Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 6 July 8 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 01:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mimori

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

Non-notable minor writer. No third-party references to verify notability claims have been added in the 2+ years since the article was created, and the Japanese version of the article is similarly bare of any reference sources. DAJF (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I can find nothing which indicates notability. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it is quite normal for the Japanese Wikipedia to lack sources, this illustrator seems to be entirely non-notably. I could only find very trivial mentions when looking for sources. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trying to understand the Japanese Wikipedia article with Google Translate (which doesn't work very well for Japanese), it seemed like she worked on parts of two notable franchises, but that her individual contributions to those franchises weren't notable. I couldn't find any other sources indicating notability. Calathan (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

talk) 00:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Dantwann crane

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

Notability is asserted so A7 does not apply, but I haven't been able to find sources to

reliable sources. The only proof of this individual's accomplishments can be found on his website. Cunard (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @501  ·  11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Brogan

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

Not notable Jack Pinchwife (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @501  ·  11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher A Allen

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

Notability is asserted so A7 does not apply, but I haven't been able to find sources to

verify the claims in the article. A Google News Archive search returns no results about this person. Cunard (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. There are no citations or references to indicate sources of the information in the article. I was hesitant to mark for deletion because the article appears to justify notability. However, without citations or refs, the article appears as a hoax.--TRL (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @501  ·  11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cavallino LLC

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

Non-notable company. Article is written like a cross between an advert and a bio for the founder. Only thing that's even close to notability is that the founder wrote a book, but as notability isn't inherited so therefore cannot be carried on to the company. SPA user whose first edit was to remove the CSD notice, followed by their 2nd edit to remove it again, so it seems there's some

CoI there. Rather than getting into an edit war I've brought it to afd. WebHamster 22:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

No imputation, but merely a notice: please see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account.
~~ Phoe talk ~~ 19:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Brief mentions are not the same as coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect can be created if necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College football's ten most victorious programs

AfDs for this article:
College football's ten most victorious programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Article should likely be deleted or merged into the

the NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship talk page. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I am working on a complete Claimed National Championship List in my
NCAA Division I football win-loss records article through 2008 per the NCAA Records Book. It is now sortable by wins or percentage thereby replicating the information in the top 10 article in a more comprehensive fashion minus the POV. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A potential merger can be discussed elsewhere, but there is no consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Rosewood

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

Delete - no independent reliable sources appear to get this past

talk) 22:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was withdraw nomination. Tavix |  Talk  22:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teashark

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

Not notable Cybercobra (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've searched Google News and none of the mentions of it go into any great depth much beyond that of press release-like material. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In amongst all the blog comments there's magazine and technical magazine coverage; seems to meet notability guidelines. eg [1] [2] [3][4]. I42 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are 44 GNews hits for this web browser, and actually I don't see a single press release in the bunch. The first page of results are mostly blogish posts and thus not very useful. However, there are quite a few foreign language reliable sources on pages 2-5. The language of coverage is, of course, irrelevant, and thus the
    GNG
    are reached through coverage in multiple reliable sources.

Additionally, there are a few RS English reviews of the browser, such as Softpedia, CNET Australia, and WAP Review (technically a blog, but I would considet it an RS for purposes of product review) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw CNET Australia is sufficient for me. The article still definitely needs work though. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gateshead F.C. season 2006–07

Gateshead F.C. season 2006–07 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article detailing a season for a club playing in regional league, which I do not believe is article-worthy, and precedents have been set here and here. I am also nominating:

for the same reason. Note that I have not nominated Gateshead F.C. season 2009–10, a season in which the club will play in a national league, as I believe this needs further discussion before a separate AfD. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SilkTork *YES! 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magritte (software)

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

All that I can find is a bunch of trivial mentions in multiple searches. Fails

talk) 21:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was No consensus to delete. This is the wrong forum to decide between redirecting an article and keeping it separate. Flowerparty☀ 00:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blastoise

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

Article about an arbitrary Pokémon without any significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. I've searched and there doesn't appear to be sources with critical discussion on the character. Artichoker[talk] 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - The rest is fine, but it has hardly anything to make a critical reception section with. Referencing most of the article with a few interviews is nice, but it doesnt make it automaticly notable. --
    talk) 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
What do you mean by "They just arent in the form of a separate paragraph like the other articles"? Theleftorium 16:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of having a whole section about the reception, like the other articles, the reception is spread out throughout the article, in a way. Zap found a book that talks all about Blastoise, what he did, how popular he is, etc and used it all over the article. I think this is a new generation of articles in the making. Not every Pokémon can have a big giant reception section like Pikachu, who is painted on a plane, and has a virus named after it. --
talk) 16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
But that's not really reception. His sources are mostly gameguide materials that discuss the attributes of Blastoise in an in-universe style. This is different from the critical discussion that is needed to fill up a "Reception" section. Artichoker[talk] 16:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You say "the reception is spread out throughout the article", but I can't find it anywhere. Theleftorium 16:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it depends on your definition of "reception". If it means how notable is the Pokémon, then there are plenty of things.

This tortoise-like Pokémon is well-known for being featured on the cover of one of the first Pokémon games,

Super Smash Bros Melee
as one of many Pokemon that a fighter can send out after throwing a Poke Ball......and is the main Pokémon on Green's team.

But, thats probably not what you mean. Why does a Pokémon need to be notable outside of the series? That doesnt make any sense.
talk) 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The last two sentences you provided are not reception. Also, "notable outside the series" means that it has received critical reception from independent third-party sources. Unlike Blastoise, a quick search of Satoshi Tajiri shows that he satisfies that criterion. Artichoker[talk] 17:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This tortoise-like Pokémon is well-known for being featured on the cover of one of the first Pokémon games, Pokémon Blue."
"Blastoise is a well-known Pokémon because of its role in the video games, but it makes relatively few appearances in the anime."
(from below, not yet in the article)"Blastoise's role in the video games has been described as an 'impressive... tank'—compared with
Wobbuffett
, 'except, that it can actually defend itself'."
How are these sentences not considered critical reception? Plus, just to throw it out there,
KaZaA reformed under a company called Blastoise, among others. And while i have yet to find an article connecting the two (or saying where the got the name from at all), it's not unreasonable to assume that someone out there wrote something about it, and it's as coherent a connection to our real-world as naming a leptin after pikachu. --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
1. It makes an evaluative claim on whether or not it is well-known (Is Blastoise obscure, somewhat well-known, one of the best known?).
2. It gives the reason (Because it's on the cover of one of the first games, and evolves from a starter).
--ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the article is reliable and provides said significant independent coverage (it's print so I cannot readily access it right now), but are there other sources out there that can provide similar or more (critical real world) coverage of Blastoise? MuZemike 01:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are saying that that is a good reference, but there needs to be more? --
talk) 01:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
perhaps, but as i will readily admit, there is likely nothing online that someone can do with a google search (or this would have been settled long ago). Finding more sources would require real-outside-work and i think i personally did enough in finding these two (the MacDonald one was from the old version) that i shouldn't have to be fighting it in an AFD. Presuming I'm not pulling these sources out of my ass (and i have a spotless editing record here), the existence of these sources satisfy WP:N and it's an open and shut case. --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 01:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your nomination demands "'critical discussion'". Sorry, but that is just your idiosyncratic view as topics are not required to present opinions, just facts. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fictional topics pretty much have to present opinions as that is how notability is established: the article receives critical coverage from independent sources. And a "Reception" section presents how the character was received (i.e. an opinion.) Artichoker[talk] 16:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, opinions are not required. This creature appears in sundry formats - TV, movie, book, game, TCG, etc. The facts of these presentations are quite ample for our purposes and we don't need opinions on whether it is cute, silly or whatever. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because then it's just a bunch of primary sources, which cannot establish notability. Artichoker[talk] 20:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there's no connection between the degree of distance of the source and the way that it approaches the topic. Third-party source can and do approach the topic in a matter-of-fact way. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • i find it odd that artichoker is somehow trying to claim the article is then "just a bunch of primary sources" despite the fact that there are three third-party sources in the ref section. --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep as disamb page SilkTork *YES! 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tork

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

Delete no indication that the subject of this unsourced one-line article is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should probabally just revert it back to the redirect. It seem to be quite plasuable and it has existed as a redirect for almost 15 months.--76.71.214.47 (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert back to the redirect - Torque per 76.71.214.47. I have removed the A3 tag, which does not apply, since this is a valid stub. I have done searches for sources and have been unable to find anything to establish the notability of this video game, so a redirect is the best course of action. Cunard (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: should this be a redirect to Torque, or a disambiguation between torque and people bearing the surname Tork, including Peter Tork of the Monkees? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert back to the redirect. The page had a purpose before it was changed, no sense in deleting it as it will probably be recreated as the old redirect anyway. --Taelus (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with disambig page as previously stated. --Taelus (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its present form: restoring redirect would make sense. A fairly brief search on Google produced only one reference to this game, a forum post at [5], which says "We've been developing a racing game named Tork...we hope to finish the project in a short time. Currently, looking for volunteered artists". Clearly a product of amateur programmers, who have presumably put it on Wikipedia in the hope of getting publicity. No evidence of notability at all: in fact if it said a little more it might qualify for a speedy delete as promotional (G11).
    talk) 20:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Green Festival

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

Non-notable local event. Appears to fail

WP:NOTE. Some GHits but no substantial GNEWS. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deville (Talk) 01:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lozar

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

Delete no indication that the winery which is the subject of this unreferenced one-line article is notable; fails

WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete One line article, no secondary sources, no indication of notability of the company. didnt find much in an internet search aside from wine reviews Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same reasons as Ottawa4ever and Carlossuarez46 above.--BodegasAmbite (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facepunch Studios

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

Article appears to fail

WP:WEB. Although there are a large number of GHits, the site lacks any substantial GNEWS. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable web content. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 because

obvious hoaxes are vandalism. And this was an obvious hoax. It purported to define ragnad as an army sufficiently large to tip the balance in a war with the gods, relating this to Ragnarök. Now, Ragnarök means "fate" or "twilight of the gods"; this would make ragnad mean "D of the gods". Make of that what you will. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Ragnad

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

I can't find any information online to verify the existence of this concept, which is purportedly found in Norse mythology. I would expect some scholarly hits. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spartaz Humbug! 08:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Torchwood: Original Television Soundtrack

Torchwood: Original Television Soundtrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are no reliable third-party sources to establish this page's notability. The user who added the Amazon reference was well-intentioned, but

retailers' websites do not qualify as reliable third-party sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Considering treelo has put this up for deletion the same day I use the equality arguement, it makes it even more notable than before. As ever, full of crap to filter information, instead of being neutral. 86.139.225.200 (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? If you noticed, this specific AfD was done several days before mine which I withdrew because this already exists but not on the back of your argument at all. It's equality in that both articles aren't any more notable than each other but I'm not sure how that makes either more notable. Also, cut it back with the personal attacks, nobody has insulted you so no need to insult anyone else. treelo radda 00:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10th July was yesterday. Why don't you stop trying to curtail an information resource? You probably won't answer the question again though as you're too high and mighty. 86.139.141.144 (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 00:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 in heavy metal music

2010 in heavy metal music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is discussing 2010 in music in July of 2009 - a clear violation of

WP:CRYSTAL. Intelligentsium 17:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I read it. I just happen to disagree. Have you read
    WP:AGF? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Well, that particular bit mentions being about specific events. The events given (so far indeed only releases) are well-documented. But this is just the next in a whole series of "X year in heavy metal music" articles, so it is open to other things (events, reformations, disbandments, etc), but this has always been the case. We don't have any of those right now, but we do have plenty of expected releases. Anyway, to me I think it's fine. The title is open to more, but it will have to be soon enough, and for what it is now there are sources. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One week old now: 4 "delete"s, 6 "keep"s (and with more reasoning behind them). Time to close? 86.146.158.22 (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Plaster

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

Asserts notability as a prolific radio host, but no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but beef up the article. I've never heard of this guy (he's not in my part of the state), so I don't have that kind of bias. A quick Google search turned up a lot of hits on his name. Many were on websites for stations that run his show or teams for which he does play-by-play, so they aren't purely 3rd party. Many more were blogs, so they aren't reliable sources. Additionally, he's often quoted in news stories (most recently in stories about Steve McNair's death). I did find a couple of print articles that are mostly about him that could be cited in the article, but since there were discrepancies with details in the articles, I simply documented the links on the talk page (let someone more knowledgable sort them out). Based on all that, I concluded that Mr. Plaster is notable, but we still need the sources to show it. Additionally, I discovered that there is a George Plaster bobblehead doll (I suppose that's some sort of indication of notability!), which I documented in the article. --Orlady (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the Plas bobblehead was a big hit at the Sounds game it was given away at. I was thinking the fact that I listened to him every day might cloud my judgment on this one...so I strayed from a full-on keep. --Smashvilletalk 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per the concerns raised in this discussion.

talk) 00:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The Last Block in Harlem

The Last Block in Harlem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book. No third-party reliable sources found. The article's creator appears to be affiliated with the publisher judging by the editor name. bonadea contributions talk 16:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book was published two months ago and I can't find any reviews or substantial informations on it. We don't have an article for author and quick Google Search reveals, that he isn't notable enough. It looks like a self-promotion. --

Vejvančický (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

This is a real book. The ISBN number is: 978-0-578-02068-6 You can see a copy at: http://www.canalpublishing.com Also, it is available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Last-Block-Harlem-ebook/dp/B00295S4VQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246984267&sr=8-1 Also, it is currently being sold at St. Mark's Books and Housing Works Bookstore in NYC.— Canalpub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

Yes, I believe that the book is real, but this is not the point here. Try to look here for better understanding the criteria, please.--
Vejvančický (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Ok. I guess you only take books that were produced in a giant corporate structure. This is a ligit publishing company and a ligit book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) — Canalpub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

May I ask you to please read the information provided to you by Vejvančický? Because the link in Vejvančický's comment explains why the article is not acceptable, and that has nothing to do with "giant corporate structures", nor has anybody doubted for a second that the book or the publishing house exist. --bonadea contributions talk 17:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Though in order for all of that to happen for a book, you need to go through a major publisher and pay to have your book in stores. I think that with the advent of indi publishing, the rules should change. Why not? I have my book in bookstores, and selling it to the public, have it on Amazon, and trying to make it outside of the corp. world. Check me out. It is ligit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC) — Canalpub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete. Per
    WP:NBOOK, being sold through a website such as Amazon does not confer notability. A Google search for "'The Last Block in Harlem' book" returns only 257 results, none of which are from reliable sources; searches using Google News and Google Books return no results at all. Also, User:Canalpub has a name very similar to the name of the book's publisher, Canal Publishing, which indicates a conflict of interest.--Unscented (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Yes, it is my publishing company. What is wrong with that? should I do it under a different name? I have been trying to get listed in Google and cannot. I do not know their formula. It's driving me crazy. If you Google Search Canal Publishing, then I am on the top of the list. Soon, the book will be getting reviews. The post I put about the company and the book are completely objective. Just stating facts. Come on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 20:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - does not meet
    notability at present. If it gets written up in the Times or other relevant media, then perhaps it'll be worth an article then; right now, this looks like a promotional effort. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Isn't the internet changing what is thought to be "Relevant Media?" After all, the Times and other papers like it are going under because people do not consider them to be news enough to keep purchasing. I hear what you are saying though. This is not a promotional effort. The book is being read and reviews are coming. Give the little guy a shot!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the record, I own a small publishing venture with seven books to its credit. It doesn't have a Wikipedia article (and has never had one), because it isn't notable.

    The reason why we can't "give the little guy a shot" is because if we didn't have guidelines like

    notability, we'd be drowning in millions of articles from people alive to the marketing possibilities of Wikipedia and who see our encyclopaedia as offering free webspace for their promotional material. Delete.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Well I will tell you this. When the title becomes huge, you can be sure that you will remember this thread. I love the open discussion here and the democracy generated by the users. All of you are clamoring for deletion while the book is gaining steam here in New York. Whatever you decide I will abide with. Let me ask, if somebody, one of the people who have read the book wanted to write an article on it, what would you all say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 23:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please read
    talk) 00:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I understand what you are saying. Therefore, I invite you all to my site: http://www.canalpublishing.com to read the first 3 chapters of the book for yourself. Perhaps you will like it, order a copy for yourself, and then write a review? There are a few reviews coming out in the next few weeks, so I will wait and let the web take its natural course. Please feel free to keep this thread going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete, non-notable book. That's it. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

Spartaz Humbug! 08:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Buy This!

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

Non-notable demo album. Fails

WP:NALBUMS
:

"Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources" KMFDM FAN (talk!) 15:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was merge into

break my slumber 15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply
]

List of products that Billy Mays pitched

List of products that Billy Mays pitched (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Violates

break my slumber 15:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete-We could delete this article, and make a new section in the billy mays article called "Things Billy Mays was best known for pitching" or something. We should mention some of the things billy mays pitched, but not every single one. And in reply to Tavix, yes musicans have discography's, but the discography's have information on the things the musician is notable for. The discography's don't have EVERYTHING the musician has it's name on, such as bootleged albums. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 20:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is this any different than an actor's filmography? If Tom Cruise can have one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cruise_filmography), why cant Billy Mays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.5.7.4 (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Cruise's filmography doesn't include commercials.KMFDM FAN (talk!) 22:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But Cruise did MOVIES. He didn't do commercials or was he known exclusively for doing them. Tavix |  Talk  22:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page listing the products that Billy Mays pitched is very important. I was looking for a list and this was the most concise list that I found. To say that such a list is not needed in Wikipedia articles is not only incorrect, but there are other lists, such as Law and Order, that highlight every single episode made, who was in them, and the content of the show. How is that different from listing "episodes" or infomercials that Billy Mays made? Please keep this page! And if someone could tell me how to add my vote to keeping this page, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks 3skinny (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC) — 3skinny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: copied from article's talk page.[reply]
  • Keep It's a list of what this notable person is known for. It should be possible to find sources for the items that don't have them right now. ReverendWayne (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to Merge per GVOLTT. I didn't catch that the material had been in the infobox. Making it a section would be appropriate. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Billy Mays' article. It shouldn't be in his infobox (didn't even know that the products were listed there to begin with), but rather its own section, and having an article on a pitchman without describing at least some of the products he pitched would feel a bit empty. --GVOLTT How's my editing?\My contribs 01:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Billy Mays The infobox may have been too long, but there is no reason the article itself can't have the section. Eauhomme (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merger is fine and makes perfect sense. The list is obviously significant within the context of Mays himself.
break my slumber 13:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge with Billy Mays Not notable enough to be its own article, but it should be a subsection of his page. --CF90 (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and revert Mays article to the version that had this. If it's "too long for the infobox" then make it a separate section in the article.
    talk) 21:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge with Billy Mays - info on this page is not notable for its own page, but would fit well on his own article. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Appears notable and useful to me.--WillC 11:56, 9 July 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 merge to

Spartaz Humbug! 08:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Dixon Elementary School

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

Currently in the process of redirecting/merging these non-notable school articles. This article is likely controversial, it was kept during an afd in 2006 but the grounds for keeping it failed to cite useful policy matter, and ignored the fact that this article is unsourced and fails

WP:N. Recently a decision related to school articles determined that most Secondary schools are notable and that only a select few pre-secondary schools are notable. Marcusmax(speak) 14:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as above. There's no attempt to justify notability. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 00:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thrifty Beatnik

Thrifty Beatnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no reliable sourcing that discusses greek life in UCF so this clearly doesntr meet the GNG

Spartaz Humbug! 08:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Greek Life at the University of Central Florida

Greek Life at the University of Central Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Non-notable organization within a university with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources.

