Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 26

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 25 June 27 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kamora

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

non-notable, unreferenced poor quality article Little Professor (talk) 23:33, 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 delete. Bit of a tough call here, but the argument that this simply fails the notability standards of

Wisconsin breweries (even that article is basically just a list), and I don't think it's appropriate to simply merge this text into a new article on North Dakota breweries or History of breweries in North Dakota, simply because I'm not sure anyone would work on it and we could be left with this article under another name. If someone does want to work on such an article please let me know and I can retrieve the content from this article for incorporation into a broader, statewide brewery article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Dakota Malting and Brewing Company

Dakota Malting and Brewing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't explain notability. A brewery which failed soon after starting up. Doesn't meet

WP:ORG. SilkTork *YES! 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

No relation. Dakota Malting and Brewing Company was in Bismark, and operated from 1961 to 1965. Dakota Brewing Company was in Grand Forks and operated from 1990 to 2002. The Cold Spring Brewery in Cold Spring, Minnesota took over the brewing of the main brand of the Grand Forks company, RoughRider. I'm not sure if it is still made. There was another Dakota Brewing Company based in Huron, South Dakota, which was around in the 1930s. These breweries are not notable enough for standalone articles, but are worth mentioning in an article on the history of beer and breweries in Dakota. I don't think they are notable enough for a mention in Beer in the United States because there are hundreds of breweries that have come and gone, and to mention these trivial local failed breweries in that article would overload it. SilkTork *YES! 09:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The company was apparently the subject of a radio broadcast, according to the references. The transcript of the broadcast cites two other reliable sources, a book, History of the City of Bismarck, ND: The First 100 Years, 1872-1972, and an article in Beer Cans and Brewery Collectibles The article itself lists Beer Can Collectors of America, Newsletter, September, 1976 as a reference. I think that notability has been established. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not questioning if the brewery existed, it is questioning if the brewery is notable enough under Wikipedia criteria to have a standalone article. The relevant criteria for an organisation such as a brewery is
WP:Org - "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." As I suggested above - I feel the best place for this material is in an article on beer and breweries in Dakota. SilkTork *YES! 09:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I see no reason yet to think it notable in the Wikipedia sense. I suggest following Silk Torq's advice and merging into a state article. if there is none yet, this can be the start. DGG (talk) 03:59, 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 merge to Euchre_variations#Making_trump. MBisanz talk 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck the dealer

Fuck the dealer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I failed to see any reputable source to confirm the notability of the game. Google mostly shows various blogs and wikis and wikipedia mirrors. No evidence it is actually played. It llook to me more a parody that a real game: if the dealer is easily fucked, why would anyone play this game anyway? Twri (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While it does sound like mild fun, its notability has not been confirmed by any reputable source that I could find. It is, however, mentioned by several blogs, meaning that if a reliable source is found confirming its existence as a prominent drinking game, I will change my !vote to "keep". The DominatorTalkEdits 17:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems a bad case of
    WP:MADEUP and has no RS. Lugnuts (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It doesn't look like it's entirely made up due to ample references to it in blogs, but, no it doesn't have any reliable sources. The DominatorTalkEdits 17:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge as suggested by Thibbs, who clearly knows the subject well. DGG (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Thibbs. JohnCD (talk) 15:35, 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. MBisanz talk 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Activeion

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

Altough well written, this is IMO, a completely non-notable company. Article is little more than a vanity page, although not entirely.

WP Physics} 23:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - There is also this article but for a company / product, there is a dearth of coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a sentence noting that
    ✉ ✍ 18:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Reply - having Bill Nye as a spokesman doesn't establish notability. The provided referencing is to another press release. What is needed is coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - if you examine my delete !vote, you will see I've already taken note of the Hispanic Business article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the requirement of coverage by multiple RSs, even taking into account the Hispanic Business article. Ironholds (talk) 15:41, 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. MBisanz talk 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formulatrix

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

Concerns of notability. I'm not hellbent on deletion, however.

