Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by an overwhelming argument for the keep section. Cheers, I'^mperator 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Champions League 2009–10 qualifying rounds

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

)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

• Note: This discussion has been included in
  Jay 21:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep They are part of the formal competition that gets plenty of media coverage (at least to the Copa Libertadores, to which I can best speak for). Can't see any good reason, even in the precedent, as to not keep it. Plus, the precedent discussed a secondary international club tournament, whereas these are rounds in the premier international club tournaments in their respective regions and are therefore more important and notable. Digirami (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you seriously telling me that, on a continental scale, the qualifying rounds of the Copa Libertadores receive as much press coverage as the group stage onwards? I seriously doubt that. –
    Jay 09:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You keep raising these points as "this is not as important as that, so this should be deleted", or "this does not need to be covered in details". Personally I've never heard of such Wikipedia editing or deletion policy. If that's such the case then most of the football-related articles (or perhaps most articles) can probably be deleted. Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, sure. Unlike UEFA, every member country and Mexico has a club involved in the first round. And since it is the round before the second/group stage, people want to know who they are competing against. Probably why Fox Sports en Espanol covers the first round throughout the continent, and internationally. Digirami (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As above. The term 'qualifying' (which seems to be the problem section) seems to me to have only entered the lexicon once these tournaments added a league stage (this is certainly true for UEFA and CAF) and therefore what had merely been "first round" and "second round" etc became "first qualifying round" and "second qualifying round" etc - possibly becuase it might seem a bit odd for the start of a "league" not to consist of a league. It would be quite wrong to somehow take it as any more of a change than this. Even worse, in the case of CAF at least, is that all sides have to play throughout these stages of the tournament (only getting a bye when there is a need to "even up" the number of teams in the tournament - so it couldn't be claimed that it is "only for the minnows", it is really just as integral and important a part of the competition as the rest of the tournament. As a minor compromise, combining all the qualifying rounds into a single page wouldn't be ridiculous. Jlsa (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so CAF's qualifying rounds are relevant to all of the teams in the competition, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that UEFA themselves apportion less importance to the qualifying rounds of the Champions League and Europa League. It isn't even possible to check on goalscorers from last season's Champions League qualifying rounds on the UEFA website (see here) –
    Jay 09:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Actually you're not able to check any goalscorers from any round (see Final, Semi-finals, Quarter-finals, First knockout round.)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all All these matches are integral parts of the competition, they are official matches organized and counted by their respective confederations (e.g. UEFA coefficients count qualifying round matches), goals scored in these matches are counted in official records (e.g. "Player X has scored Y goals in European competitions" count those goals). It's arbitrary to say that matches played before a certain stage of some competition are "too early" and "not important". Are you telling me that a potential Arsenal v Shaktar Donetsk match to decide who make the group stage of the premium club competetion in the world is not important? These matches are covered sufficiently in the media, and any details of these matches are reported in the official webpages and easily verifiable. Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that these rounds receive as much press coverage as the later rounds. The final qualifying round may receive more coverage in the countries that have teams entering at that stage, but on a continental scale, those rounds are nowhere near as important as the group stage onwards. You say that official records count goals scored in qualifying rounds; this may be true for clubs, but UEFA records make a special distinction between goals scored in qualifying rounds and in rounds in the tournament proper. Finally, the argument could be made that any round is an integral part of the competition, so that's a null argument. So yes, there may be the odd match in the qualifying rounds that receives a lot of press coverage, but on the whole, qualifying matches are of fairly low importance. –
    Jay 09:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Only in tabulating who's the leading goalscorer of the season does qualifying matches not count. When compiling statistics, say, "Player X has scored Y goals in European competitions", UEFA does count qualifying matches, and so do the clubs. And as far as press coverage, in the countries where the clubs are competing they certainly receive sufficient coverage. Man City started from the 1st qualifying round of the UEFA Cup last year, and there is sufficient press coverage in England. Of course it is not as much as the latter rounds, but as I say, any cut-off will be arbitrary. We have pages for every FIFA World Cup qualifying round, and I doubt the early rounds of CAF or AFC gets much worldwide coverage. Chanheigeorge (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all as above, these qualifying rounds are still an important part of the competition. GiantSnowman 12:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And they are covered in sufficient detail in the competitions' main articles. UEFA doesn't keep an archived record of qualifying round goalscorers on their website, so why should we? –
    Jay 12:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Who decides "sufficient detail"? You? Why do we include lineups in pages such as 2006 FIFA World Cup Group A? Aren't goalscorers sufficient enough? Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, do not bunch all these article up for deletion because "UEFA doesn't keep an archived record of qualifying round goalscorers on their website". If that was the case, only two articles should be up for deletion. Digirami (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. I have to agree with the above remarks of
  WP:NOT. See number 7: Wikipedia is not "a complete exposition of all possible details".) --Pelotas^talk 14:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I agree that it can be debatable whether the existence of these subpages are warranted. But I think this needs a comprehensive debate so that some form of policy is developed, instead of the subjective arguments presented here for their deletion. Compared this to football players, where there is a policy reached by consensus, and once a player pass the test, nobody can say "he's not as famous as some other player, so his page should be deleted", or "there's too much detail for this unimportant player". And yes, I do have trouble understanding how these pages are worse than those "XXX F.C. season 2008-2009" pages. Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that is one reason why most people object to this deletion. The arguments made for deletion in the precedent, and subsequently here, are rather weak and subjective. Digirami (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and request for revive the
  UEFA Cup 2007-08 first round article. Although those rounds are not the proper starting round of the competition, but they are a part of the competition, as teams are in qualifying phase - as same as the FIFA World Cup qualification. If those matches are not notable, then the FIFA World Cup qualification should be also declared not notable. Also, I hope the first round of the UEFA Cup 2008–09 can be revived as that round is a proper round of the competition. Raymond Giggs 12:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Also, in my opinion, the AfD of UEFA Cup 2007-08 first round is totally working under black-box. Raymond Giggs 12:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. How can you even question the merit of these articles? The second and third qualifying rounds for the UEFA Champions League receive significant international media coverage, along with the those for the Copa Libertadores, CONCACAF Champions League and AFC Champions League. The arguement that "...these articles cover stages of competitions that are too early to necessitate articles" is invalid. The fact that they are preliminary rounds doesn't nullify their significance as part of the competition. Jhantor (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This has to be the most bizarre AfD I've ever seen in this project. Why would one want to remove Champions League rounds? Nfitz (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. If this article was for the preliminary rounds of the Saxony Cup they would have questionable merit. But we're dealing with one of the most-watched competitions outside of the World Cup. Xenon54 (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The preliminary rounds needs a separate article for a better explanation of the competition. --Raymond Cruise (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Wescoat