Indiscriminate list of fraternities and sororities. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

First Rudd Ministry (or whatever the current federal ministry is at the time), as per this AfD and linked discussion. Canley (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Current Australian Commonwealth ministry

Current Australian Commonwealth ministry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Per discussion at

Current Australian Commonwealth ministry. Timeshift (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deville (Talk) 01:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eamon Kavanagh

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

No indication that this person meets either

WP:ATHLETE. It was proposed for deletion in 2007, but the prod was removed on the basis of a BBC article about someone of the same name playing in the semi-professional league in Northern Ireland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 00:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuan Gemuk Athletic FC

Tuan Gemuk Athletic FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fixing incomplete nom by User:Frankie goh with the reason given "Article would have failed the notability criteria, as it is not a professional team nor one playing at the highest non-pro level.Frankie goh (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)". No opinion from me. CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without prejudice against recreation if something happens to make this incedent retrospectively encyclopedia-worthy. Flowerparty☀ 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compass Airlines Flight 2040

Compass Airlines Flight 2040 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, fails

WP:NEWS. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

General Criteria - It involves unusual circumstances (Cabin crew started fire deliberately) The aviation professionals are dismissed or severely reprimanded for their related actions. (The aviation professional was dismissed for his actions)
Air Carrier Criteria - It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier. (Compass Air is a scheduled or charter air carrier) It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian target. This could be seen as a being on a par with terrorist activities. It is the first, deadliest, or most significant accident for a particular airline or aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 00:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ear Works

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

Non-notable software product, pretty much just an advertisement, no reputable sources for any of the content, apparently written entirely by the publisher of the software akaDruid (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of notability. --DAJF (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macrodevelopment

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

I searched for reliable sources for this evolutionary theory and came up blank. It seems to have some fans in the intelligent design movement, but it's not a notable scientific theory. Fences&Windows 15:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:FRINGE. No independent reliable sources. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Most of the arguments for keeping appear to rely on assumptions, novel interpretations or

WP:IAR. While there is nothing inherently wrong with such arguments (IAR is policy, after all), it is difficult to afford them as much weight as arguments more solidly grounded in the fact that it lacks multiple sources that are reliable and independent. There are a few arguments for merging but they are not amply persuasive at this point. If someone can identify an appropriate target and obtain consensus at the talk page of said target that a merge there is appropriate I am okay with restoring for that purpose (and I am willing to provisionally restore for the sake of such a discussion if it takes place). Shereth 14:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Out of the Blue (Yale University)

Out of the Blue (Yale University) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a student group. As attractive as it may look, the topic is non-notable. All sources are from the university website or YouTube.

TM 15:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Are you sure you're not mistaking 'External links' for 'References'? The majority of the references come from secondary sources -- primary sources have been inserted only where no secondary source exists. (Also, I'm not sure if comparison is an argument in-and-of itself, but Wikipedia pages exist for many other Yale a cappella groups, which makes me think this one should be acceptable as well.) Rofreg 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article has now been edited such that 5 of the 8 references are external, and from credible sources such as a regional television station and the United States embassy in Ukraine. Equartey (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is very deceiving. Where is the "significant coverage"? The only source that is reliable and secondary is the news channel. Otherwise, everything is published by a school newspaper (either Yale or Choate) or not significant, like the mention on the US embassy website podcast.--
TM 20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, just because
TM 20:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Aha, I'm sorry -- I suspected there might be a guideline like Other stuff exists, but I couldn't find it. Thanks for pointing me there. Still, I think this group should qualify as notable, as it's performed on national television and toured internationally, but I understand that as it stands the article is somewhat lacking. I'll attempt to assemble some more notable sources over the next few days. Rofreg (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The group will have independent sources at inter-state or international level covering their appearances, that're sometimes at functions with various dignitaries; naturally there's only so much a source can say in its coverage.
  2. Sometimes a neutral tone can be hard to reach because, inevitably, these groups act as a public relations showpiece for a school. However, it is possible.
  3. Typically, these established groups will have released multiple albums. They may have competed at international level.
  4. The groups may form an integral part of the university's history, or be tied up with its sporting background.
For this reason, they should be covered. Where covering them in sufficient detail would overburden the parent (institution) article, a
sub-article is appropriate. For younger groups, or those having done less of note (at least as far as sources report), a brief description in the parent article can suffice. From my scan of the article, in this case that doesn't apply and the article should be kept and improved. –Whitehorse1 14:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Changing to Weak Delete. I've wavered here. There are fifteen official Yale a cappella groups, aaand it seems each and every one has an article (inc. the youngest, Shades). Regarding this one, there is coverage. What matters is whether it's substantial (or at least many instances of it), to establish whether the article is sufficiently notable for a standalone article. While sources exist, they must be more than mere mentions. Having searched on Lexis-Nexis as well as Google News I haven't found much: Providence Journal-Bulletin (Rhode Island) March 4, 1998 Foodwise: Watch chef make Atomic Grill's Key Lime pie. Byline: Donna Lee mentions they're performing at "the River Room singing classics of Gershwin, Cole Porter, and Duke Ellington...". From that we can say...Past performances [i.e. 1998] saw a repertoire of classics such as xyz.." That is a mere mention. There's Rita Braver of CBS News, speaking in 2004 (CBS News Transcripts, "Cue the chorus; a cappella groups are enjoying a new popularity on college campuses"), which states collegiate a cappella has enjoyed a surge in popularity in the last decade, and how this can lead to groups vying for audiences. There are 2 or so news items like that, which generally cover the Rush period where students find out if they'll make it into a group. The presenters might speak to them briefly, asking what group they're from, or naming a few people and reporting what group they joined. There are multiple sources, like those, that certainly go further than mentioning Out of the Blue among a list of groups, or note that they're playing somewhere. But I was unable to find real significant coverage on closer inspection of the sources I could find. –Whitehorse1 17:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteorMerge I agree that the article is clearly self-promotional. The acap singing culture at Yale College is certainly notable enough to justify an article, but most of the individual groups are not. If this content is to live anywhere on Wikipedia, I would think it should live on a page with all of the groups at Yale like it. Unfortunately for this group, this article does not cite and significant sources except the one mentioned and does demonstrate being notable outside of the greater Yale acap culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.120.138 (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 130.132.120.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime TC 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • MergeorKeep There are definitely many verifiable sources cited in the article, and a number of the sources seem more than trivial to me. I agree that they have trouble demonstrating significant notability beyond an an cappella sub-culture and their ties to Yale University, but I do not think deletion would be a suitable solution. Many articles related to collegiate a cappella seem to be in similar states of semi-notability (particularly in the case of other Yale a cappella groups, with the major exception being the Whiffenpoofs). To me, the question seems to be whether this group merits their own page, or if they would be more suited for an "a cappella" sub-article of Yale University, along with the other Yale a cappella singing groups. SmudgeTheFirst (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having quickly perused other Yale a cappella groups, I find this to be one of the more encyclopedic, though some of it does come across as self-promotional. I would lean towards Keep if the article could be rewritten and cut down, but again, after perusing the other Yale a cappella articles, I feel there is a bigger concern to be addressed here, as many of the others have been active as articles for far longer than this one, some with much less verifiable/non-trivial content. SmudgeTheFirst (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— SmudgeTheFirst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime TC 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Keep: The set of
    WP:MUSIC
    criteria by which the group should be judged should be “Others”, since it qualifies under the requirement “For composers and performers outside mass media traditions”. When measuring the group against the five criteria listed under “Other”, however, the unique circumstances of collegiate a cappella must be considered.

Collegiate a cappella often samples music in the ‘mass media tradition’, and so most groups would be hard pressed to fulfill the following:

  • (2) Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list.
  • (3) Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.
  • (4) Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre.

When discussing ‘notability’, it is helpful to take into consideration how the idea applies in the community under discussion. The largest competition in collegiate a cappella is the ICCA (International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella), and although there are hundreds of a cappella groups, it is groups which appear most often on the ICCA stage that are most recognized. One of the article references is the 2006 Results page of the ICCA website, where the group is listed as placing first in the Northeast Region 2006 ICCA Championship (the group was also awarded for best choreography).

Another measure of notability is the degree to which groups perform with more established artists. Here as well, the group exhibits notability, as evidenced by a reference to opening for the musician Ben Folds earlier this year.

