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Despite considerable discussion and prompting between myself and the author of this article, there has been no attempt to prove notability or verifiabilty except by reference to press releases from the record label or to fansites or blogs; contra to

WP:BAND
musician criteria 1.
Also a previous article on the same subject
WP:BAND musician criteria 5 may apply. NtheP (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

it shows info well abt the musicians and also, collabrates a summary and main points frm all over the news. ppl may find this useful. keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinglun (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having looked at the news sources quoted they do seem to be just press release type stories issued by a record company and don't establish notability of subject. NtheP (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I reviewed the sources uncovered by Paul Erik and they represent significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. They may be a bit fluffy in style, but that's rather expected in entertainment reporting. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - that's fluffy as in bone idle and just reprint the record company press release :-) Despite being the proposer of this deletion I'm really pretty neutral about it and if those articles are enough for
      WP:V then fair enough I'm not going to argue. NtheP (talk) 20:15, 12 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 Mitch Hedberg. Redirect for now, history is left so the merge can be performed. Tone 13:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Shawcroft

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

Seems destined to remain a stub (has been one for nearly three years). All searches return only info regarding her being the wife of a notable comedian...

Notability is not inherited. SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to a section in her husband's article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I only found one citation from a source that could be used to satisfy WP:Notability: [58]. Not so strong. But she has been mentioned in a few third-party, independent sources (primarily as the wife of ...) So, I think a merge into the Mitch Hedberg might be most appropriate, and give the author the benefit of the doubt. Artemis84 (talk) 15:54, 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. notability requires multiple references so by policy this falls to delete

Spartaz Humbug! 23:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The Gaelic Club

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

Non-notable and uncited. Search for cites brings nothing back on the club itself.

talk) 23:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete- Article meets speedy deletion under spam.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This was the in-depth subject of a
    Sydney Morning Herald piece.[59] --Oakshade (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment - the article doesn't support notability for the club in itself, in my opinion, but could still be used after a merge to the Irish National Association of Australasia.  florrie  11:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When the topic is the in-depth subject of a reliable source, it passes the core criteria of
WP:NOTABILITY. In this case, the source is the highest circulation newspaper on an entire continent.--Oakshade (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I certainly don't dispute the notability of the SMH, but to me 266 words (excluding title) is hardly "in-depth".  florrie  02:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but there's no denying it's not "trivial" coverage, ie a passing mention or directory listing.--Oakshade (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic has received significant coverage by a reliable source, it is notable per our guidelines, specifically
WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes but what is on offer is not significant in my view. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepTeamQuaternion (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that, if you do not provide rationale explaining your input, it may not be taken into account in the closing administrator's decision. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 06:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable by history, events or circumstances. WWGB (talk) 05:30, 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 delete. JForget 21:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AtomineerUtils

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

no indication of notability per

WP:GNG Jujutacular talkcontribs 23:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Can someone please explain what criteria this page needs to meet to be retained? I have tried to follow the same format as for other similar pieces of software. Let me know what's wrong and I'll happily do what I can to adhere to whatever rule it is that I've broken?! Just deleting it out from under me without giving me a clue as to what I did wrong is not very helpful - I'll only continue to make pages that are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.84.66 (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have been given a clue twice. Read
      WP:N
      . 16:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't want to waste my time or yours re-submitting something until it achieves acceptability. Rather than clues, I was seeking some guidance - not on what is wrong with this page ("notability"), but what (if anything) could be done to gain approval. I'm not expecting a headline appearance on the BBC news any time soon, so what is a source you will find acceptable/realistic? How many references are needed to prove notability? Presumably I should add a references section and link to the sources (or should I post them here?) e.g. Is this a notable source: [[60]] (search for Jason Williams - it's mentioned about half way down). Or this? [[61]]. Thanks, and apologies if I'm wasting your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.158.100 (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Notability is generally established by demsontrating that this subject (in this case AtomineerUtils) has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. In the links you provided, we have somebody's personal page (nota reliable source), and a directory entry on MSDN (reliable, but doesn't really establish notability as there is no indication of rigorous editorial oversight in the coverage).
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable: lacks significant coverage in RSes. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:47, 11 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. One two three... 07:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First houses in Mid-Levels

