Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beast1333

Beast1333 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

• Delete. I see nothing notable here. When this goes, so can the album. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not notable Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this
  talk) 21:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:BLP. Mkdw^talk 22:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KEEP - ADDED MORE RELIABLE SOURCES TO PROVE AUTHENTICITY AND NOTABILITY OF ARTIST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariovega0 (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:MUSIC. One free mixtape and one self-released MP3 album, which according to the article sold unimpressively (and that's putting it kindly). Andrew Lenahan - 00:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Underground Hip Hop artist, independent from corporate label, he satisfied notability for this genre and highly recognized by the underground hip hop community. User:mariovega0 00:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Mariovega0 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

• Comment While the main coverage appears to be hosted by the usual suspects (Myspace & Co), I find this artiste somewhat different from the normal run of rappers. He appears to be somewhat intellectual and coherent, unlike the main bunch who to me seem to be regarding dumbing-down as an art form. (Exception: K'naan, of course.) While the references given aren't what is required yet, I feel there is a possibility that notability may be achieved. This is, of course, provided that an intellectually inclined rap audience exists.... Peridon (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a discussion of whether he's smart or not, we're trying to determine whether he passes
    WP:MUSIC at this time. As you state, there aren't really any reliable sources or indeed much of anything besides Myspace and the like. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

That's why it's a comment - I personally find a slight degree of notability in it but not enough under Wikipedia criteria to vote keep. Peridon (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Chicago's Radio Arte WRTE 90.5fm radio station is cited as doing an interview and releasing information about the artist in articles published. Also independent journals/magazines have published articles on Beast1333 such as the ones cited (Indypendent and Zocalo Urbano). MarioVega0 1 Jan 2010 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: Mariovega0 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

• Delete Fails
  TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KEEP - Satisfies #1 of the
  WP:MUSICBIO (Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable). Beast1333 satisfied the underground hip hop genere. HU. 2 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.190.230 (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)— 99.135.190.230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• KEEP - I don't see why it should be deleted since the article does cite multiple authentic sources and satisfied the
  WP:MUSICBIO with option #1. This article satisfies regulations according to Wikipedia for the reasons mentioned. User: DanielHumms 09:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.36.220.220 (talk
  )
• Keep: Secondary sources are cited in the article. 69.175.10.10 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per
  WP:MUSIC 1.Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable (secondary sources mentioned above).AlexV0 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC) — AlexV0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• Delete Despite all impassioned voting above, this is still a straight failure of
  WP:Music. Inadequate non trivial secondary sources and inadequate releases on notable lables. --A1octopus (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:MUSICBIO; the cited sources are things like Twitter, MySpace and blogs, certainly not reliable third party coverage to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails the basics of WPMUSICBIO. RichardLowther (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Satisfies basics of WPMUSICBIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinbeacon (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC) — Kevinbeacon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Hmm, 6 out of the 7 non-duplicate keep comments (according to my count) are from IPs or SPAs...curious? Cocytus [»talk«] 01:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and the creator of the article,

TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep The music Industry is changing and labels are now irrelevant, you guys are like dinosaurs i call for
  WP:MUSIC basics to be reformed. The rules must be changed Beast1333 is an Independent Underground well known Artist. The rules must be disputed, they must evolve with the ever changing music industry this is Wikipedia not Nazi Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.143.180 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3Crowd

3Crowd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Declined speedy, but I don't see how this fulfills