A final measure of notability is the degree to which a group is referred to and consulted as an adequate source of information by reputable third parties. The group under discussion has been interviewed by or performed for WTNH Channel 8, WERS in Boston, CBS News Sunday Morning, and the Jane Pauley Show on NBC. This fact is as reasonably close as a collegiate a cappella group can get to satisfying requirements (1) Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique… and (5) Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

All the links mentioned appear as documented references in the article. Arguing for deletion on the basis that the group fails to meet the requirements under

WP:MUSIC is unreasonable, because the unique circumstances of collegiate a cappella makes it all but impossible for any group (save The Whiffenpoofs, perhaps) to make the cut. When notability is considered in the context of the collegiate a cappella sub-genre, however, the group under discussion performs adequately. Equartey (talk
) 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC) — Equartey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime TC 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yilloslime: Equartey, is the creator of the article, notified on their talkpage of this discussion, by the nominator.Whitehorse1 15:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whitehorse, s/he's still an spa, and the participants in this discussion and the closing admin may wish to take this fact into account. Yilloslime TC 15:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yilloslime, I'm not disagreeing with the technical accuracy of your point, or suggesting the notice wasn't applicable. I'm not suggesting they haven't made few or no other edits outside this topic; although, they are new. We all know what that tag under a post "suggests" about the account. I only wanted to add a clarifying note for anybody who may be reading the discussion, including any closing admin, to make clear that as the article's creator they had, presumably come here in response to their talkpage notice. –Whitehorse1 16:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with S Marshall about the article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, however I consider that to be a reason to delete. PhilKnight (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Scantlebury

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

Non-notable actor, fails

WP:ENTERTAINER. No sources found for this article and even seen in a minor TV roles. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 12:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

obvious advertising and a possible copyvio of http://www.quicklockforum.org/pdf/QN.pdf Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

HPQN Connector

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

No indication of how this product is notable. Reads like an advertisement. Provided references are either primary (to the developers company) or places you can buy the product. RadioFan (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete,
    obvious advertising: The HPQN allows denser packaging and can be rotated 360º while mating, thus it is more flexible.... Because of the fast speed, convenience and high performance, HPQN is in widespread use. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deville (Talk) 00:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Greenop

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

Disputed Prod. Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet

WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Djsasso (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Wake me 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Eric Knodel

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

Disputed Prod. Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet

WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry D'Amigo

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

Disputed Prod. Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet

WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levko Koper

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

Disputed Prod. Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet

WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Wake me 14:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Barron Smith

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

Disputed Prod. Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet

WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deville (Talk) 00:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spain national rugby league team

Spain national rugby league team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, fails

WP:ORG and purely no sources in this article. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I came here intending to huff and puff and insist it was an obvious keep, as an international side, but after a lot of Googling for relevant terms (including in Spanish sports papers like Sport.es, and for the French/Spanish alternative names "rugby de liga" and "rugby a 13"), I was surprised to come up with no coverage at all. No evidence that such a team even exists. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the AfD notice hadn't been added to the article page; I've inserted it with this edit. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've had my eye on this for a while, and for all the time I've spent looking for sources on mainland European rugby league, I've seen nothing at all about a Spanish national side.Rugbyhelp (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence whatsoever that such a team exists. No links are given, and I can find nothing online about a Spanish rugby league team. There is a Catalan rugby league team (for which a page already exists), and there is a Spanish rugby union team, but no rugby league team.--Timtranslates (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I saw this team play twice last year. I'd scan in my ticket but that would probably count as "original research. 174.146.255.7 (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Are you sure it wasn't a rugby union game? Please note there are two types of rugby: rugby league and union. The fact you had to buy a ticket for the game makes me think it must be union, because if a Spanish league side does exist, it must be in its infancy and would have been played on a local field somewhere without the need to pay to get in. Did they have lineouts (see: http://www.solarnavigator.net/sport/sport_images/Rugby_Union_Lineout_WvF_2004.jpg) when the ball went out of play?

Delete No evidence they exist.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nom makes a good case, and the article fails on at least two other speedy grounds (no context, and A7) Orderinchaos 12:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobman

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable comic book character. No evidence of existence, let alone notability, provided. Mattinbgn\talk 10:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and salt per
    WP:CSD#G4. Nothing worth keeping here. –Moondyne 12:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

A7 - no indication for importance or significance. SoWhy 10:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Taj Terra Productions

Taj Terra Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This biography of a musical performer has had two

Notability is not asserted and I can find no evidence of it from a web search. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I was assuming good faith, since the signed-in article creator has not removed speedy tags - that was done by an IP, and though it would be possible to jump to a conclusion about that I was refraining. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been speedy tagged three times now. Both the article creator and the IP removed speedy tags from what I can see in the history. Diffs: [[9]], [[10]], [[11]] --Taelus (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Author requested deletion). decltype (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finest Shield Game of them All

Finest Shield Game of them All (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Prod reason: "This term is not notable and hardly verifiable, as only one source actually uses this name apparently (Matches Of The Century by Don Cameron). Nothing about this on Google News or Google Books. If one single commentator uses a term to describe one game, it is far from sufficient to use that for an article. Something should be commonly known under that description to have such an article." Prod contested because "I don't think it should be deleted just because its name has not been common or used, it is a title that could become popular because of this page." This of course is the opposite of what Wikipeia is for: we report what is already notable, we don't make things notable which were obscure. Apart from the one book given above, the term is not in use at all[12][13][14].

Fram (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: I usually add my own rationale but Fram's nailed this one. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All deletes with some commments that didn't not change the consensus

247 07:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Pooja Gurung

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

Notability has not been asserted within the article. Associated acts are non notable itself. Apart from that, its Unreferenced and Fails

Hitro 17:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment If no reason has been given for notability, this should go to speedy deletion. Setwisohi (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article has been hanging around for more than 6 months and been edited by 3 or 4 different editors, I opted for AfD for better conclusion.
Hitro 18:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Did you check "Ways to spot article potential'" within
Hitro 09:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Let me ask you this: Have you ever bothered to perfrom a simple Google search on her ?. I did exactly that yesterday. While I was able to find some sources within the first few pages, some of them were scattered and therefore I decided to leave it there and engage the RS.These are some sources I found (though there are more)[15] [16]. You have the liberty on thinking whatever you want on my decision to "rescue" the article. --Roaring Siren (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[17] --Roaring Siren (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have had searched for the subject all over internet including Google Nepal.The references you are talking about don't make the subject notable. I hope you do not believe that anything that can be searched over Google should have a separate Wikipedia article. No matter you have thousands of Google hits, you can not be part of encyclopedia as an actor or media personality unless you satisfy
Hitro 16:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with you.
Hitro 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't figure out why she's notable, apparently fails
    says you, says me 13:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. toyed with no consensus but the argument that the articled meets MUSIC#6 hasn't really been refuted and deletion arguments are based more on GNG then MUSIC

Spartaz Humbug! 09:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Baxter (punk band)

Baxter (punk band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Troy's Bucket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Lost Voices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Baxter (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The band has only released one full-length album, is signed to non-notable independent record labels, and has not had any of its songs chart on a major music chart. In addition, the band is not covered significantly in reliable sources. It fails WP:Notability (music) Timmeh 03:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete including the three albums which I added. No notability per
    WP:MUSIC besides an otherwise notable member. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep – Meets
    WP:BAND criterion #6, with two notable members. The Chicago Tribune mentions their connection to Rise Against; I added that source just now. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, meets
    WP:MUSIC#C6.  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 10:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those who said keep under criterion #6 of
    WP:BAND should note that Neil Hennessy may not be notable. I've done a Google News search and found no significant coverage of him. Timmeh 14:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Being a member of multiple notable bands, Neil Hennessy is notable enough for our guidelines. (And that is documented in independent sources.) I know, it's the difficulty with these sorts of music articles when they come to AfD—we're suddenly having to research the potential notability of multiple articles' subjects all at once. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources you listed don't do much more than mention Hennessy, with three of four being Punknews.org articles. I think it may be wise to ignore the "two or more ensembles" criterion in this case; even though he is in at least two independently notable bands, it seems that he has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. An article on Hennessy likely wouldn't make it past stub class. Timmeh 17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think he's sufficiently notable, as there are multiple brief but non-trivial mentions. There is also coverage of him in the
          Daily Herald (May 30, 2008. p. 5 and Jun 6, 2008. p. 5 – both articles talk about him being a member of The Lawrence Arms and of Smoking Popes). Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I suggest you take a look at the closing rationale for a similar AFD I nominated here. I think King of Hearts makes a very good point in his closing explanation. Just because reliable sources mention someone in terms of their involvement in a notable band does not necessarily mean the member is independently notable. Timmeh 19:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I did see that, and it is a reasonable position to take (as is your position), although I'm not sure why that one wouldn't have been closed as a "redirect". One difference, though, is that multiple third-party sources have made mention of the connections with these artists, which I believe was not the case with the related articles in that other AfD. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I believe it wasn't closed as "redirect" because the band contained two members with articles. We'd be introducing bias if we redirected to only one or the other. You do have a good point about the sources, which makes me realize my case isn't rock solid. I'm sort of a deletionist, so maybe I'm biased when it comes to this, but I still believe the mentions of Hennessy are not significant enough to pass
                WP:N. Anyway, although we may differ in opinion on this particular case, you sure do make a good effort to rescue articles, and I applaud your good work. :) Timmeh 23:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
                ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I dont find the notable connection.
    WP:NOTADVOCATE. The artist referred to dont seem to quite reach up to notable so far. I did find one australian web news article reference. Tim McIlrath -article has lots of references, but mostly about gig dates, and do not really make for documentation on notable events, or musicians. Mindless lists of band members changing or tour and recording dates do not meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. Promo material belongs on other sites. Casimirpo (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