First houses in Mid-Levels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability: nothing that indicates why there should be an article on this subject. Admitted original research (see talk page). Sophitessa (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Property development is key to the history of Hong Kong and to help understand current land use. These pages show early history. In future, I intend to show how each lot has been redeveloped over the years. Can we rename these pages "History of Mid-Levels" and its sister page "first House on the Peak", "History of the Peak". These are intended as sub-pages to show the context of the exisiting buildings that are of interest. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneliseconnell (talk • contribs) 06:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia. So the content would have to be rewritten into an article. If you want to do that I'm sure an admin will userfy the content for you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that original research is not accepted on Wikipedia. Articles must be referenced and verified by reliable thrid-party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research for policy guidelines. --Sophitessa (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is a an undistinguished list of stuff with no explanation as to what it is. -- Whpq (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unclear list; no claim of
    WP:N. JJL (talk) 00:17, 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 keep. Retitling is an editorial decision to be followed up on the article talk page. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of the New Deal

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

I am not sure as to the purpose of this article. It doesn't seem like an encyclopedic page on its own; at most, it looks to me like name-dropping, most of which (about an half) gives no context, and the rest gives no sources. I don't think the list could be accomodated in the New Deal article either, as it would break the flow of text/prose. Therefore, I suggest that the article should be deleted: not because of its content, but because it's not really a good concept for a Wikipedia article. Sceptre (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete really seems like a POV fork (original research perhaps?). Tavix |  Talk  00:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be possibly an encyclopedic topic, but as currently written is a huge hot mess - a POV fork beyond repair. Delete. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep retitle to "list of" critics of the New Deal per standard naming conventions and should be focused on notable and cited critics of the new deal policies themselves. Might be more useful if rewritten in article form, but any POV can be addressed with citations or other tweaks and trimming. I don't know what purpose the article creator(s) had in mind, but I think a list of prominent figures involved in the New Deal policies is a worthwhile thing to keep and improve upon. It serves as a useful disambiguation page for that as it it, which is all any list article does. If there isn't one already an article on criticicisms and critics of the New Deal would be worthwhile. I don't think the notable content could ever be fit into the main article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retitle as per ChildofMidnight. Edward321 (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Extremely Notable topic in 20th century American history. The article itself leaves a LOT to be desired (it comes off as more of a list), but it could still be expanded into something much better. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic.
    talk) 14:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep and rework per ChildofMidnight. Artw (talk) 16:17, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Diamond (doctor)

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

BLP with no external sources. Seems mostly promotional. B (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand... three out of the five sources are external. There is no "sales pitch" on the page - all of the statements are factual or historical and do not make any qualitative claims. So how can I remedy the issues you see in the page? I'm new to Wikipedia editing and have been lambasted by coi (my fault due to poor name choice) and so forth and it really feels like nothing I could do to the page would keep passing editors happy! I know, I know - don't take it personally. I didn't think there'd be such a learning curve - I haven't even gone on to another article yet this one has required so much attention. Well, now I know. And any help would certainly be appreciated. Thanks,
    talk) 14:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete The problem isn't that the article is promotional, is that it doesn't establish notablity through the third-party sources generally accepted for Wikipedia. Vartanza (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the "acceptable" third-party sources? Price-Pottenger is certainly well established; Lynne McTaggart, the author of another source, has her own Wikipedia page; and AK (Applied Kinesiology) is the premier kinesiology journal. I'll see what I can dig up, so please allow some time for me to do so. Thanks,
    talk) 17:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • How about a strong book endorsement by the president, at the time (2000), of the Society for the Arts in Healthcare, or the president, at the time (2000), of the Theosophical Society in America? Kinesiologists, with maybe two exceptions, don't get mainstream press coverage - that does not necessarily mean that they are not notable in their field. I think your criteria for what constitutes a notable source may be a little inappropriately applied in this case. Please address this. Thanks,
    talk) 01:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • This help his case at all?
    talk) 01:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ar-