WP Physics} 23:53, 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 delete. +

gr 10:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Going akka

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

Unsourced article about an alleged

WP:NEOLOGISM. From the dismal Google hits for this phrase I'd almost wonder if this isn't some hoax an individual thought up and is trying to create by posting it here and there. If it's not a hoax it fails notability standards by a very wide margin. DreamGuy (talk) 23:34, 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 speedy delete

G12 copyvio Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Vista Fire Department

Vista Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article with absolutely no argument even attempted for notability. Was prodded by another user and deprodded with the claim that all fire departments are inherently notable. Don't see that in the actual notability standards. DreamGuy (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In many countries, fire departments are large and few in number, which would lead some users here to believe that all fire departments ought to be notable. But in the US, fire departments are often very small. This one is a volunteer unit that services a town which is a redirect to a larger town (I don't know why), and has no reliable sources in any case. Abductive (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as far as I can tell they have only one fire truck. [3] This is below the level of an encyclopedia, as a separate article, but can be mentioned in the article for the town.DGG (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as 100% copyright violation from [4]. That first person plural is frequently a sign of copyright violation. Drawn Some (talk) 12:54, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure.--

Talain (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Otto Wolff AG

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

Contested speedy. No independent sources, claim of notability based on having been the 18th largest company in germany decades ago.

Talain (talk) 23:17, 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 Delete. AngelOfSadness talk 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show wx

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

Product (unreleased) placement/ad/etc.

WP Physics} 22:58, 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 redirect to Interstate Highway System#Primary routes . MBisanz talk 22:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 50

Interstate 50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

We don't have articles about stuff that doesn't exist. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge while that isn't true (
    Talain (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • There's nothing to merge or redirect to be honest. I could think of billions of combination of numbers to stick in front of the word "Interstate". "Interstate 12,656 does not exist." "Interstate 12,657 does not exist"... –Juliancolton | Talk 02:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect. The numbering plan would not allow for the creation of
    Interstate 50, which would not be used. This is a specific, verifiable, encyclopedic fact that needs to be presented in Wikipedia. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
When you declare something to be incorrect in this way, you should back it up with verifiable cited material rather than opinion and unsupported statement. You wrote "the original numbering plan said that all multiples of 5 from Interstate 5 to Interstate 95 would be MAJOR routes with the exception of Interstate 50, which would not be used". What is the original numbering plan? Do you mean the "Yellow Book" of 1955, mentioned in passing at the FHWA here? Is there a page in that book you can cite? Does it read "all multiples of 5 from Interstate 5 to Interstate 95 would be MAJOR routes with the exception of Interstate 50"? Why doesn't it mention Interstate 60, also unused? Are you sure that Juliancolton's honest statement of opinion is really something that can be found incorrect? This title is not about anything that exists, real or imaginary, period. It is something that may deserve mentioning in a sentence or two, but the only US Government website mention yet found relating to "Interstate 50" is http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm#question19, which is an FAQ, assumedly a list of arbitrary answers to emails the highway administration gets. No article or redirected title should exist for a non-existent subject that is mentioned one place in an informal list of frequently asked questions. Or maybe I am "incorrect" in holding that opinion. Sswonk (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for not providing an in-line citation to back up my statement. The reference is
Interstate 50 to wherever this information is merged to is within Wikipedia quidelines. Please see WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The value of the information is not the subject of this discussion, which relates to the creation of an article title which solely concerns it. The editor's use of
WP:MAD. This is the crux of the problem: the title is about something that doesn't exist. Please see my Comment section near the bottom of this discussion. It would be objectionable to have a redirect from, for example, Penguins of the Northern Hemisphere. Merely maintaining such a title is "confusing or objectionable" because it supports the possible existence of such creatures in a potential reader's mind. Having a list of search results appear after searching a term immediately alerts the reader to the fact that the title doesn't exist. Any redirects with titles of things or concepts that don't exist is wrong. Sswonk (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect to Interstate Highway System#Primary routes. The content of the article has been referenced to a reliable source (a section on a FHWA website); however, we really don't need a standalone, permastub article on this. The absence of an Interstate 50 is referred to in the "Primary routes" section of the Interstate Highway System article, and I think simply moving what's in this article into that section as an explanation of why there is no I-50 is adequate. – TMF 02:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the interstate system article — quite a likely target for people interested in reading about various interstates. I'm a US maps person, and I'm still surprised that there isn't one, so I'm sure that people who don't know much about US highways nationwide would expect such a number. For you who aren't familiar with this system — primary interstates are always one or two digits, and the major east-west interstates all end with a 0, so the absence of an Interstate 50 is much more significant than the absence of an Interstate 23. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    talk) 03:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect per TMF and Nyttend. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreement with Rschen. No need to redirect, in Interstate Highway System#Primary routes cite AASHTO guideline #3 here and that will be enough. Someone could just as easily write an article about a sequel to Interstate 60 that doesn't exist. Wouldn't redirect that either. Sswonk (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarifying my statement, I meant to convey that a sequel to the film doesn't exist, not that the highway doesn't exist. Several here point out that a title of something that is nonexistent for any article, even any redirect, is pointless. "Interstate 260 is a film sequel that has not been made." "Interstate 50 (film) redirects here. For the nonexistent prequel to the film, see Interstate 60."? A redirect is also unnecessary as stated. Sswonk (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    talk) 04:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge and redirectto Interstate Highway System#Primary routes - worthwhile info, absence of 50 is already mentioned in that para but could be expanded. Perhaps also add a note in the introductory section of List of Interstate Highways.PamD (talk) 27 June 2009 - forgot to sign at the time
  • I would suggest the article or section be no longer than the highway itself. If the highway does not currently exist, neither should the article. Eauhomme (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read
WP:WAX. Sswonk (talk) 19:18, 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. AngelOfSadness talk 17:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warlords: Call to Arms