247 07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Kidson Force

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

I have nominated this page for deletion because I believe it was created in error. The creator was referring to Kisdon Force in the same area on the River Swale, and I believe that Kidson Force does not exist. Mick Knapton (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gets several hits from Google including Yorkshire Walks so appears to be correct rather than Kisdon Force which is further east. Keith D (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK Keith, I think it is a typo in that article, as the photo labelled "Kidson Force near Keld" is actually of Kisdon Force (I've been there). Its a similar photo to the top one in the Wikipedia article for Kisdon Force taken by me showing the main cascade and the top one in the background. However if you think Kidson Force exists I respect your decision but it is certainly not marked on the large scale Ordnance Survey maps. Mick Knapton (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the above: ::That co-ordinate for Kidson Force is almost 500 metres South West of the River Swale on the B6270 road near Thorns Farm, how can it be a waterfall on the River Swale with a co-ordinate of almost 500 metres away from that River. Try looking on Ordnances Survery Get a Map. Mick Knapton (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Using the coord link on the page, then following the Geograph link, it brings us here], just to the west of a small stream where I'd suggest that the waterfall is. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite an interesting link that, it shows six photographs of Kisdon Force and one of "Kidston Force" which is obviously a picture of Kisdon Force. Why does the article say a "Small waterfall on the River Swale" if its on a small side stream. The photograph in the article does not look like a small side stream. Why not just admit it that its a spelling mistake. Ever been to Swaledale, I go there regularly. Mick Knapton (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may have driven through Swaledale at some point. I was going by the coords given in the separate articles. I accept that I may be wrong here, needs a local expert. I'll ask at WP Yorkshire. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the interesting discussion Mjroots. My final point at this time, is that if it does exist and is not shown on the large scale Ordnance Survey map it could be deemed as not notable and could be deleted on
Notability. All the other waterfalls on the Swale around Keld are marked, even the small East Gill Force is marked as a "Falls". Regards Mick Knapton (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- The link here suggests that Kisdon and Kidson Force(s) are two different waterfalls.
    Hitro 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Those entries are based on our
List of waterfalls of the United Kingdom (which includes both names because of the existence of the article we're discussing here). All that the EyePlorer page suggests is confusion on Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
My Bad !!!! :(
Hitro 16:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deville (Talk) 02:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Rele

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

Article about a musician that doesn't assert or provide evidence of

conflict of interest. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - not even a stub.
    WP:NOTADVOCATE, no references, 0 news articles on google with "Matthew Rele", not (yet) notable historically. Casimirpo (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

247 07:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

CNG Refueling Station in Gujarat

CNG Refueling Station in Gujarat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOTE. Article covers one petrol station, not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

talk) 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Brownge

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

Prod contested by IP (only edit) without improvements or edit summary. Prod reason: "

Fram (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep.

247 07:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

2009 West Java airliner crash

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

Non-notable, fails

WP:NOTNEWS. Only a minor airliner accident appeared in local news. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 07:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


  • Comment - Both of these keep comments make a
    talk) 19:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

247 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Untitled debut album by Jason Castro

Untitled debut album by Jason Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violation of

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article itself doesn't seem quite sure that the album will be released in the fall of 2009. No source is given that mentions the exact date. And almost all of the sources are blogs and Twitter. Knowing how these things goes, it could be literally a year before anything is released. Just way way too vague and early for this User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 06:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

247 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Chloe Sonnenfeld

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. most of the coverage relates to passing mentions for appearing in 1 movie [38]. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

247 07:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Volha Satsiuk

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

fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. nothing on google news [39] and google search is mainly mirror and directory listings for appearing in Junior Eurovision. so

WP:ONEVENT also applies here. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep.

247 07:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Bai Chali Sasariye

Bai Chali Sasariye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to show notability (

coffee talk 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Despite the fact that you've decided to throw
    WP:CIVIL out the window ("silly straw men", "clearly false"), I'll do my best to not to respond to you in the same ignorant manner you used. I will continue to place my responses near the edit I am commenting on. It is logical to do so. As for the avoidance dance that you did while trying to misrepresent what I actually said...you said inclusion in "another encyclopaedia" indicates its encyclopaedicity. I pointed out two examples of encyclopedias that disprove that statement. I'm sorry that you missed the point or that your feelings got hurt when your fallicy was exposed (take your pick as to which one it was). If you have any other gripes or complains about where I place my responses or feel the need to make anymore personal attacks, please move to my talk page and stop littering this dicussion with your grafitti about your opinions about my choice of locations to respond. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The reference itself states that the article on this film is contained on a single page, so I called it a mention. I really don't care if you like my choice of wording or not. Further, other "mentions" (your choice of words, not mine) are irrelevent to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to say that to keep an article in encyclopaedia, do we need a single person's choice or if it follows the required citation, then there is no question for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalit82in (talk • contribs) 09:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article has enough sourcing to show it as the most successful Rajasthan film in the period from 1990 through 2005. Considering the area is not known for their film industry, I am encouraged to remember
    WP:CSB and that it does not matter to wikipedia that it might not made splash headlines in the New York Times. Anybody have a copy of the 1988 Rajasthani Gazette, or whatever non-English sources covered their most successful film in 15 years? And has anyone checked the various spelling permutations that occur with translation to English? The article may never be more than a stub, but it's an acceptable and encyclopedic stub. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep The movie is one of most successful and popular Rajasthani language films. I have grown up in Rajasthan and can vouch for its popularity and notability. There may not be hundreds of thousands of internet citations because the internet was not in much use then in 1989 and even now in that region. Please read 438 and 446 of Encyclopaedia of Indian cinema By Ashish Rajadhyaksha, Paul Willemen, National Film Archive of India to know more about the film.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above plus the fact that the movie created a history in Rajasthan cinema as it ran for 100 days. Salih (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

247 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Marco Pelosi

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

Footballer who apparently fails

WP:ATHLETE. Although he started his career at Hearts, he never played in a competitive match per Soccerbase or London Hearts. He played in pre-season friendlies and was only an unused substitute in a few SPL matches. Subsequent to that he played on loan at East Fife and then Raith Rovers, who were playing in either of the two lower semi-professional divisions of the Scottish Football League. Not otherwise notable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

247 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Dominic Holmes

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. only 1 gnews hit for appearance on Coronation St (his supposed claim to fame) [41]. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 01:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frontside Promotions

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

Article has no independent sources, and was so-tagged since Dec 2008. So, it fails

WP:CORP. Article is mainly promotional. They've worked with famous groups/people, but so have lots of other non-notable organizations. Rob (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

That the wording reads like an advertisement is something that can and will be changed, but I do not believe that this justifies the deletion of this article. First and foremost, Frontside Promotions Group IS the largest independent promotions company in Canada. This statement is based on the fact that the promotion for most major U.S. artists is either handled in-house by an artist's record label or through a U.S.-based promotion company. It is also based on Frontside Promotion Group's client list, which includes Motley Crue (publicity, radio promotion, and Crue Fest promotion), Barenaked Ladies (publicity and radio promotion), Sum 41 (radio promotion), and Hinder (radio promotion). Frontside is also hired by the Canadian government to promote Canadian Blast ([42], [43]), a government-led initiative that highlights Canadian music internationally through media and live performances.

Aside from a list of clients (that can be found in this article), the most relevant evidence for the notability of Frontside Promotions Group would be their radio chart numbers (Billboard, Nielsen BDS, & Mediabase certified), and I will post those numbers once I have received them. As of now, I only know that Frontside has brought Sum 41, State of Shock, Drowning Pool, The Airborne Toxic Event, Metric, The Midway State, and Hinder to Top 20, Top 10, and #1 spots. Exact years and highest rank on radio charts per track will be posted when they are made available to me. Evidence of affiliation can also be found for the following artists: The Proclaimers (prominently featured at the bottom), State of Shock (within the biography), and House of Doc.

External organizations that have recognized Frontside's work include:
-

SOCAN (Canada's Performing Rights Organization
), for whom managing partner Gary McDonald has given lectures on marketing as well as presented for their "Dinner Music" web-series.
- The Music BC Industry Association's Board of Directors, to which managing partner Geoff Goddard has been accepted.
- The PEAK Performance Project, for which Frontside's product manager Erin Kinghorn is a member of the faculty.
- The Western Canadian Music Awards, which nominated Frontside Promotions Group for "Independent Publicist/Radio Promoter" of the year in 2004, less than 1 year after Frontside was founded.
- The Transmission Music Conference, which selected a Frontside managing partner as 1 of only 29 delegates from prominent Canadian music companies to attend the conference in China.
- Canada's International Music Convention "Canadian Music Week," which identified artist manager Vince Ditrich in their list of "Movers and Shakers."
- The New Music West - Music Industry Conference, at which multiple members of the Frontside team have presented to other music industry professionals.
- Freedom To Groove, which awarded Frontside a PromoFACT award in April 2004, and for whom managing partner Geoff Goddard served on a panel in November 2004.


I hope that you have found my response helpful and will reconsider the deletion of this article. Thank you.