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

Article is unreferenced. The nav box on the article suggests that it is an IUPAC prefix, but I searched the online copy (e.g. [62]), and there was no reference of it anywhere. A quick google found nothing either. It is the responsibility of those submitting articles to justify their existence and the authors have failed to do this. This article was deleted on wiktionary for presumably the same reason. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.
    Rankiri (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Actually, wiktionary:ar- is probably going to get deleted (again) if it cannot be verified.[63]- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you're involved with Wictionary so here are some sources you can use at the RfV discussion. From Google Books: [64], [65], [66]. —
    Rankiri (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
OK, I added those there. I would imagine it would survive, but even if it doesn't that shouldn't affect the wikipedia article either way.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete here and preserve on wiktionary. I could understand keeping a dictionary-style article on a word, hoping it will expand, but not on a prefix-related article. Materialscientist (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.
    WP:NOTDIC. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:39, 14 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (TV series)

50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One-time special countdown show. Never repeated, no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, sources do exist (such as GSN's web site, TV Guide and IMDb). Also broadcast elsewhere, such as in India. --Ckatzchatspy 20:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Congratulations, you've provided evidence that it exists; however, you haven't provided evidence that anyone cares. --Calton | Talk 05:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable, even if mentioned in TV-guide and IMDb (which list every TV-series ever, whether notable or not). Of course the GSN site would list it, they aired it. Still, this is clearly not notable to be included in Wikipedia. --BsayUSDCSU[ π ] 00:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eleven whole votes on IMDb means nobody's seen it or cares. (Match Game is the greatest game show of all time? Yeah, right.) Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that anyone cared enough to actually write about this. --Calton | Talk 05:51, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

India Resource Maps

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

Not sure what the subject of this article is intended to be - the title is ungrammatical and unclear, and the content is already covered in

Natural resources in India. A prod notice was removed without any explanation and the article creator and sole contributor Sreejithcv (talk · contribs) has not responded to a request to clarify the article's scope. Abecedare (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems to be a vehicle to show off some maps. Actual information covered in other more appropriate articles. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 12 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. If anone wants to merge the content, let me know. Tone 13:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hapes Consortium

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

Article about a non-notable fictional government from the Star Wars universe. The article's content appears to be a simple cut-and-paste from Wookieepedia. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • fiction guidelines, on a topic which doesn't really meet Wikipedia notability standards for a stand-alone article in any case. Its list entry could use a bit of expansion and cleanup though, hence the "smerge". BryanG (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, just to check -- what with the license change and all, what's the rule-of-thumb about e.g. this article, which is a copy-and-paste I'm sure from Wookieepedia (another CCASAL site)? --EEMIV (talk) 03:32, 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 delete. JForget 21:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Catterson

Liam Catterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable autobiography (written by User:Liam Catterson). His "show" (Liam's Adventures) appears to be just some YouTube thing. He has no IMDb page, and nothing on Google news. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:05, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley's Toy Money Complete with Game Of Banking

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

Non-notable game. First AFD closed with no discussion whatsoever. It is almost one month since I created that AFD and hope for more discussion this time around. Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is this a Keep or delete? Can you please clarify? Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just struck my third comment -- the first two still stand, so keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for clarifying!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thread was removed as "trolling"

Strong Keep: I have heard of it! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 19:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It is obviously notable! Thats what! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does I have heard of it! show notability?
talk) 18:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell? It seems like you're trolling this AFD.
talk) 18:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep: Let's Chill, Joe. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I have heard of it and believe it to be notable. Please do not remove my Strong Keep. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it be. It does no harm as the closing admin will probably not see this as a valid reason to keep and it will probably just be disregarded.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:20, 13 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 21:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Söderberg