• Delete. All I can find is this, and that's not enough. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the google news sources revolve around getting funding at this point, and from being tied to a notable founder (
  WP:Crystal balling with this one, as it's in "Stealth mode", and so far we only know it will have something vaguely to do with "crowsourcing" which is just a buzzword. As for why the speedy was declined I checked with the admin on that one, see discussion. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, a business founded in December 2009 in stealth mode? MEGO - especially if what's planned is just some kind of PR startup; that kind of business needs to meet a fairly high standard to begin with, and nothing founded within the month should ever pass muster. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass
  WP:CORP; not enough significant coverage in reliable third party sources to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep-with edits I would ask for re-consideration, based on Barrett Lyons track record. This is going to be interesting going on, one has to start somewhere. As such, please consider keeping if the stealth mode marketing term is removed, I agree that isn't a 'pedia' type term to use. Note, Barrett will be on NPR Fresh air on January 21 and will be speaking at RSA conference. I must qualify he is a friend, but really this is a start of a story worthy of WikiPedia Sorry If I am not editing this properly.newtonke —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• You're doing okay with your edits. Certainly removing "stealth" will help. OTOH, even if this is deleted, you can ask
  move it to your userspace for safekeeping to work on further. tedder (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• will-change Thanks, I will give it a look and ask you to re-consider. Appreciate the advice. I will find out more about when announcements will come. But, I recommend keeping until Feb. This launch did make 'the rounds' in tech. I also suggest, Jay Adelson may not be as publicly famous, but his endorsement by investing is tremendous. newtonke —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• changed newtonke —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nayrok

Nayrok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

• Delete--not notable (yet). Drmies (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails several points of
  WP:CRYSTAL prevails. Mkdw^talk 22:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete might pass
  WP:MUSIC someday, but not yet: unsigned and has no releases. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom.  fetchcomms☛ 03:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  don't do up and coming without several non trivial secondary sources, of which I can find none. --A1octopus (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as she fails
  premature at this point in time. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The "delete" arguments about the unreliable sourcing are more persuasive than the several "keep" comments that just assert she's notable without further argument.  Sandstein  07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Jansen

Nadine Jansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication that the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Porn performer in a handful of nn production, so trivial she isn't even listed in most of the standardly-cited-here porn indexes. GNews and GBooks hits negligible (although the searches do show a much more notable jazz performer of the same name); Ghits on lots of galleries but no relevant substantive content. One prior AFD summarily deleted, apparently as coatrack for personal abuse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A filmography/list of work was removed from this article by a vandal, then "officially" by a notoriously content-hostile editor. (Note:
  Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged...) Nadine Jansen is a well-known model in English, German and Japanese media. (ナディーン ヤンゼン in Japanese.) However, I'm not getting involved here since content-destruction seems to be the main purpose of the project which presumably over-sees this subject, and she falls outside my particular area of work. If another editor wishes to put in any effort in saving this article on a notable subject, feel free to contact me and I'll do what I can to help. Barring that, there's no sense in fighting a losing battle over a subject that doesn't interest me though. Dekkappai (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep The article has been almost fixed. Needs some cleaning up though. But the fact is that she was 2003 Newcomer of the Year as voted by the Voluptous Mag. That is notable enough. Norum 02:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding back all the unsourced content previously removed from the article is not "almost fixing" it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sources if you look towards the bottom. The sources are there. I just could not make it click-able. Norum

19:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources under WP:RS and WP:BLP, which was why all the rubbish was removed to begin with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If link from Vuloptous and the Score magazines and especially her own website is not enough, then there is obviously something wrong with the person that is trying to get her entry deleted. Norum 17:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails PORNBIO because Voluptuous Magazine award isn't a well known award. Fails general notability guideline because none of the sources given in the article and found through google books and news are reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's fine. 69.105.85.184 (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — 69.105.85.184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep She's notable enough. I'm not sure if the instigator of this motion is some religious prude or just a jobsworth, either way I don't think they have any proper reason to want this bio deleted. 90.211.186.163 (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC) — 90.211.186.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She's notable enough. There's no reason aside of the deletionism to remove this bio, and that's not good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.21.112 (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' - She had her several TV show appearances in mainstream German media. See here for a bit more detail from an ealier article version. That clearly makes her much more notable than someone who just did a few photo shoots. I saw those features myself - and unless you claim I am lying, this then all becomes about the fact that proving appearances in TV shows before the internet age is tricky. For an erotica, not porn, artist, she is clearly notable. Most people may not care about the notability of such performers, but that is not a reason for deletion - in her field she is huge (pun coincidental, but appropriate). Ingolfson (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there ought to be coverage satisfying the GNG, which nobody has turned up. No article at the German Wikipedia, either, it seems. And TV appearances in 2002 and later years aren't "before the internet age." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that you lose, Hullaballoo. She's notable enough. Norum 22:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not only is there no evidence of significant coverage by independent
  reliable sources should mean no article. Guest9999 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, which is the standard we have to apply since her main claim of notability seems to be having big boobs. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable in her field. Spurious proposal for deletion at best. --80.192.1.168 (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Her magazine credits at http://us.imdb.com/name/nm1305322/publicity are probably correct and there's another minor award in there, but the problem is there doesn't seem to be much to say about her beyond listing her credits, which is already done elsewhere. Also, it is so annoying to try to do a web search with all the WP mirrors and even book searches with the Icon group print mirrors! I rather wish Wikipedia's licensing did not allow that, because it's ruining the internet.
  talk) 06:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Brandt