User:Red Vinyl 8:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bad faith nom. Nom apparently made in good faith, but with bad timing. Smashvilletalk 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairmount Cemetery

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

This is a disambiguation for a cemetery in which only one blue-linked article exists along with a red-link. Even if both were blue, it should be handled with headnotes. See

WP:DISAMBIG. This should be a routine housekeeping matter. However, it was created by a serial creator of inappropriate disambiguation pages and it is going to take weeks to go through them all. Delete Drawn Some (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Sounds like you are doing more wikistalking. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the stalkee or "serial creator of inappropriate disambiguation pages" in this and several other AFDs over the past days. User:Drawn Some appears to be trying to punish me for refuting his arguments at the bilateral relations AFDs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two are currently blue links, and neither one is obviously more important than the other, so a dab page seems reasonable to me. (Yes, the article on the Newark cemetery is longer at the moment, but the Denver cemetery seems to have some historical significance, as well. [44]) Zagalejo^^^ 06:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. I mean Keep. Per
    -- Banjeboi 08:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - its a dab page, its needed. I thought that was basic. Patchy1Talk To Me! 10:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Benji. Crafty (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep per all the above. This is one of multiple articles started by Richard Arthur Norton
    T/C) 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Recommend a new AfD to garner more consensus if concerned. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ID Flow, Label Flow and Lobby Track

ID Flow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Label Flow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lobby Track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Three software products from the same company. Little evidence of notability for any of them. Sgroupace (talk) 02:18, 23 June 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) 00:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @279  ·  05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Two deletes (including nom) and three keeps, hardly consensus

247 07:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Syed Abu Bakar B Taha Alsagoff

Syed Abu Bakar B Taha Alsagoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Delete, non notable zero hits

talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @277  ·  05:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems like a clear keep per refs in article and DGG's. Obviously an arabic or malay speaker will be needed to improve it. 21:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. F&W's recent improvements to the article are enough to warrent the keeping of this article. (X! · talk)  · @033  ·  23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hands Off the People of Iran

Hands Off the People of Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability/encyclopedic relevance, entire article is pretty much unsalvageable biased/vanity material. Delete, but if you must keep, stub--Tznkai (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've tried to strip out some of (what I think are) the more egregious breaches of
    WP:NPOV with a view to salvaging this marginal article. I've noted as such on the article talkpage. I'm not yet persuaded that it deserves to survive this AfD, so I'll hold off with a !vote for now. Crafty (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I didn't add anything without a source. I'll look for sources on the date of the conference and the affiliated groups. Fences&Windows 14:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I hadn't noticed that the unsourced material was pre-existing. However, it does constitute the bulk of the article, with your new sources only verifying a very narrow slice of it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the HOPI website verify affiliations and supporters? Fences&Windows 01:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does, but it is not third-party, so confers no notability. And that still leaves large swathes unreferenced. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article can be whittled down, but I believe this meets notability requirements, and is a reasonably large movement with clear potentiality for encyclopedic documentation. -- QUANTUM ZENO 21:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Hopi has received plenty of coverage, not least from people opposed to it. This needs to be more laboriously sourced, perhaps, but it is certainly a medium-sized fish in the pond of the British anti-war movement. A deletion would be pointless. Commander deathguts (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources are good enough and this is a notable subject.Biophys (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish Delete I am not entirely certain why english language encyclopedia should contain article on the several hundred people strong movement based in United Kingdom that have managed to organize an demonstration once? Is there some historical effect achieved, I cannot find, and such are not recorded in the article either, so notability is questionable. Casimirpo (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted

WP:G10 by User:DGG. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Dumbski

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not for neologisms, especially racially inflammatory ones. Vicenarian (T · C) 05:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This can be speedied, I think.--Tznkai (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why not just redirect the page to
    chat 05:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There isn't any sourcing here. The ethnic slurs page requires sourcing. I think this is just
made up. Vicenarian (T · C) 05:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete I can't find the use of the term in this manner outside forums which doesn't count as reliable sources.--Lenticel (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essentially split down the middle and its 2nd nomination. Give it a rest for a while or work on the article to fix issues.

247 07:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Senior G8 leader

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

Unsourced, original research imho. Moreover, the article doesn't make clear what's the relevance of this role. Jaqen (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against deletion

1) Sources -- Most of the information on this list is based on readily verifiable information. I will add references.

2) Relevance -- What is the relevance of "List of State Leaders by Date"? Of "List of current United States governors by denomination"? List of "Deans of the United States Senate"? All of these have no practical "relevance", so to speak, but merely serve as references for those interested in a particular subject (e.g., journalists, writers, students, commentators). A quick Google search for "Senior G8 leader" should indicate how often that title is cited and used in other articles.

3) No "quick trigger" reflex -- As a matter of policy, we should be careful not to be so hasty as to remove articles such as this one: it's been around for a while (over 2 years), has been edited frequently by a number of commentators, is the only compilation of its kind, and is a topic of international interest. Wikipedia policy has been and should be to remove articles only when they are narrowly focused, edited infrequently, and do not have a long history -- in other words, when they are so insignificant and/or personal to the author that they are clearly not of general interest. It is dangerous to be so rash and remove broad-based, community-edited, general interest articles for no real reason.

Memworking (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Memworking[reply]

1) I'd be happy of that!
2) 218 results... State leaders do have relevance, G8 leaders obviously too. The problem is that it is totally unclear what's the specific relevance of the senior G8 leader. Should we create also Junior G8 leader?
3) More that 2 years and still the article has no sources and no information about the relevance of the role... Anyway, there's time to discuss. --Jaqen (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above. The Terminator (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a helpful list.Biophys (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. First of all the name is horribly misleading. It implies some sort of additional powers that the person has when all it is is the longest serving leader in the G8. The previous AfD indicated some sources that seemed to show that the length of service was a factor in an "order of precedence" at G8 summits. The best source I can find for this seems to be here [45], which is confusing because Tony Blair is listed first, not Jacques Chirac (who was the longest serving leader at the time). I presume this is because it was the UKs turn at hosting the summit so they were automatically at the top of the pile as it were. Importantly, I can't see any sources that particularly explain this 'precedence' and there is no evidence that it actually affects anything. Looking through the photographs from G8 summits it doesn't seem to come into it with the order they stand (another point from the previous AfD). The other sources that were quoted in the previous AfD all just note that a particular person has been the longest serving - given the amount of news around G8 summits it's not surprising that this gets mentioned occasionally, but it's not exactly extensive coverage. I can just about see the benefit in the list, as it is easily verifiable information that may be of interest to some. (Incidentally, looking at the traffic for the page it went up about 10 times once it was listed for AfD! - [46]). I suggest that the article is renamed to List of longest serving G8 leaders.
    talk) 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete There do not seem to be significant sources to support this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

247 07:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

James Geiss

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

This article is unreferenced and a possible hoax. Google returns no references to a James Geiss associated with whaling, except for Wikipedia mirrors ([47]). Google Scholar ([48]) and Google News also turn up no mentions of this person. I've also been unable to find any references in Factiva to substantiate any of the article contents. His mention in the Whaling article was added by a SPA with no other edits (diff). Suggest deletion as either a hoax or a person who doesn't meet WP's notability guidelines. Muchness (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Bumped into this while looking into the suspected hoax tag on [Bjorn Sigurdsson]. That discussion and this one may end up being related...? Commentors might want to glance at the (small) discussion running on that article's talk page as well; maybe someone can shed light on both at once. Coanda-1910 (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

247 07:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Jamie Spaniolo

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

DELETE due to an extreme lack of notability. I find it rather ridiculous that this

WP:BLP article is citing a self-published book and a myspace page for sustenance. JBsupreme (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

*Delete Agree with nom. I see no notability Corpx (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC) :This interview with the guy does provide some coverage, so I'm changing my vote to Neutral Corpx (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which part of WP:MUSIC grants notability? Corpx (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The artist passes:
      • 2. Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart. (Phatso)
      • 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
      • 6. Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians. (Psychopathic Rydas, Dark Lotus, Twiztid) Juggalobrink (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juggalobrink, the source you refer to is a myspace website. http://www.myspace.com/twiztid. That, coupled with a self-published book, is simply not permissible under
    WP:BLP policy. JBsupreme (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'm actually refering to sources within the Twiztid wiki-page itself, with two interviews with Jamie where he speaks briefly on himself and his early career (sources #9 and #16). But that's just from the article, there are more citations to be found on the web, I was just refering to the article as an example. Juggalobrink (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has that been confirmed by a reliable secondary source? What chart did the album/single chart on? Corpx (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The positions are confirmed by Allmusic which doesn't require a secondary source, but yes it is also confirmed by Billboard. The album charted on the Billboard 200, Top Heatseekers, Top Independent Albums, and Top Rap Albums. Juggalobrink (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good enough for me. Keep Corpx (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Talk 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Proxio

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

No further sign of notability, no sources. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No third-party sources presented, and all I can find on google is several hundred copies of the same press release. (Most hits for Proxio are for a different company.) No notability independent of its parent company Volvo, in whose article it doesn't merit a mention; and even a redirect would be improper, since there's at least two other companies named Proxio that are at least as notable. —Korath (Talk) 14:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Lounge raid