AfDs for this article:
Ole Söderberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Bio and WP:Athlete — Preceding unsigned comment added by RM-Taylor (talk • contribs) 00:03, August 8, 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 delete. WP:ATH is the relevant criteria here, if this is met later, the article can be brought back. Tone 13:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Jones

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

Fails

WP:GNG because after a good faith search all I could find are trivial mentions and a few feature stories but all by Scout.com's team sections which will cover really anything about their school. Giants27 (c|s) 15:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: A search of the Newsbank database turns up extensive hits (>100) in articles about Miami Hurricanes football from 2004-2008 and also some articles referring to his signing with and waiver by the Atlanta Falcons in 2009. I don't have access to The Miami Herald archives, but the following two articles (based on the first paragraph of each) appear to focus on Jones: (1) "Can't catch on yet," Miami Herald, 9/15/08, (2) "Receiver Heading TO UM," Miami Herald, 2/2/04 (feature on Jones signing with UM). There are also several articles about Jones being knocked unconscious and hospitalized after a brawl following the 2005 Peach Bowl, e.g., "Miami player leaves hospital after fight Joke gone wrong sparks Peach Bowl brawl," Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 1, 2006; "Postgame scuffle mars win," American Press (Lake Charles, LA), December 31, 2005. Before casting my vote to keep or delete, I'd like to do some more checking, and hear what others find. Cbl62 (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google News search turns up around 200+ references. Some trivial, some specifically about the subject.
    WP:BIO quite handily, regardless of not having actually played a down of professional football.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:43, 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 00:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I searched Google News and found little more than brief notes regarding injury reports and roster changes, mostly from the Miami Hurricanes website and a few local papers. The most interesting thing I can find is that he got knocked out in a brawl after the
    Location (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per article noting he's a football player who was not drafted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Keep Subject matter meets
    WP:BIO crit. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - Non-notable college player who had a brief camp stint with an NFL club and may never be heard from again. As it stands, he's not notable.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Fails
    Talk 09:15, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Port Augusta Re-Imagines

Port Augusta Re-Imagines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails

WP:N, gnews search yields nothing [68], google search mainly some directory listings as an event and limited coverage like this [69]. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete - if there is anything sourcable about the article, merge to a culture section in
    Port Augusta, South Australia.  florrie  14:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A one-off event, nothing in the content indicates sustained ongoing notability. It will be forgotten as soon as it finishes. WWGB (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a single event that doesn't seem to have garnered much attention, even locally. Anything sourceable or significant can easily be accomodated at
    Port Augusta, South Australia
    .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwis Against Seabed Mining

Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG, hardly any third party coverage [70]. this article has existed for over 4 years yet hardly any improvement. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The organisation is not getting any national news coverage of late but that is no reason for deletion. Also, a Google news archive search does not necessarily give a full coverage of news. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
my reason for nomination is not lack of recent coverage. in fact google news goes back to about 1850. you have not actually provided any evidence of coverage as required for
WP:GNG, so that weakens your keep argument. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
No but a lack of notability is. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
many non government organisations/lobby groups/clubs can get 6 mentions in newspapers...but these articles more refer to this organisation being present rather than discussing "Kiwis Against Seabed Mining" in any depth. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unfortunately, the Keep proponents avoid actual policy reasons in their statements. Despite Awickert's assertion, existence /= notability. In order to sustain an article,
     RGTraynor  06:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
yes, existence can be verified
WP:N. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sure their existence can be verified, but their notability can't. No significant coverage, no notability. Triplestop x3 18:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable per
    Location (talk) 19:53, 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 21:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Together World Tour 2009