Doug Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable minor leaguer. Played 1 game at AAA. Indy leaguer now. 4.88 ERA. Not notable. Alex (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete Why is there a page for this guy? A non-notable orphan, with one AAA game and currently playing indy ball? Delete without prejudice. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I searched for this guy on Google News and found some mentions of him in game recaps, prospect reports and such (This is fairly typical). However, there is nothing that I would consider substantial coverage of Brandt that shows notability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is somewhat outdated and player didnt advance past AA... If he was still in the affiliated leagues I'd advocate a merge but Indy leagues don't cut it. Spanneraol (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3dpaintbrush

3dpaintbrush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

3D graphics software,

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Added references : Zoso 13:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zosoin (talk • contribs)
• Weak delete. This is a news peace in
  ping 18:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I don't think the developer being redlinked is particularly relevant to the discussion but I agree with the sentiment to delete, and agree with 2's comment that there's a lack of good sources out there. I find Pcap's reasoning sound. I find some things in google news: [9] but they seem to mostly be recycled press releases. The articles seem to have only made minor changes to the formatting, suggesting that they essentially passed on a press release as-is. This hardly qualifies as a
  notability. Cazort (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Zoso 11:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC) : Thanks for the comments. Regd informer.com, refer http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/informer.com . Getting listed on pages owned by Google and Rhino3D doesnt count in establlishing notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zosoin (talk • contribs)
  • ping 12:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• I agree with Pcap about the editorial policy. As far as I'm concerned, traffic rank (for which Alexa is just a coarse proxy) is totally irrelevant for establishing reliability of a source. I would consider traffic rank as perhaps a minor factor in considering the notability of a website, but not the reliability of the website as a source for establishing notability or sourcing any content of a wikipedia article. Alexa's #2 and #3 websites are Facebook and Youtube, both websites with mostly user-generated content, generally not valid as reliable sources except in certain very unusual cases. Cazort (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator blocked as a sockpuppet; no other support for deletion. Merge discussions can continue on the talk pages. Fences&Windows 00:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Barbossa

Hector Barbossa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

James Norrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Captain Teague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Tia Dalma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Weatherby Swann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Joshamee Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pintel and Ragetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Kraken (Pirates of the Caribbean) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Potential redirect to Kraken in popular culture

)

Sao Feng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics

)

• Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 00:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect them all to the respective movies. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least Barbossa and Tia as major characters in arguably the most significant new film franchise of the decade. The others might be better served by merging, although none of them are so egregiously minor that an article is completely unacceptable. Sourcing should be no problem given the enormous amount of media coverage of the series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails

WP:NOTINHERITED. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep at least Norrington and Barbossa, they should have plenty of external sources, I'll go look for some now. Barbossa especially since sources point to him being in a 4th. The rest should be Redirected to a Characters of PotC page. Tphi (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails

WP:NOTINHERITED. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep some or mergeinto a combination article . Inappropriate group nomination, as they are not of similar importance. I must admit I too do not know the works involved, but at least I read the main Wikipedia articles and can see that much. A combination characters article is appropriate for all important works of fiction. Combination articles have contents that must meet WP:V but need not individually meet WP:GNG--for if they did, they would be separate articles. And character ≠plot -- they are separate aspects. The "cast" sections in the individual film articles are inadequate--for a franchise like this, it's better to keep all the characters together. And at least to me, if not to some of the people at the film project, characters and cast are also separate related things, each needing discussion. Retelling major amounts of the plot for each character's position in it is usually unnecessary if they are grouped in combination articles, which is another advantage. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails WP:IMPORTANT. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - a totally absurd ignorant, unproductive delete suggestion. Keep all articles. More information is better. if you want to delete stuff, people are totally easy to go ignorant. Stop this nonsense. 174.16.239.106 (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 174.16.239.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This comment fails

WP:PA. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge all these articles to one, not giving undue detail to each character. Giving a separate article to each character isn't necessary. Rkr1991 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 06:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Barbossa and Norrington (they appear in every film and must have some sources). -- deerstop. 07:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong keep, especially Barbossa and Dalma. These articles contain lots of useful information, they're not just one- or two-paragraph stubs. I find the whole thing of deleting articles on notable fictional worlds quite absurd. --89.31.118.248 (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails

WP:ITSUSEFUL WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Absolutely keep! Barbossa is a major character that is vital to the plot, for heaven's sake, and should have a separate page. It serves no purpose to deleting this and the others that are also targeted. Also keep Norrington.PNW Raven (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails

WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:IMPORTANT. WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note to closing administrator and future AFD !voters - The majority of the above !votes appear to be based around the fact that users
  like the subject issue. Please remember to comply with Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions when airing your views. WossOccurring (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

FWIW, not my !vote: personally, the only pirate movie I like is Errol Flynn's Captain Blood (1935 film). While we're at it, I don;t see any other comments based on that argument either--though a few seem to be based only on its obviously important. DGG ( talk )

• Comment I usually don't venture into the AFD area, but randomly ran across this one. While I agree that articles about movie characters may not be notable enough for separate articles, I would like to note that most of what WossOcurring in regards to failing WP argument guidelines could be applied to his nomination in the first place. I would vote to merge most of these entries into the list of minor characters in PotC. Clegs (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of my nomination fails the guidelines? WossOccurring (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Barbossa, there should be material in the 2000+ Google News hits to make a decent verifiable article.[10] e.g. these articles about Rush's role:[11][12][13][14][15]. As the nominator obviously didn't bother looking for sources for this one (
  WP:BEFORE) I have no faith that they checked for sources for the others, so keep or merge the rest. Fences&Windows 21:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Norrington and Barbossa, and merge and redirect the rest into
  WP:OTHERCRAP. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 21:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep. Per above and
  WP:ILIKEIT). And WossOccurring, for responding to single keep !vote. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All deleted

Bruce Buckley

Bruce Buckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Mãos Da Verdade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can't Stop Now (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Colorless Dreams (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Colorless Dreams (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can't Stop Now (single by Bruce Buckley) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Davis J. Johnson (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One Time (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles about a 13-year-old Portuguese singer-songwriter and his records appear to be a hoax. The articles are completely unreferenced; see the main article's talk page for searches, which turn up absolutely nothing relevant. The record label's website does not mention him, there is an Allmusic entry but it's someone else, and there are no articles in Portuguese Wikipedia. From this old version of the user page of the author Salgado96 (talk · contribs) it appears that he himself is "Bruce Buckley". JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, apparent hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete preferably speedily. This is an unreferenced (and unreference-able)
  blp of a minor. I'm virtually positive this is a hoax. See Davis J. Johnson on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Same photo, same "real name" given for the artist (Renato Miguel Salgado de Freitas). And worse, the Portguese WP reveals the name of his school, as well as an exact birth date which also appeared in an earlier version of the Bruce Buckley article [16]. Voceditenore (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment User:MiguelRob has now created Davis J. Johnson (singer) here (also edited by Salgado96). I've added it to the deletion list along with a spurious album article One Time (album). Note also the extensive edits to Salgado96's user page by two IPs attached to the vodafone network in the UK.[17] . Voceditenore (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the lot. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment thanks, Voceneditore, now I look, there is undesirable personal information in the history of this one, too. It's a clear enough hoax that I am now happy to delete it
  WP:CSD#A9. JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Dreams We Fall into the Eternal Lake