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

The article reads like a vanity piece, and any attempts I or other editors had made to make the article more encyclopedic have been quickly reverted without discussion. Regardless, the sources provide little evidence of notability. The extreme makeover link just goes to the episode video, and there's no mention in any media coverage elsewhere. The Art Business News is a directory listing in a non-notable publication and there's no article or interview listed in artist-market.com. And since search results are still considered by some as a mark of notability, note that while a Google search initially indicates 19,000+ hits, paging to the end of the results shows there are only about 400, along with a handful of News results. Flowanda | Talk 20:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think there's enough notability yet. Passing mentions here and there, but no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The references provided do not satisfy
  WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Does not satisfy
  WP:BIO. freshacconci talktalk 03:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete None of the conditions of
  Enki H. (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Harford County Public Schools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen Middle School

Aberdeen Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

lacks 3rd party references, not seeing how this can meet notability guidelines RadioFan (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Doesn't appear to be a
  common deletion outcomes and the school notability proposal. tedder (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge. I did a thorough survey of the news results for this school on Newsbank, which is a password-required database like Google News Archive but with full text of all the articles dating to the early 1980s. 100+ articles mention this school but none are about the school - all are about events at the school, ex-students, teachers, etc. The school was apparently founded in 1973 so maybe there's articles about this school on microfilm, but we can't just assume they exist, someone would need to find them. In the past I have saved several middle school articles through archival research, and the sources just aren't there this time. Merge, unless someone finds real sources. --
  Chiliad22 (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Do Not Merge.I'm a little confused with some of the notability guidelines, but I have placed some secondary sources to prove of the school's existence. What other proof would I need to provide to acknowledge Aberdeen Middle School as notable. RickNightCrawler (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two "profile" links are not independent sources as they are written and published by Aberdeen's school district. With school articles, what I've found in the past have been newspaper articles about the school's history. See
    Chiliad22 (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I added a couple more things to Aberdeen Middle School, including a newspaper article reference. RickNightCrawler (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, that is one of the sources I looked at in forming my initial opinion. It's really about an incident that occurred at the school, the article isn't about the school itself. It only contains information about what happened that one day, there's no bigger picture information about the school, and bigger picture information is what we put into encyclopedia articles. If a gang incident occurred at a given street intersection, would that street intersection be notable because of the newspaper article? I don't mean to sound combative, believe me I'd be happy to keep this article if sources can be found, I just have a relatively high standard for what constitutes sufficient sourcing about a topic. --
      Chiliad22 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep and expand or merge. School article AfDs have always been a controversial issue, and there's little consensus.
  PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually the gang incident was added as a part of someone looking for reliable sources on the school. Incidents of violence can be part of covering a school encyclopedically, see
    Chiliad22 (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Merge we keep all HS articles because we have found that 90% or so are notable when investigated; we merge others unless there is something special, because 95% are not. It may sound like very rough justice, but it's considerably better than we could do we debated each of them. We do have practical consensus for this as a guideline at AfD, though a few people persistently objective have held up adoption formally, as has happened to many other good guidelines. If there's anything special here, now's the time to say it. DGG (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to
  talk) 02:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Harford County Public Schools. Rmosler | ● 21:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every Breath Bernanke Takes

Every Breath Bernanke Takes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete article is about a youtube video. Does not meet Wikipedia's
  notability criteria and is unencyclopedic. Jersey Devil (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  R. Glenn Hubbard. I think it could be mentioned in that article as it has received soem coverage and doesn't need to be lost forever from the sum of human knowledge... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  coṁrá) 23:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This would be an unneccessary redirect that could conceivably be deleted as such. Lets just clean this up.
  talk) 21:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Notability not demonstrated, and as a redirect it would not make sense. Sam Barsoom 21:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Didy Veldman

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

Does this meet

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Grover Complex

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

Search bot identified some of this content as coming from : http://www.simplyhired.com/job-id/q52xvmppyl/web-designer-jobs

According to the original editor's comment on the talk page, that job was never completed and this page was created by the team itself. While not a copyright violation, I don't see any indications of notability, and there's an apparent COI based on the original editor's comments. Shadowjams (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete without prejudice and allow return once film can meet
  WP:GNG. Perhaps userfy to author? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No coverage in any neutral, reliable sources, hence no notability. PC78 (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Culkin