Rainbow Lounge raid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bar, One Event, and Recentism. Article should be deleted as it is one event and recentism. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Sorry, this is huge news coupled with the poor timimg with the 40th Annivesrasy of the
    -- Banjeboi 07:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - Article is about the event, not the bar... so we should follow whatever the going standard is for articles about events (will defer to more knowledgeable editors there).
    talk) 09:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I have read it. Have you read
    WP:ONEEVENT if you want. All the coverage all comes back to one event. Without that one event, this would be just another gay bar that nobody outside of the local area heard of. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep for the time being, but watch; the news may fizzle out . This event has been fairly well covered in the press since it occurred . I have seen a lot of discussions in blogs and the like . It is certainly not
    WP:NOTNEWS. -- Scheaffer Sirls user talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC).[reply
    ]
  • Comments I don't know enough about Wikipedia's critera to say for sure if this article meets it's criteria for a separate article. The investigation is continuing and the US Attorney is now investigating, so I would ask that we wait a few weeks and see how that goes before deleting it. Markg65 (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about the 651 (Rainbow Lounge) history I have some comments about the Rainbow Lounge's history that the press hasn't mentioned yet. The Rainbow Lounge might only be a couple of weeks old, but the very small building it's in (1200 square feet?) has quite a local history to LGBT people and Fort Worth police. The address is 651 South Jennings, just south of downtown Fort Worth. It was Fort Worth's first gay bar in the early 80's. Gay bars were still illegal in Fort Worth when it opened. The first bar was a Country Western bar with no visible signs in an abandoned industrial strip. It was called 651, completely dark with just 651 over the door which was the address number. It was raided and harassed by the Fort Worth Police for years. Gay bashing was popular as the police would stand by and laugh as people drove by and yelled and threw things at people going into the bar. There was an incident where two customers were shot and killed walking from the 651. A local judge gave them a light sentence and specifically said it was because they had killed gay men to keep them from spreading aids. The bar has a history of closing and reopening, mostly because harassment of customers. (People just drive to Dallas's gay strip instead). The 651 had been closed for about 2 years and just re-opened as a dance style bar (not Country and Western as it previously had been). Many locals believe the Fort Worth police raided the first week to scare everyone off and get the bar closed again. I really wish the national media would report on this history. Markg65 (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now. The bar may not be notable, but the event seems to have
    coverage for inclusion. I say we reserve judgement for later, i.e., when more information is in the article - but even then, with the links, I think we've got a keeper. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep for now, NN bar but notable event - see News search. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Reprint of details added to article's discussion page:

1) Is the event important or newsworthy? YES: Multiple major news networks are covering the event, and it touches on strong themes in society such as (unverified) police brutality and (unverified) gay persecution.

2) Does the article site sources? YES: All major points in the article are sited in the appropriate footnotes.

3) Does the article take a neutral voice? YES: Though this could be cleaned up a bit, and additional information added, there is no definite bias to the information presented, nor is the tone of the article in first-person, third-person, etc. No "weasel words" are used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.246.246 (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a friendly note. Please remember that you don't want to turn this into a
soapbox issue. This page is for discussion of whether to keep or delete the listed entry. It looks like a clear keep, so adding related stories and opinions not directly related to the current discussion isn't the best idea in my opinion. Wperdue (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply
]
Comment I understand what you mean. The only reason I put them here is that I felt like they are direct fallout from the Rainbow Lounge Raid. But if you feel they are too far removed, you can remove them. Thanks, Mark Markg65 (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

247 07:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Angela Halamandaris

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

Notability only in relation to The Heart of America Foundation. Page right now reads a lot like self-promotion. I suggest Delete and merge any relevant info into the foundation page. Sasquatch

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the week and the new content, I'm still inclined to say Merge because notability is almost wholly related to the running of her foundation. The foundation itself is already on sketchy ground and I see no need for this biographical article which includes information only on her foundation and some minor charity work... Sasquatch t|c 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

247 07:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Certified (Lil' Flip and Gudda Gudda album)

AfDs for this article:
Certified (Lil' Flip and Gudda Gudda album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN album, hasn't charted. →ROUX ₪ 21:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, but MERGE into

Lil Flip (especially since Gudda Gudda is perhaps NN and only featured on the album).--Junius49 (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Talk 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Kimo Wall

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

Non-notable martial artist, unsourced BLP. JJL (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

247 07:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Grenada–Russia relations

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

hardly any coverage of actual bilateral relations, almost all multilateral. [49] Pre 1990 relations can be covered in

Grenada-Soviet relations. For those who love to scrape trivia into these bilateral articles, there's a Russian band called Grenada, I sincerely hope no editor thinks helps establish notability. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Furniture Warehouse

United Furniture Warehouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page reads like an advert. The previous version (April 2009) did not assert notability, and was little more than an advert. Martin451 (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Article has been almost completely rewritten and nominators concerns seem to have been alleviated. –xenotalk 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Talk 03:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Morgan Eastwood

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. She has only had two films appearances and it was only as extras. Fails

talk) 02:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @033  ·  23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers of all time

AfDs for this article:
Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers of all time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Twice deleted article that is a blatant copyright violation. CarbonX (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk 03:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Atheist (disambiguation)

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

Do two Articles really warrant a disambiguation? KMFDM FAN (talk!) 01:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk) 00:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Chile–Ireland relations

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

noting that Ireland doesn't have an embassy in Chile (even though Chile is one of the economic powers of South America). distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mostly sport and bilateral [50]. there's this article but it would be pure

synthesis to say that actually means bilateral relations. and their football sides played in 2006, and I know of at least one editor who would think this counts for notability, clearly not. Coverage of acceptance of refugees...Western European nations since WWII have taken refugees from wars and political turmoil from all around the world, we don't report every instance in Wikipedia, especially a relatively low number. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

247 07:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Tim Baldermann

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

Non-notable politician who serves as the "part time" mayor of a small city in Illinois of about 20,000. Seems to fail

WP:N criteria, could possibly be merged into the cities article but even that doesn't seem all that possible. Marcusmax(speak) 02:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor coverage in the local papers (who have to cover local events) doesn't say notable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @034  ·  23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Conviasa Boeing 737 crash

2008 Conviasa Boeing 737 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, fails

WP:NOTNEWS. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep-It was a crash, and although most plane crashes will never be on this site, this one involved a commercial airliner.
talk) 01:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Ok, you've pointed out (at least) twice that you helped write it. Great. Then I'll change what I said. I'll say that I feel your criteria is wrong and is too broad if it includes an event like this. Then point out that it is an essay and not a policy so, while helpful, it does not have to be followed, therefore can't really be "violated". Better? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better. Obviously, I disagree but you now have a good argument to support your point of view - one that stands a much better chance of getting the article deleted! And, yes, I was getting fed up repeating myself to people who felt what it said wasn't what it really said, if you get what I said... ;) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
WP:NOT#NEWS, and if the article can't pass under anything other than an opinion that all fatal accidents should have their own page, it should be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep - Reply for Mansford: When a fatal airliner accident occurs, a country's aircraft accident investigation authority (sometimes the same as the civil aviation authority) will investigate it and determine why it happened, and come up with measures to prevent it. Because of the inherent processes from civil aviation authorities and accident investigation authorities to come up with measures to prevent future occurrences, all fatal aircraft accidents are notable. This is why the WP:AIRCRASH essay is used by the project. Check the Venezuelan aviation authority's pages to see any announcements about this incident. Also, check Spanish language newspapers, who documented this incident. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are several of us who believe that
WP:AIRCRASH sets the bar too low. We are discussing a revised version on the talk page, and would value your input. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I suppose I could see in what ways WP:AIRCRASH could be changed. IMO it sets the bar right in terms of fatal accidents. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep commercial airliner on an international flight crashes into volcano, no doubt will have much coverage and investigative reports from both countries and the country of manufacture as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @034  ·  23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunted Villa

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

No coverage in reliable sources; fails

WP:NF. Previously deleted via PROD but recreated by same user. PC78 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedias are done by language, rather than country. The Korean one is at http://ko.wikipedia.org/ --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I hope they come forward. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:47, 3 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) 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability and coverage in sources.
    247 07:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

247 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Billy Brandt

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

The only thing in the article I see as a possible claim for notability is the "Freshman of the Year" award by a magazine. Lacking any other secondary sources that give more coverage, I'm hesitant about this, considering the amount of original research in the article. The books mentioned (and cited) are from a primary source - the movie production company itself. Corpx (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which movie is iconic/groundbreaking/blockbuster feature? Corpx (talk) 06:40, 5 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 00:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. His "award" was a fan vote from a magazine that I'm considering nominating for AfD after looking at it's article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Bradley (pornographic actor)

Benjamin Bradley (pornographic actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Gay pornstar with no notability Corpx (talk) 22:03, 30 June 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 00:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Many questionable !votes from new accounts muddy the consensus.

Talk 03:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Lombardia Autonoma

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

New politic party without notability, nor any representation. See also [51] , AfD in it.wiki Invitamia (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On it.wiki, +1 is a vote to delete and -1 is a vote to keep, for those who follow the link.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 14:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow me to spell it out further. This is a brand new political party that has run in two city elections in Italy and received less than 1/2 of 1% of the vote in each. I personally have participated in the creation of political parties in the Buffalo NY area that run for election in a city once or twice and receive many times that vote, and I would never dream of creating a Wikipedia page for the Integrity Party or the Sardinia First Party.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The party has some clout in Italy and its leader gained many votes in list with the
    Pole of Autonomy in the last European Parliament election in Lombardy. As it.Wiki is almost an unreliable source, I don't see how a deletion there can be a reason for deleting an article in en.Wiki. The party is notable and it is useful to understand the various splits of Lega Nord. --Checco (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. It contested an election, that is grounds enough for notability. —Nightstallion 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pointers to significant independent coverage by recognized, serious and reliable sources would help one decide. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Next year it will be present to the Lombardy regional elections, what will we do then? Obviously reopen this page. So at this point we can already leave the page. --Stefand (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a young political movement, but expressing new ideas coming from the Lombard society. It will be present to the next regional general elections and thus it shall be menetioned again in the close future. Moreover deleting political parties does not respect the freedom of expressions in my opinion. --Tbusato (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has presented a list for Milan city council, and it's part of Pole of Autonomy that contested last European elections in Italy.--79.35.129.214 (talk) 08:27, 1 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 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where are the reliable sources for this? I'll change my !vote if sources come up, but I'm just not seeing any. Tavix |  Talk  02:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I'm going to interpret Peridon's comment as a "weak keep" so I don't have to say "no consensus". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tobias

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

Non-notable small-scale investor and self promoter, so fails to meet

WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJeffMa (talk • contribs) — WikiJeffMa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits
outside this topic.