In Dreams We Fall into the Eternal Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per
  WP:NALBUMS, demos are only notable if significant coverage exists from reliable sources. I can't find anything to indicate this demo meets these standards.  Gongshow ^Talk 17:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  loki 02:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete/Merge: Agreed. Merge historical content to Soilwork. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this page and merge any relevant info into the band's article, per
  WP:NALBUMS. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinaman

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Dinaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

non notable publication WuhWuzDat 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral a weekly news magazine in a major country certainly could be notable, but the article is written so poorly it's impossible to tell one way or the other. It's possible some editing might save this, but as written it's hopeless and might be better to delete the whole thing and start over. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It's now back to being a stub. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of its sponsorship by the major English-language Indian newspaper and the notable editors. I agree that's indirect, more so than I would like, but it's all I can do at with the existing cultural bias. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 07:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Couldn't believe my eyes 1 minute after I added some categories: Good job SpacemanSpiff! --Crusio (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. easily meets meets
  WP:NMEDIA. Its from the TOI group and that itself is enough to meet "significant publication in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets" --Sodabottle (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Many of the editors and sub-editors of the magazine are recipients of India's two major literary awards -- Sahitya Akademi Award and Jnanpith Award, but most of the info is hidden behind paywalls or not previewable on gbooks. I've added what I had accesss to, but the article can be significantly expanded by someone with access to sources. -SpacemanSpiff 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MUST KEEP Dinaman was a great magazine and anyone familiar with Hindi journalism, and we are talking a population that may be half of the size of the most spoken language in the world. we should improvise it and get more information. Dinaman set the gold standard and we need to understand that. I am surprised someone had the wisdom to talk about it.

• Keep Most notable publication in Hindi. 25 years with Dinamaan were a high point in Hindi journalism.
• Comment Apparently this magazine's time on WP has come... There is a second article on this journal,
  Dinamaan, that was created yesterday... --Crusio (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

2nd article was redirected to the 1st, as it was a blatant attempt by the original article author to get around this AfD. WuhWuzDat 11:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Its interesting to see how what was historic has to be defended in a world where its unknown. Edit it, improve it but please figure out a way of not losing good because we don't know it. Dinaman was clearly a notable magazine and it should have been on Wiki a long time ago.
• THIS WAS A GREAT MAGAZINE. HOPE SOMEONE DOES JUSTICE TO IT ON WIKIPEDIA. THE TROUBLE WITH THE STUFF ABOUT BEFORE DIGITAL MEDIA BECAME PROMINENT IS THAT IT TREATS THE REST AS IF IT DID NOT EXIST. AM GLAD TO SEE IT HERE. HOPE SOME OF THE MILLIONS OF ITS FANS IMPROVE THE WRITE UP.

whoever calls it non notable probably has a lot to learn. it will be great if this person could achieve a millionth of what Dinaman was in the quarter century it enlightened the millions of Hindi language readers—Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.128.76 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to anonymous IPs: Please stop yelling. There is not a single "delete" !vote apart from the nom and many "keep" !votes, so this is not going to get deleted. --Crusio (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep that's good news. may be the one who nominated it should lose his rights to nominate. wish he took the same precaution as others did. i think the problems seem to have begun with the nomination.
• Weak keep and expand. Seems to be notable per notability guidelines and some current sources; an increased number of reliable sources needs to be incorporated. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep it will be good to improvise it. some history, some writers, editors, key contributions etc will be helpful
  • Struck out the duplicates by IP hopper. -SpacemanSpiff 06:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A mention may be made in the

A Woofer in Tweeter's Clothing Demos (Unreleased)

A Woofer in Tweeter's Clothing Demos (Unreleased) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete a demo, never commercially released (should not be confused with the undeniably notable 1972 album A Woofer in Tweeter's Clothing). Demo recordings aren't notable except in truly unusual circumstances. "Weak" delete because I really can't bring myself to vote full delete on a Sparks record. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete/Merge: My Weak Delete vote is for the same reasons as Starblind above, because there is historical interest and notability for the associated artists. If the decision here is to delete, then the informationin this article should be merged into thr History section of
  Halfnelson. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No reliable sources. Books are self-published, and the main source website is her own. SilkTork *^YES! 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Om