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

Non-notable relative of a celebrity. Only has two minor roles to her credit. I noticed that this was nominated for speedy deletion back in April, and the speedy was declined on the grounds of "she's an actress". Is this now suddenly a "claim of notability"? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Try as I might, I'm just not seeing any claims to notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable family member. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The speedy shouldn't have been declined. Just being an actress doesn't make someone notable, nor does being related to someone notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No major roles, lacks independant coverage. Being related to a famous person does not make your famous. Edward321 (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Interactive

Big Brother Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Big Brother Interactive doesn't exist, there are no sources and the only link available is on the talk page which links to a fan site. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC) ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per above comments. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Nothing but a fan game on a message board, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Culkin

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

Non-notable relative of a celebrity. Has only one credit, a minor role in a TV production. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for utter failure to establish notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just voted delete on the last Culkin family member with insufficient notability for a stand-alone article. Can the group be merged and combined into a Culkin family article with the combined exploits until one or more of the individuals become notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As I said in the other, simply being an actor isn't notable, nor is being related to a notable person. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No major roles, lacks independant coverage. Being related to a famous person does not make your famous. Edward321 (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or redirect to Kit Culkin. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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^☀ 00:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Wikipedia

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline, as it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Noisalt (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Of course Portuguese-language newspapers and magazines have written articles about the Portuguese Wikipedia. Naturally, the coverage of Portuguese Wikipedia is primarily in the Portuguese language. Take a look at these articles. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They appear to have written articles about Wikipedia, not about the Portuguese Wikipedia. Searching for Wikipédia em português yields no results. —Noisalt (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That search is only for the last month. Try hitting "all dates" to do a Google News archive search for "Wikipédia lusófona" OR "Wikipédia em português".
      Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please see the earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was nearly unanimous in that debate that some Wikipedias are notable and some are not. This one does not appear to be. —Noisalt (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per this discussion indicating that there is not sufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to List of Wikipedias Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My knowledge of Portuguese is pretty rudimentary, so please don't start asking me to edit the articles based on these sources, but I can see that there is easily enough coverage in reliable sources found by Google Scholar and news archive searches for '"Wikipédia lusófona" OR "Wikipédia em português"'.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That establishes that the article's been mentioned in a lot of sources. That's a far cry from "non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources" since we don't know which are non-trivial, which are reliable, which are independent, and on top of that, which address the Portuguese Wikipedia in a distinct way from Wikipedia as a whole. —Noisalt (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Astonishing nomination, just because we cannot read
  talk) 22:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Portugese is one of the main international wikipedias. Of the 262 different language wikipedias it ranked 7th for volume of traffic see
    talk) 22:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• comment: COI: I am brazilian and a wiki.pt's editor. I think this article has plenty of original research, that should certanly be removed if the article is kept. Lusophonic Wikipedia was covered a little bit by newspaper and magazines, as you can see here (not all articles refer to wiki.pt) and by academic works as you can see here. Lechatjaune (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks promising. —Noisalt (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the practical grounds that we can cover them better than anywhere else, and it's good to have a satisfactory English description. I do recognize the problems, but as a possible solution to all of these, it might perhaps be possible to move them to WP space. DGG (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's
    "it's notable". —Noisalt (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep per the coverage identified by Phil Bridger which does look to be good enough to establish notability. Would be good if editors who do speak Portuguese could use those sources to rewrite the article which certainly needs a lot of work but that is not a reason to delete. Davewild (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian D. Beaudreault

Brian D. Beaudreault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

I contested a PROD on this article on the basis that it was unclear to me whether he should be considered notable or not. Presumably his rank is not high enough to warrant automatic inclusion. However, he was the commander of an important military unit (~2500 people) during a time of war (Iraq). Is that enough? I don't know, so I am neutral for now ThaddeusB (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KEEP I suspect that most colonels (and Naval Captains) who have commanded in wartime merit pages. On Beaudreault in particular, there is plenty of press coverage, especially of the Somalia operation. Someone just needs to put the sources up. I added a couple.Historicist (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SImply being a commander of a unit isn't enough notability. Without having been strongly associated with some sort of notable event, incident, or operation, being the commnder just doesn't make a person notable enough (there are plenty of military press releases on just about every single unit in the Corps, but that doesn't make every commander notable either) This individual also lacks any notable awards or significant coverage based on any merits besides the unit he lead. In short, I don't see what distinguishes this individual over the thousands of other Marine officers and unit commanders. bahamut0013^words_deeds 05:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with the above. Command of a regiment alone is not enough to establish notability. If he pins on General then he might rate but short of that I would say it has to go.--Looper5920 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not important for history yet. Also: [7]. Algébrico (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless he has done something special in the position. The sources seem to be routine coverage about the unit. DGG (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't believe he meets the criteria laid down in
  WP:MILMOS#NOTE, for commanders "People who commanded a substantial body of troops (such as an army or fleet, or a significant portion of one) in combat." This has generally been held to occur at the level of divisional command (sometimes brigade if the action itself was particularly notable), so usually MAJGEN or higher before qualifying as notable on these grounds. |Nor does he seem to meet "People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works", unlike some colonels/lieutenant-colonels. David Underdown (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 this AFD was Keep per nominator withdrawal.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mahindra Marksman