Escape Together World Tour 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tour list and almost nothing more, no sources seem to be non-trivial. Tours are almost inherently non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Article just needs a bit of work...it's a notable tour by a multi-platinum artist...not to mention that tour is in support of a #1 album..also, the opening act for the tour are several high profile acts and the tour had some press on sites such as People Magazine etc....--Ikkomuitnederland (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to show why this tour is notable enough for a stand alone article. Sure the sources show that he is going on tour, but not why it is notable. Esradekan (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--84.25.117.15 (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I like the artist, but that doesn't make his tour notable. Notability may emerge later, but it's not there yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 14 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 Selena Gomez#Music. JForget 21:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss and Tell (album)

Kiss and Tell (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From

WP:NALBUM, "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." POKERdance talk/contribs 23:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This AfD is missing step 2, the discussion should be relisted and a page made. I'm an IP editor so I cannot finish the process. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: What the heck are you on about? This page wouldn't exist if this was missing step 2. POKERdance talk/contribs 00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has reliable third party sources and just because it doesn't have track listing yet doesn't mean it should be deleted. See albums like
    Independent, Before I Self Destruct and others. There is not a track lisitng yet... but there is sufficient info for an article. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Dont delete it! The album was confirmed by a couple of websites (Angry Ape, Ace Showbiz, Her Myspace, Amazon, Ocean Up, Just Jared, Pop Justice, and many other websites have confirmed the album) and also confirmed by the singer's official Myspace page. And the release date for the album is set for September 5th so you can't delete it now. And it may not be updated all the way but that's part of the article you leave the article and update it later until it get's more sources Well I think I answered all your questions. Now I suggest you get rid of the Nomanation for Deletion. User:Sprite7868|<User talk:Sprite7868 04:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC

  • Welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately,
    be bold and edit the article saying what the confirmed release date is! :) talkingbirds 01:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: If there are no reliable sources, what is the point of keeping this article? You just claimed you couldn't find any reliable sources on the album, which essentially means this article consists almost completely of unverifiable content. When they come out with a tracklist, recreate the article. Until then, it should be deleted, or at best redirected to Selena Gomez. POKERdance talk/contribs 19:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (directed at Pokerdance):Now you can't delete it I couldn't find anything about a tracklist but I did manage to find a video review/review on E! Online with Marc Malkin. He did a review with Selena Gomez who said she was coming out with the album. So ask yourself is this reliable enough and can I take down the nomaination for deletion. Here's the review article. I will put the reference somewhere on the article page for you to look at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprite7868 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    WP:GNG. Also, AfD tags can not be removed until the discussion is over. POKERdance talk/contribs 01:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: The problem here is that the album is not notable. Gomez established notability as both an actress and singer quite awhile ago. I don't understand your crazy terms of what makes a musician notable (you claim that Heidi Montag, who receives massive coverage and has released at least one charting single), but perhaps you should take a look at
    WP:BAND. Gomez already passes on the point that she has at least one charting single. However, that's not the point here. I just wanted to let you know the major difference between your belief of what establishes a musician's notability, and Wikipedia's, since this also seems to be an issue here. POKERdance talk/contribs 18:36, 14 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.
  1. ^ http://www.oxfordartonline.com/
  2. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?ei=sbN-St7JBpeIyQTHwKi4Cg&client=firefox-a&id=T7hPAAAAMAAJ&dq=Origins+and+development+of+kinetic+art++By+Frank+Popper&q=Lumino#search_anchor
  3. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=c8ZbINFYdVoC&pg=PA204&dq=%22lumino%22+art&lr=&ei=Y7t-SoG3FYOIygSYnaTfCg#v=onepage&q=%22lumino%22%20art&f=false
  4. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=lfXljzVwkJcC&pg=PA291&dq=%22lumino%22+art&lr=&ei=AbV-SqKFKpmSywSK5tjACg#v=onepage&q=%22lumino%22%20art&f=false
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_8&oldid=1142645525"