Chandra Om (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. she is an author and recording artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.175.110 (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It could be deleted, but you know that somebody wants to look it up and find them, and + she's an author. I say keep. Old Al (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the closest thing to a reliable source I could find is a two-paragraph mention in Yoga Journal magazine March 2008. Nothing else at all that I could find, and I don't think that by itself is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of
  reliable sources. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Due to concerns over

Elena Rumyantseva

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

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

No sourced autobiography Истребительница (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wow, this one is really quite something. I do not have a definitive opinion yet but at the moment I am leaning towards delete, based on
  WP:RS issues with sources cited etc. Various googlenews, googlescholar and googlebooks searches for the name of the author (both in English and in Russian) also produce fairly little, which is hard to reconcile with the grand claims made in the article (here is a sample search in Russian[18]). I tried to do some worldcat searches for various versions of transliteration of the subject's name but did not find anything that looks like her books (maybe someone else should give it another try, though). This is all pretty strange given the grandiose claims made in the article. One thing that does check out is the "best economist" prize but the people at the talk page of the ru-wiki version of the article claim that the organization that made the award is not really notable itself. Basically, I have no idea how we here can untangle this mess and decide what is and what is not verifiable from the information in the article and the current text does not look salvageable to me... If someone with some economics background and some knowledge of Russian can comment here, that'd be good. Nsk92 (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. By the time that a BLP gets to AfD it is required that notability be demonstrated explicitly. The extensive researches of
  Nsk92 have failed to turn up anything of deciding substance. GS gives two cites of 36 and 18, which is nowhere near enough. The genealogical evidence is charming but would confer notability only on the close family of a reigning monarch. If further evidence appears I am prepared to change my vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• KeepComment. Looks notable to me.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to be more specific? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

an author of 35 books.Biophys (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A search of Google books and Google Scholar with -author:"Elena Rumyantseva"- gives zero relevant hits. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Do you really suggest that all book references that are currently included in this article were fake? They do not look fake.Biophys (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepUncertain article needs trimming down to proper size , perhaps 1/10, and translation from google-english, , and made less like a CV, but the presumption is that an author such as this is important. I'm looking further to try to identify the books. The google translation of the Russian talk p is fascinating [19] -- there is a repeated assertion that her noble origins are what make her important, and a discussion of whether the degree of her noble ancestry is sufficiently distinguished, but that's the part I think we would all remove here as totally irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC), I have not yet succeeded in identifying the books. Reading more of the talk page, it is seriously questioned whether all the supporting material are actually independent, or were written also by her. It is hard to judge the reputations of people on another WP, and I would appreciate it if Biophys or someone else actually knowledgeable could comment in detail. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She appear to be a notable person based on the article in ruwiki. Sorry, but I do not have time to actually find and read her books. And I do not care if this article kept or deleted. Let's delete. Not a big deal. Biophys (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ultimately I don't see the article's text as salvageable and don't see how to separate verifiable from non-verifiable bits. In this case I think
  WP:BLP concerns outweigh the other considerations. Nsk92 (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I took a sample book listed in the article, «the Technique an estimation of productivity of agrarian reforms. Calculations on 51 country of the world» (1999;

ISBN 985-6320-51-8), and tried to check the library holdings for its ISBN number. Worldcat has no entry for this book[20], Open Library also has nothing[21], Internet Book Database has nothing[22], Karlsruhe Virtual catalog has nothing[23]. This suggests to me that either the ISBN is invalid or that the book is really obscure. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Per Nsk92, this fails
  WP:V, one of our core policies. It's possible there is a core of notable truth to all this, but we're not going to find it by sifting this article. I tried Google news (for her name in Roman characters) but found only a French-language story from 2005 about a stampede at a party that killed a college student from Murmansk by the same name. There are several other stories about different people named Yelena Rumyantseva but I'm not sure whether any of them match the subject of our article and in any case there still doesn't seem enough to go by even to stub this down to something believable. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete this mess of an "article" for failing
  WP:V, the topic might be allowable if properly written and sourced. Abductive (reasoning) 05:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