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

I can't find anything about this anywhere. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a quick look, but here are three sources, Financial Express[8], The Hindu[9], and sify.com[10]. Priyanath ^talk 17:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw: Just took a better look because I had a minute and I found lots more about the subject.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Flowerparty^☀ 00:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolo Tomassi

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

3 Track Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

4 Track Cassette Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Rolo Tomassi / Mirror! Mirror! Split (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Rolo Tomassi / Cutting Pink With Knives Split (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Remixo Tomassi Volume 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Digital History / Beatrotter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

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

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

I Love Turbulence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Rolo Tomassi / Cancer Bats Split (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tagged for lack of secondary sources since 9/08. No sources found, no real assertation of notability save for one album on a bluelink label and a couple trivial mentions. G4 by another user declined. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep for the band and at least some of the releases. "No sources found" doesn't seem credible given that this live review from NME and this Drowned in Sound feature are on the first page of Google results for "Rolo Tomassi". Over the next few pages of results the following were found: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and from Google News: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. I could list more coverage. One or two of these dodgy AFD nominations could be taken as simple mistakes, but these are starting to look like bad faith from the nominator.--Michig (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually do make a good faith effort to search. I would strongly suggest adding those sources, because this current revision is a sorry excuse of an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is poor, but the subject is obviously notable. We judge the notability of subjects here, not the quality of articles. If you didn't do a Google search, where did you look?--Michig (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I did use Google, but all I found were interviews and podcasts. I was under the impression that interviews weren't enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I removed the G4 speedy tag as both references in the article had been created since the last AfD and additionally in that time the band has released an album. This to my was enough of a change in circumstance to warrant a new AfD especially as at least one of the references appears to be an article in a well known and reliable source. Dpmuk (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the previous AFD was over two years ago and references are from later dates the G4 should not have been added and you were right to remove it. A new AFD should not have followed without

WP:BEFORE being adhered to. It's obvious that in the time since the first AFD the band have received a lot of significant coverage in reliable sources, and these were very easy to find.--Michig (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete all Several of the sources provided do not establish notability (e.g. a performance review from a local paper) and the ones that do are pretty sparse (this is a start, but it's not possible to create an article based on this write-up in NME.) Without better documentation of their notability (not just their existence), there is not justification for keeping these articles. As pointed out above, there definitely are sources to prove that they exist, but interviews and podcasts exist for all kinds of musical acts that fail
  WP:NM. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• See? This is what I was talking about. Indeed, I did find most of what Michig also found, but I deemed that content as being insubstantial for building an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you maybe concentrate on the sources that do establish notability? The existence of sources that do not establish notability is not a valid reason for deletion. this is unequivocally significant coverage of the band in a reliable source. Local coverage may not be enough on its own but this is also significant coverage in a reliable source. Could you perhaps clarify why you feel these do not qualify as significant coverage in reliable sources?: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] (which states that the band "were recently crowned one of the UK's 10 hottest new bands by Kerrang! magazine", suggesting coverage also exists in Kerrang!), [34].--Michig (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A search at the Kerrang! site indicates significant coverage in the 18/03/2009 issue [35], more coverage here, and the magazine even included a Rolo Tomassi poster with the 20/05/2009 issue [36] - somehow I don't think a major magazine like this is going to give away posters of bands that are not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. --Michig (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources you cited are fine, but both of the Metro sources seem to be only announcing an upcoming concert. Those Kerrang! sources seem to be merely concert reviews. I still think this is a borderline case. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Metro sources announce forthcoming shows and include considerable independent discussion of the band. If the first two sources are fine, surely the article meets both

WP:BAND, and the discussion should be closed?--Michig (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No, it shouldn't, since Koavf !voted delete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I used BING as a test and found several more cites. Not just album reviews. I generally agree with Hammer (as everyone who likes otters should) but I suggest 'keep' in this instance. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Michig here, the sources given demonstrate notability, and
  WP:MUSIC#1 is met. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 21:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional deer and moose

List of fictional deer and moose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

Complete listcruft. I can't see any point at which a list of fictional deer would be useful to anyone other than the article creator. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep lists of fictional animals are surprisingly useful. Admittedly not this list, but I used others to find the name of a cartoon I couldn't find otherwise. It is also useful to see how the same animal is portrayed differently in different genres of fiction, especially the different degrees of anthropomorphism. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The nominator hasn't really stated any policy-based reason for deletion. A list of fictional deer and moose seems like a well defined list that would meet all the requirements for a list. Also, other articles of this sort have been kept (or resulted in no consensus) in the past, and unless opinions have changed on this sort of article, I don't see any reason to delete this one (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional raccoons, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional monkeys, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional worms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional cats, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fictional Pandas). Calathan (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although the title is a bit awkward since moose are members of the deer family, along with elk. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nominators rationale could be applied to any article and isn't a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Moose are members of the deer family, along with elk etc. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Speedy Keep. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to just "List of fictional deer"; as pointed out above, this would also include moose and elk.—Chowbok ☠ 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep per above. The list contains a clearly defined criteria for inclusion, and per Calathan, there is a precend that "List of fictional x"s are appropriate and easily verifiable lists. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamHost

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

This company is non-notable, they fail both

• Comment Actually, I don't think
  WP:WEB even applies here -- it's Dreamhost that we need to assert notability for, not its website.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - the
  OR claim about "domain tasting" skewing results fails to recognize that the quoted figure refers to hosted domains and not active domains - the webhostinginfo.com number refers to hosting (where tasting does not apply), not registrations. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Response - False. (1) This is the identical OR used for the claim of "One of the largest web hosting companies in the world". (2) The source methodology page states "Currently we have not begun to check whether a domain name is actually a hosted. We will soon be differentiating between Domains that are only Registered, Domains that are Parked/Forwarded, and Domains that actually host a unique website. This will reflect accurately the count of hosted clients and exclude the parked/forwarded clients. The current Web Hosting company rank is simply based on the total domains count. Since we do not have a differentiation between Hosted and non-Hosted domains yet, these total counts sometimes result in skewed rankings. Judas278 (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Judas -- if he's citing the source, how is it original research?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a primary source, which is being interpreted by the editor. Incorrectly. With false claims of what the raw data means and how reliable it is. Judas278 (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, it's a secondary source. The primary source here is the nameservers that the various hosting companies run: Webhosting.info is analyzing this data, so it's a secondary source. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point re-hashing the same old discussion here. Judas278 (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is: you were mistaken that time, too. It may not be a reliable source, but it's definitely not a primary one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a simple list, like "census results" which is listed as a primary source example. Judas278 (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Independent coverage:

• The Hollywood Reporter
• PC Pro (UK)
• Web Host Industry Review

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless new sources come to light. Most of the article contents, and most of the sources, constitute a laundry list of operational "incidents". There's a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage - material written about DreamHost rather than about things that happened to DreamHost. On that basis, I think this subject isn't notable. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about that WHIR link above? While it deals with the June 2006 outage, it does so in depth, and talks about how marketing bloggers picked up the incident as an example of good customer service.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed above by Sarek are enough to demonstrate borderline notability, in my opinion. I'm reserving judgment for now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WHIR link: Ironically, the latest effort to remove incidents would remove the WHIR source, which is currently in the article. Judas278 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - One of the largest web hosting companies in the world, and a significantly-sized and fast-growing domain registrar as well. Efforts to improve the article with more information about what the company does and why it is notable have been stymied by a small group of users that included former (disgruntled) customers and
  single purpose account
  holders. There is plenty of independent coverage in reliable sources about DreamHost and the service the company offers. Example sources I found in a quick search include:
  • Webmasters host music dreams and live streams - The Hollywood Reporter (about how DreamHost started)
  • Cyberclinic: Help! Someone has hijacked my homepage - The Independent (about "no-nonsense" transparent hosts that offer access to settings)
  • The Brash Boys at 37signals Will Tell You: Keep it Simple, Stupid - Wired (magazine) (about offering Ruby on Rails to customers)
  • Life's less of a gas - New Haven Register (about DreamHost offsetting carbon footprint)

-- Scjessey (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Articles 2 and 3 above mention DreamHost merely in passing. The articles are mostly on different topics. Article 4 above is only available with registration. Note: The above opinion is now unsigned, due to "refactoring", and the claims about "stymied" efforts is false. Judas278 (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Irrelevant. As I indicated above, they were just the first links in reliable sources I found. I made no special effort to locate anything. Plenty of sources exist. As far as your claim of "false" is concerned, you are actively stymieing efforts right now, with your continued rejection of all proposals for improvement. Your own comments here are evidence of this. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. The article doesn't meet
  WP:CORP and there exist almost no reliable secondary sources (non-blog, non-forum) so placing practically anything in the article is almost impossible. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN INDISCRIMINATE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION and WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DIRECTORY.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As I pointed out above, of course it doesn't meet

WP:WEB, because it's a company, not web content. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, that doesn't make any sense. Web hosts _are_ specifically covered by the guideline? Off to the talk page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, both

reliable sources that mention DreamHost above. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - Being a registrar makes Domain_tasting to skew rankings plausible, and likely, considering the disclaimer of the source. The source for claiming "one of world's biggest" is not reliable, as they state. Judas278 (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if that were true, we could charitably divide the given numbers by 2 and DreamHost would still be one of the world's biggest web hosts. Either way, you have no sources to backup your claims of domain tasting being "likely", and it could just as easily be completely false. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We could just as arbitrarily divide the numbers by 10, 100 or 1000. Domain_tasting clearly states the largest registrars used domain tasting, and the "data" source has a clear disclaimer. The bottom line is the "data" is worthless and supports nothing. Judas278 (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - regarding
  WP:WEB. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Point taken regarding it being a domain name registrar, wikipedia is however not a directory. But this remote backup service, file HOSTING service and free application service provided that's all standard webhosting services and sorta ridiculous to mention in an afd discussion.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I fail to see how offering a free application service is "standard". Can you name any other web hosts (apart from Google, Microsoft and Apple) who provide free application services? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - references provided by Sarek of Vulcan and Scjessey above, as well as the sourcing in the article, more than meet the requirements for notability, as far as I'm concerned.
  TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep due to additional references provided. Meets
  WP:WEB. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep If the only argument is a lack of notability then there is no valid argument for deletion. It does seem that reliable sources have made note of this company.
  Chillum 22:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - (Some text nixed, original here) the subject might be notable enough to covered by an article on Wikipedia [...] However, many sources cited by the article, and even ones mentioned in this discussion, don't meet the basic requirements for
  WP:CITE; most are not reliable secondary sources with a strong reputation for fact-checking. Many of the sources cited in the article are weblogs which are not reliable sources, ... Others are news sources which provide only incidental discussion. ... --Mysidia (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes the article needs to go, there are no good sources and it has been getting in peoples ways for years now.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there was ever an

argument to avoid in deletion discussions, that is one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - The sources meet sufficient standards that the article should escape deletion. The references need to be cleaned up. And a domain registrar WHOIS listing is not a source. The article is salvagable, and the minor issues (like choice of source) should be hashed out on the article's talk page. --Mysidia (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the below is replying to moved to talk