  • I agree with the sentiment, in my scan of the sources I found, there was negative coverage too. I think it is important to incorporate this sort of material into the article as well...NPOV means presenting all perspectives that have substantial coverage in reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 02:05, 1 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 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Talk 03:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Chkeiban

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

Jared555 (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note this was nominated for speedy deletion under criterion
G4
speedy deletion for recreation of deleted content.
The article itself is a sub-sub-stub about a Lebanese family name, but the author does not know the origin of the name or the family. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Appologize for not listing a reason. I nominated this as there are no references and no indication of this being a notable subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared555 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 June 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) 00:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

247 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Mr. SOS

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

Fails

Tan | 39 19:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

"Offline, his freestyle battles became the catalyst for national attention, with everyone from local radio stations like 99 Jamz to The Source Magazine vying to give him exposure. A controversial appearance on the televised Source Soundlab’s Unsigned Hype Battle was the catalyst for a brief battle with Benzino over a fixed win and money owed. The beef was diffused, and SOS appeared on The Source’s Unsigned Hype DVD, as well as the Beef DVD series."[1] Messs17 (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —LedgendGamer 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as "an article about a rapper that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." -
    says you, says me 13:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Two deletes that are good as based on inclusion criteria.

247 07:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Rollin 30's

AfDs for this article:
Rollin 30's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. I'm not impressed by the current limited sourcing, either. JBsupreme (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmini Peries

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

Article has

WP:ORPHAN status. Appears to be an article of self-promotion or other similar un-wikipedia-like nonsense. I just cannot find any valid reason why this article exists. Timneu22 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 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) 00:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reads like a resume and two of the reference links are dead. Hasn't been mentioned in any reliable news sources. –blurpeace (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Sacramento Public Library. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folsom Public Library

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

3rd nom, last closed as withdrawn by nom for procedural reasons. However, consensus seemed clear-ish for a merge, which is what I'm advocating here. However don't want to implement unilaterally following 2 AfDs. I don't think there's independent notability as there's no evidence this is anything but a run-of-the-mill library, which lacks inherent notability. Thoughts? StarM 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question- If you wanted a merge, why are we here? Why not just open up a merge discussion? Umbralcorax (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer because it's been here three times and discussed by people who aren't necessarily watching the article. I think it's only fair to get general input (such as those who have !voted before) rather than the small subset of those who watch the talk or requested merges. StarM 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as usual--I think with Sacramento Public Library, with which it is affiliated. Folsom is a small city of 70,000, and public libraries in such places are usually not notable. DGG (talk) 15:06, 2 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 00:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Insufficient coverage to comply with

WP:BAND. ~ mazca talk 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Needmore (band)

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

Delete fails

WP:BAND, seems to be more an advertisement for the band than an article about them, sourced to their website, youtube, and myspace, but no independent references or indication of notability: the authors of the page have a clear COI and while the article states that the band "strives to constantly push eachother to emotional breakage points, always taking their songwriting to the next irritating level", that is not particularly notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 6 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) 00:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Three deletes. If the editor who wishes to merge wants I will make the text available to them so that any text that passes inclusion criteria can be merged.

247 07:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Young Australians Tourism Association

Young Australians Tourism Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG. no third party coverage [55]. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merge as Tourism Western Australia is an official Government agency (thus would have an annual budget, annual report etc) whilst Young Australians Tourism Association is basically a club. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks third party references from independent sources. Appears to be more "non-notable association running networking events" than "peak industry body". Murtoa (talk) 07:23, 1 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) 00:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Murtoa. Can confirm Tourism Western Australia is an official arm of the Government of Western Australia; this is more akin to a student guild or limited-membership social organisation. (They have nice breakfasts, though.) Orderinchaos 11:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hezekiah M. Washburn

Hezekiah M. Washburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While I am sure that he is a fine human being, I can't see where the subject passes notability standards. As an author, his book A Knight in the Congo (also nomintated for deletion) ranks #3,701,636 at Amazon and there is a lack of reviews or reliable sources on it. Ghits for Washburn result in just over 500 returns, mostly wikipedia, its mirrors and geneology sites. Gnews comes up with no returns. The article itself asserts no notability aside from the aforementioned book and allegedly being called a knight by the King of the Congo, but the article can't source it and can only approximate what year it happened in. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Writing one book and being a missionary does not satisfy
    notability in general. Found nothing promising at Google book search, or at Google News Archive. Agree, he sounds like he was a fine person. Edison (talk) 15:59, 30 June 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) 00:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:BIO. No assertion of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 two deletes I agree with.

247 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Winchester White

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

Non-notable, further evidence of finding reliable sources. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is purely promotional and contains no encyclopedic information about the organization in question. . .

talk) 19:33, 3 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) 00:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhanshu ji maharaj

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

Borderline promotional of the subject's philosophy and philosophical centers. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:50, 30 June 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) 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @034  ·  23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grapefruit—Juicy Fruit

Grapefruit—Juicy Fruit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested redirect (to album article). Doesn't meet

WP:NSONGS, no indication of charting or awards. RadioFan (talk) 11:41, 30 June 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) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not finding chart history for this song on Billboard's website and the reference given in the article is to a blog, not a reliable source.--RadioFan (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The covers you mention dont do much to establish notability here either,
WP:NSONGS asks for covers from multiple notable artists.--RadioFan (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment If you search Billboard's site with a song title, you can access summary chart info for specific songs for a specific week without a membership (you are correct that an expensive membership is required to see the entire chart for a particular week). That archive goes back to at least 1950. The fact that no chart information is coming up for any search combination I've tried on this title leads me to believe that it didnt chart as is claimed by the fans sites in question and that incorrect info has spread as new fans sites copy this information from others. Fan sites are not known for their fact checking.--RadioFan (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I'd go for a redirect or merge (sans chart statement) into the album article. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because the information sought for wasn't found at one particular source doesn't mean the other source is unreliable. It's common knowledge you need a membership to access. Obviously not all records are shown on the free trial. What's the point of that? Furthermore, did anybody think to contact the cited sources which supposedly "aren't reliable"? Perhaps they could steer you in the direction to convince you of reliability? Probably wouldn't be good enough anyway. Well in that case, you got a long list of Beatles songs to delete since they didn't chart and have articles out in wikipedia. I mean, that's what you're here to do, right? You're not here to help expand, you're here to throw away. RadioFan claimed earlier that s/he couldn't find any charting information. I show charting information, and it's not good enough. What a joke. Did you ever consider maybe putting in a little more effort than to delete stuff? Obviously you're not researching hard enough to find notability when it's pretty easy to find. When the work is done for you, it's not good enough. These standards are laughable. I can't believe this is like a city counsel meeting. You guys must feel really important. Geeky Randy (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa there - One, sources don't get to "convince" us that they're reliable -- they either pass
    WP:CIVIL. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak delete - Lacks reliable sources to verify notability, article is completely original research. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems to be a general agreement that the subject does not yet meet notability requirements. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Hendry

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

Concerns about

notability - no obvious assertion of what makes him important or encyclopaedic (I now live in fear of thespian 'pedians thwacking me ;-)). Had been speedy'd around July 5th, was recreated and new speedy tag was declined due to presence of sources. Saalstin (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

247 07:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

United We Serve

United We Serve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unclear of any notability claim; this seems to be just an incidental web page that collects information on government volunteer programs LotLE×talk 06:37, 30 June 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) 00:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence or claim of notability. JJL (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... I guess per nom, since that's me :-). LotLE×talk 21:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JESS3

JESS3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 04:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as nom. -
    The Vulcan Overlord
    16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I am the author of this page and I would like to defend its inclusion on Wikipedia. Regardless of my conflict of interest, I have included numerous sources and I believe JESS3 is worthy of an article on the site. The company has had several high profile clients over the years. In addition, it has been nominated for a Webby Award. I can include another reference, a link to a story about JESS3 and one of its projects in Communication Arts, if that would help support this article. I'm reluctant to do so because of the discussion regarding my conflict of interest. -Maxjammett, 7/7/09
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Crime Association

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

Fails

conflict of interest as shown by the contribution history of article creator. Also, the entire article reads like an advertisement. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

247 07:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Private Show (Blaque album)

Private Show (Blaque album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Since this article has no references, I Googled for some myself, and while it appears that there are a number of Ghits, the links lead to sites that either state something about the album coming out soon and nothing else, or they talk about unrelated topics called Private Show. And although various sites claim to have lyrics for the supposed songs on the album, when you click the links to each respective song, you won't find any lyrics. Basically, while there is some hope of the album coming out in the future, right now the article is a violation of

WP:NALBUMS). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak procedural Delete I found a lot of info on it on first party sources, but no third party reliable sources. This is the kind of deletion I don't agree with but the community does. --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 03:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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://qn5.com/artists/mr-sos/about
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_7&oldid=1142644593"