HAPI drum

HAPI drum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. According to its website, HAPI is trademarked. DaveCW (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further research shows that a number of commercial and hobby versions of this instrument are being produced, which I think makes them of interest. They are all basically steel versions of slit drums or tongue drums, and could be included in the existing articles on slit drums - an ancient and non-trademarked instrument. DaveCW (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cant say its highly notable, but the drum manufacturers website lists 2 testimonials from notable drummers (they have WP articles that are not currently disputed). I can see an argument for merging with slit drums, but i must point out that "things made up one day" and "trademarked" are not valid arguments for deletion here. trademarked products can and should have articles, if they are sufficiently notable. "things made up" doesnt mean things manufactured, it means things thought up. anything patented, manufactured and sold with any degree of success is a prime candidate for an article or mention in one. i did have trouble finding other references for this product, though. maybe someone else will have better skill at it. oh and googling "hapi drum" in quotes gets 78900 hits, pretty impressive (though i know raw ghits is not a pure argument for either keep or delete, it does seem to show name recognition). article of course comes off as somewhat promotional, but that, again, is not a rationale for deletion if evidence of notability is extant.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, I am new to this, I think there is an abbreviation I should be using, but "things made up one day" is indeed a valid argument for deletion. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day As for the trademark, I cite it as evidence of a non-neutral point of view. Title the article "Steel Tongue Drum", or tell the reader why HAPI is significantly different than other brands of the same basic instrument. A patent would help convince me that there is a difference, but I don't think they have one. DaveCW (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct, things made up one day can be a valid argument. it applies to ideas or objects not in the pubic sphere yet, such as neologisms or unmarketed prototypes of objects with no press attention (i have this nutcracker in the shape of a polaris missile that i made, its cool and it works-that sort of thing). this product is manufactured and distributed, so the argument doesnt apply. its absolutely ok to have an article that is a copyrighted brand name. just check out the numerous articles on businesses and products here. we can use trademark images in articles as well, its fair use, as long as its limited to articles significantly about that trademarked item. i believe their website shows they have patents. the rename suggestion doesnt work, as this is in fact about this brand, not the idea of a metal tongue drum. the debate here must, and will, focus on the companys and its products general notability. i believe its notable enough to deserve an article, but others may not. the article could become a section of the slit drum article, of course. I do agree that an important part of the article should be how this product is different from other slit drums, but that alone is not necessarily an argument for deletion, only improvement. PS i have no conflict of interest. in fact, i have the opposite. i personally knew the person who probably was the first westerner to make and sell small wooden slit drums in the US, but they never patented, copyrighted, etc, and others copied them, eventually leading to this major music instrument category. Since this persons work in this area was not documented at all, from WP perspective it doesnt exist. sad but true. i would personally prefer they have an article on this person, and am annoyed that they will never get credit for what they did, but WP is not a memorial site. and since they never sold a lot (though they did sell to at least one MAJOR musician), its almost as if what they did was a thing made up one day. of course, i really hope someone else will comment here. we will not be able to decide this alone. hello out there?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I guess what I am looking for is a new article on steel tongue drums - on the general idea, how to play... i.e. 99% of the contents of this article, and then this article would be confined to what is unique about the HAPI. I would say the same thing about an article on the "Fender Stratocaster" - I would expect that an article exists on "Guitar", and the "Fender Stratocaster" article was limited to what is unique (in construction, in who plays it,...) about it. I suppose I could do that myself, but I don't want to be autocratic. Hello out there? DaveCW (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, has one Google News hit which doesn't look like a good source, and nothing else. Sources in article are not reliable. Abductive (reasoning) 05:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of coverage in
  reliable sources. The sources in the article do not suffice to establish notability because they are not independent sources. Cunard (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, the article should be moved to the
  Hank drum article as HAPI is just one of the companies selling Hank drums --Sonicwarrior (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lampshade hanging