Precisely the sources cited both in this AfD and in the article are of very low quality and that doesn't mean that we should try to find some quality sources for it but rather that we should just get rid of it since notability has not been shown.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a large, major web hosting company that has existed for over ten years now. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  Talk 05:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as above by NihonJoe and Chillum, could be cleaned up but notable enough for an article. Dayewalker (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. However much bolding and capitalisation has gone on in the discussion above, the fact is that there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources found by Google Books and Google News.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: I find 275 Google News hits, 78 Google Book hits, and 130 Google Scholar hits. That's a wealth of information, easily sufficient to write an article. The news articles include pieces from InfoWorld, the Register, Wired, Hollywood Reporter, The Industry Standard, Computerworld, New Haven Register, and so on. FWIW, I don't use them for hosting, never have, don't recommend them, and once wrote a blog post titled Dreamhost Considered Harmful. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep in addition to other sources found, here are two more (one from Singapore and one from The Daily Telegraph) about their being in a lawsuit with Mel Gibson's girlfriend.--kelapstick (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you support including such info' in the article. Maybe you could comment where that was recently discussed and opposed by company apologists (or whatever they should be called). Judas278 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that discussion, but that is a whole other kettle of fish. Even excluding those two, the company passes the

reliable sources that have been posted here. --kelapstick (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Can we please stop referring to good faith editors as "company apologists" and the like? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the coverage this compaby received is only about its systems failures, then that is non-notable. Debresser (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There is plenty of coverage about DreamHost in media sources that is not about system failures, but the article currently doesn't reflect that as well as it could. As I said above, attempts to improve the article (and give it some balance) have been stymied by a small group of ex-customers unhappy with their experiences. Numerous examples of media coverage have already been given above, so I won't bother listing them all again. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The above comment is false. Please see discussion for details. Judas278 (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - the company easily meets are inclusion guidelines. Their problems are unfortunate for customers, but certainly not a valid reason for exclusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. DreamHost definitely satisfies
  WP:COMPANY; plenty of sources to go around. Whether or not the article in its current incarnation is a different story, but there certainly is potential here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, seems entirely notable. Deletion is not a valid response to a content dispute.
  talk) 09:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  06:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist folk rock

Anarchist folk rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if this is an up and coming genre it has not yet reached the level of
  WP:Notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak Delete - There do seem to be quite a few bands who call themselves 'anarchist folk rock' but none of them seem particularly notable. Having said that, the 'punk cabaret' movement has its own article and the only band who really qualify as notable on it are the Dresden Dolls. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Yeh....Syd Barrett isn't notable? One of the founding members of Pink Floyd? And you really ought to read the article, it not only has links to that fact, but explains that the 'Anarchist' of the title does not refer to political themes in the music, but to the instrumentation and arrangements of the music. So in the end I agree with the nominator, but only because he was wrong twice: it is less notable that they are anarchist than that they are folk. Anarchangel (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification: Barrett is significant, but there is no evidence he was in this genre, that is why I referred to only one band, it was my error to assume that it was self evident. BTW I read it: didn't take long.--Sabrebd (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest paid musicians in 2008

List of highest paid musicians in 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article currently serves as a

• keep for a while Regardless the
  WP:COATRACK, the content is encyclopaedic Rirunmot (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete The
  verifiability goes, even aside from usage as a coat rack. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 17:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sources available. In the External links, there are two articles that talk about Sofia Rotaru, one Forbes article for the "world's best-paid music stars" from 2007-06-01 to 2008-06-01 (not from 2008), and one unsourced blog post that utterly fails
  WP:RS. Consequently, none of the external links can be used as sources for this list. Additionally, my cursory google search turned up nothing that isn't a duplicate of the latter two sources, or irrelevant. Even ignoring the COATRACK and SYN issues, this article is unsourceable. -kotra (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – for poor sourcing and the
  talk) 09:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fundamentally fails several provisions of
  WP:NOT policy. DreamGuy (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Dixon (Chicago alderman)

Arthur Dixon (Chicago alderman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be notable; only claim of notability is having been an alderman at some stage and that doesn't seem like it would confer automatic notability.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Needs secondary sources. The great chicago fire (1871) occur during his time as alderman maybe some relation (sources) can be found there about his actions during this timeOttawa4ever (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but....bit of search turned up here; http://forgottenchicago.com/features/chicago-areas/old-edgebrook/ where the alderman is asssociated to forming a historical section of the city. At the very least the article could be merged into Forest Glen Preserve. There is a school named after him as well in chicago arthur dixon elementary school. Hes mentioned in a book from the time as being inportant to the legilsture process at the chicago fire pg 846 of The History of Chicago by andreas in 1886. Its clear there are secondary sources available and with some time and effort notability could be done if someone with interest and understanding of chicago history can develop this. I would suggest placing an exapnasion tag on the page and seeing if the article can be developed further.Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Chicago-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Chicago aldermen have always been important political figures. There's plenty of material available in the Chicago Tribune's ProQuest archives. He's also profiled in old books like this. According to this, he has a six-page bio in the book American Irish in Chicago, although it doesn't seem like that book is available for preview anywhere. Zagalejo^^^ 19:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, spoke too soon: [37] Zagalejo^^^ 19:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although in general local politicians are not notable by mere fact of the office held and the article establishes no further notability, it seems that in this case he is of modest encyclopedic and historic note.--
  WP:LOTM) 03:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Chicago is one place where the aldermen of of real political importance. The sources will probab ly hsow it for every one back to 1833DGG (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as unanimous consensus even though some expansion would be welcomed to solidify the notability of the venue.--JForget 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Municipal Coliseum

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

)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable per
  Wikipedia:WikiProject_Event_Venues/Sports_task_force/Notability. References added. Patken4 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep home field of an
  NCAA member. Consensus already appears to support notability of the university itself, its athletics program, its teams, and its head coaches; why not the stadium? Strikehold (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The article meets
  talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep For above reasons and also as outlined at essay on
  WP:CFBSTADIUM--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per
  WP:RS.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbott Memorial Alumni Stadium

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

Does not appear to be a notable stadium. Unreferenced. PROD removed.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The university's website claims that the stadium was the "first of its kind to be built at any Black school in the south", but I cannot independently confirm that. If true, that would likely meet the notability requirement. Also note that the Tuskegee University campus, on which I assume the stadium sits, has been declared both a National Historic Site and National Historic Landmark. I'll do a bit more searching for references, but I'm coming up empty so far. --auburnpilot talk 17:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable per
  Wikipedia:WikiProject_Event_Venues/Sports_task_force/Notability. References added. Patken4 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Appears to be notable, per Aubuurn Pilot. At the very least, merge it with the Tuskegee University article.
  talk) 12:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep for above reasons and also as outlined at essay
  on College Football stadiums.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per above and the new refs.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capoeira in popular culture

Capoeira in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be just a collection of random facts, violating

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a
  WP:SS spinout of Capoeira--merging it back into the article would make the original article unwieldy. Jclemens (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as a breakout of the main page; Question: Per a search here on "in popular culture" it appears that many of these types of articles have been redirected back to their main articles (e.g.,
  WP:V issue; for the cases where there is, cull the offending item), but I don't know what the best format for this info. is. JJL (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I concur with Stifle. As a topic, the appearance of Capoeira in popular culture isn't likely to be notable and isn't evidenced as such in the article except as a
  indiscriminate listing of details that don't even have to do with Capoeira. This article isn't about a single subject but rather a multitude of different subjects loosly drawn together through original research to claim that it is Capoeira. There's really nothing to merge back into the original article, as the few cited statements fall under different subjects entirely, such as Kickboxer 4, a gay porn studio, Hellboy II, and Paul Simon. This is what happens when articles don't stick to a strict, defined, and notable subject.ThemFromSpace 06:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• week keep Reasonable but needs a clear out for some unsourced synthesis, where it is assumed it's Capoeira because it looks a bit like it then see how big it is. --Nate1481 07:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I generally don't like these lists, and this one contains some entries that are either OR or sheer opinion, but the article has enough potential to be ok if re-written. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. As a Capoeirista, I have found this article helpful in finding more information on the topic. It does indeed follow the guidelines for the Tree of Knowledge. I can personally vouch for most of the information contained in this article. I have experienced 75% of all the topics listed, and believe them to be true. As far as references, this article is incredibly weak. It is perhaps due to the reason that Capoeira itself is an up and coming martial art. Most people don't even know about it, hence finding information substantiating the claims that Capoeira is found everywhere in modern pop culture will be DIFFICULT. But rest assured, I believe I can help clean this article up, and prove to everyone that Capoeira is evident in pop culture. Those details that are vaguely connected to Capoeira, I will be more than happy to delete, but I believe one will be surprised with how few details I actually have to delete. Most of these are true, and I merely have to spend the time to find the resources. I like JJL's comment that other main articles have pop culture spin offs, and these are still around today. Capoeira is just not as easy of an idea to wrap one's head around. I assure you all, almost all of these details are related to Capoeira and are justifiable. Just because one cites many different sources of popular culture to define how Capoeira is all around us, doesn't mean that they are not sticking to a subject. The subject is Capoeira. It is in every detail, and is kept throughout the article. Their is no valid claim to delete this article. Ryt 007 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. It seems that it might be enough for an article, but finding more and
  better cites may be difficult. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep When notable cultural artifacts, or particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the fictional work directly. These references are needed, but they can be supplied. any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article. Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. That is not the case here. I do not see the problem with V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged the art is not in the work mentioned, it does have to be demonstrated; I do not see the problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given. The use of a method of fighting is generally a significant plot element in film and the like--many films focus around it & it is even the primary interest sometimes. DGG (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove non-notable or trivial references and rewrite as prose where possible. In my quick glance through the article, I noticed the following: "One of the BBC 'Rhythm & Movement' idents introduced to BBC One in 2002 shows a capoeira dance, which raised its profile in the United Kingdom. While the attention capoeira has received has caused a boom of interest in this martial art, more skeptical capoeiristas have argued that the way it is used in the media is misrepresentative of what capoeira truly is." If the two parts of this statement can be reliably sourced, I see the beginnings of an interesting and encyclopedic discussion about the emergence of Capoeira in popular culture. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 09:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Ohio River#Cities and towns along the river. Shereth 18:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities and towns along the Ohio River