Lampshade hanging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Dictionary definition. I have been unable to find any reliable sources at all, even when throwing in key words. Either toss outright or send to Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Afd1 subst:ed onto page one day after AfD page's creation. --EEMIV (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weird. Twinkle must've glitched. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:V, the original source is probably TVtropes.org. Polarpanda (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonnotable neologism, apparently from a blog TVtropes. Fails
  WP:V. Edison (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toa_(Bionicle)

Toa_(Bionicle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics

)

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

The article is a clear example of Fancruft, something which Wikipedia is NOT (WP:NOCRUFT)(WP:NOT). And given that another Wiki exists, devoted specifically for Bionicle (http://biosector01.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page), this page should be deleted. (Actually, two Wikis -- http://bionicle.wikia.com/)

Apparently, the first attempt to delete the article reached No Concensus (between 5 members), and the second a Keep (between 6 members). Nevertheless, the issues pertaining to it have not been addressed.

Since this is the 3rd Nomination, and the article has been tagged since early 2009, it's best to delete it.

"So Neutral that I may as well not even vote" Neutral Im really in the middle here. I can see that the nom makes a point but it doesnt seem like we should just delete it all of the sudden.--

The addition of real life info (the creation of the original sets, for example) may also help smooth things out. By the way, the number of nominations is no reason for the article get deleted and fancruft can be fixed. Again, the addition of real life info would clear this as a fancruft article.--

Helryx 16:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep character lists are considered acceptable for fictional works. I'd like to see better sourcing and some cleanup, but there's no compelling reason to delete at present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan. Taprobanus (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Character lists are acceptable spinout articles to keep main articles from growing too large. No legimate reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn. tedder (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zascha Moktan

Zascha Moktan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Was a very clear copyright vio. Speedy removed and turned into a very good A1 or A7 candidate. I'm taking it here instead. No assertion of notability. There are two albums but I don't see any sources for them either. Shadowjams (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article currently exist on de.wikipedia with reliable sources here [24]. Would need translation performed; however, a rough translation shows that she has charted passing WP:notability. Calmer Waters 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom withdrawn - Editing since revealed the charting hits in Germany. I didn't find those sources initially (didn't help they were in German). [Any other editors that agree are welcome to close (barring any intervening dispute)] Shadowjams (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. unsourced = unverified = delete

Reform Mormonism

Reform Mormonism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is a second nomination, the first having taken place in 2007. It was deleted then and has since been re-created. Due to the fact that the original discussion was almost 3 years ago, I didn't feel good about just speedily deleting this, but a PROD was recently declined. Since 2007, not much has changed with this article. It's still difficult to find any sources on this subject that are not blogs or self-promotional material. The movement is real, but I can't see anything that indicates that it is notable or that we can satisfy

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--It is important to keep all the articles about the various sects within the
  List of Latter Day Saint sects and thus provide easy access to the various beliefs all Latter Day Saint sects for the benefit of scholars and researchers. Keraunos (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment--The references in the article to the Liberal Democrat website and the article in the "Times and Seasons" LDS Internet magazine show that the movement is notable in that it has attracted attention from third party sources and thus there are sources in the article that are not just "blogs and self-referential material". Keraunos (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite. Times and Seasons is a blog. Democratic Underground is a site where anyone can post messages; the linked-to "article" is nothing more than a post by a member who has signed up. It could be self-promotional or not, but it is certainly not a reliable reference. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, while this may be
  notable because of the lack of reliable sources, and thus we can't write a proper article about it. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge If there isn't a minor sect article it should be created. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Uh I'm reluctant to say this, after Harvard Div, but I doubt to what extent this is a continuous group of Mormons who morphed their beliefs into this confession, or is it perhaps a group of outsiders who have managed to take over an identity and rework it to their likings. Those movements occur in religions of many kinds, and anyone could ask that about many of the groups in 'modern religion' that bear little resemblance to their namesakes of earlier centuries (it's called 'reform' without an LDS tradition of the word 'reform' - as Calvinism has), but a case could likely be made either way. MaynardClark (talk)

ark // 09:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]