List of cities and towns along the Ohio River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

listcruft Keikeik (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. The same info is repeated a couple of times, just in different orders. I'm just not seeing the use, but maybe someone will convince me to change my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unnecessary duplicate of Ohio River#Cities and towns along the river. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless substantial improvements are made. The current presentation, with a new line devoted for each indiscriminate blue link, renders this useless. If you were to print it out, it would run for 30 pages; somebody could get carpal from trying to scroll through this. A sortable table might be worthwhile, but would require some marker to identify how far down the river a port might be. Mandsford (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why you'd want to delete it if you think format improvements could render it a useful article. Wikipedia is a work in progress, there's no need to delete an article because it has resolvable issues that haven't been resolved yet. --
    Chiliad22 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Not so fast there are several such lists, and I can imagine a number of uses. Can we contact the many people who have edited these river town lists, or someone who edits American geography. There are many useful lists on Wikipedia that can look arcane to most of the world, but are nevertheless useful.Historicist (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case at least, the article in question duplicates information already on the article about the river. There is no point in maintaining two separate articles with the same information. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant listcruft, arguably
  original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The article does have value and merit. I think it should be kept. At least merge and redirect to Ohio River —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)}
• Keep "listcruft", the nom's only rationale for deletion, is not shown in any policies as being a reason for deletion. Sebwite (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful list. I'm surprised there are no other "List of cities and town along the foo river". Could be culled to sortable table —G716 <^T·_C> 04:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are such useful lists they appear as a section on most articles about significant rivers, for example the list of cities and towns along the Ohio river appears at Ohio River#Cities and towns along the river. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the Ohio river article. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as a sortable table to the Ohio river article, so it can be sorted in downstream or alphabetical order, and each of those by state. If that's too much work, then keep and let the editors of the list work it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentI agree that the information about how far the ports are downstream should be merged into the main article about the Ohio River, although
• definitely
• not
• in
• the
• current
• format
• which
• is
• unreadable. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge. Main article has the main information. List is a bit excessive. Reywas92^Talk 22:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "ohio+river"+pittsburgh+cairo+967&lr=&as_brr=3| This reference has the information that could be incorporated into a sortable table to illustrate the order of the towns from Pittsburgh to Cairo. Mandsford (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very useful list, mainly boaters and mariners would use this list, but it is a good list.
  talk) 16:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It is a very useful list, whether for boaters, mariners or whoever, but it duplicates the one that already exists at Ohio River#Cities and towns along the river, so the question isn't "Do we remove this information from Wikiepdia" but "Do we really need two copies of the same information on Wikipedia that we will need to keep synchronised manually?" Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. As if boaters and mariners are going to use this! A road atlas would be more useful and efficient. "What's the next place on the river?" "I dunno-- I'm still scrolling." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Jenkins-Reed

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

Original prod was "Autobiography of a non-notable Division III college football player", and was contested by article creator with no comment. Gsearch comes up with 3 non-wiki hits, none of which show notability. Gnews search comes up empty. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:COI issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Speedy would be okay I think. I don't see an assertion of notability anywhere close to meeting guidelines. But letting AfD play out is okay too... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Speedy okay with me, too... no sources to verify the subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as much a delete candidate now as it can ever be, doktorb _words^deeds 05:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Non-notable and a possible COI.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuri Kawashi

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

You'd think a famous director would get more than 12 non-wiki ghits or even a single gnews hit. Taking to AfD instead of speedy/prod because there may be language or transcription issues that are fouling up my search. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- No more than deceptive hoax.
  Hitro 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I couldn't find anything on this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The subject has not received significant coverage in any
  reliable secondary sources. TheLeftorium 19:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Per WP:N. TheAsianGURU (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 18:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Bast

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

I believe this wholly unreferenced BLP fails

"The major speedway nations in Europe are the United Kingdom, Sweden, Poland and Denmark. These countries run a number of leagues and have regular fixtures throughout the traditional speedway season that runs from March to October. On a smaller scale, competitions are also held in Argentina, Australia, Czech Republic, Italy, Russia, Slovenia and the United States. Some countries' top divisions feature highly-paid star riders. In smaller countries and lower divisions, riders may be part-timers with a second job, or amateurs."

I don't believe Bast is one of the American "highly-paid stars", thus not professional.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing general notability requirements as well as
  WP:ATHLETE. DreamGuy (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep. So somebody doesn't believe something. Did anyone care to look for sources? I added a LATimes ref to the articles. Likely, others can be found. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is also mentioned here alongside his peers AMA National Speedway Championship. best Power.corrupts (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One source (even with supposed likelihood for others) doesn't establish notability. And we don't cite Wikipedia articles as sources. So it's just one source.
      vecia 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• WP:CSD criteria 5. I have no opinion otherwise. Jehochman ^Talk 13:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I found lots of newspaper and website articles about his racing career.--
  talk) 20:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Well done. Which ones would you suggest we look at? Black Kite 21:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Times, mostly [38]. I'd use sites like speedwaybikes.com for summaries of seasons and careers if they didn't turn up in the newspaper. I'm losing no sleep at all over this if he has a day job at the moment. He won and placed in championships.
What is the meaning of the "well done" remark, specifically?--

talk) 22:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It was a flippant comment. No offence. Anyway, the point is that he may well have won lots of championships, but none of them appear to notable (they don't have articles), or indeed professional. Black Kite 12:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The very first Google hit for him gives his occupation as "Carpenter". Therefore not professional, and doesn't pass
  WP:ATHLETE. There are admittedly a number of Google hits for him, but mostly in news articles about minor non-professional speedway meetings. Black Kite 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:ATHLETE magnius (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) -