Warlords: Call to Arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was deleted via expired PROD (see log) in January and was recreated last month. I still cannot find any

notability
. The only stuff I can find are trivial mentions or the same basic description on mirrors that host this game.

I am also nominating the following related article for deletion for the exact same reason as above:

Warlords: Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MuZemike 22:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 22:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete, almost the entire article reads like a Game Guide, and the article itself questions the significance of the game. In addition, the two see-also links are infact referral links, thus I believe that this article may have been created with the intention to drum up extra 'clicks' to that user's area on another site. I will remove those links now, but even so, the article still fails

WP:GAMEGUIDE --Taelus (talk) 08:02, 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 merge to Rolo Tomassi. MBisanz talk 22:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 Track Cassette Tape

4 Track Cassette Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Album with no assertion of notability, and probably no notability either

WP Physics} 22:37, 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 delete. Insufficient information is currently available to write a reasonable article about this prospective future album. No prejudice towards recreation when that changes. ~ mazca talk 07:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inert Momentum

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

Album with no assertion of notability

WP Physics} 22:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. default to keep and rename to

List of Avril Lavigne tours Black Kite 10:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Avril Lavigne Tours

Avril Lavigne Tours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

All tours were previously listed. Reasons for deletion: fails

WP:NN. Darth NormaN (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

As I said, each Tour was listed before failing notability and for consisting of a setlist and a tour dates table only, thus the tours are now mentioned in the appropriate album article making this article redundant. --Darth NormaN (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Not the first time that people is posting this, Avril Lavigne should defenetly have this info and actually she is a true artist with worldwide tours the references are all there coming from notable sources such as MTV and Billboard everything is perfect, I also think that every single tour should have their own page because is unfair I can see other irrelevant artist with club tours like Lady Gaga or Katy Perry Emmanuel_Rocks (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This level of detail and an entire separate page might be appropriate for other artists, but as mentioned above each is covered in an album article and I just don't see why Wikipedia should host a list like this.--Gloriamarie (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is, I think it doesn't deserve to have a page for tour but a whole page with all her tours defenetly yes just seeing the arenas she performs during all tours for obvious reasons it means that her tours have been relevants she's not performing at clubs or making small tours also I can see that she's one of the few artist that has tour around world. Esteban_Hallo (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant information into Avril Lavigne and/or the albums' articles. Tours are not notable unless they receive substantial coverage from independent sources. Setlists and tour dates don't merit an entire article. — Σxplicit 22:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, actually, after looking around, the article can be formatted like
    this. — Σxplicit 23:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, per G11, early admin close of AfD. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Itsumo Tuna

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

Product placement/vanity page/non-notable.

WP Physics} 22:30, 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 delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burkely Duffield

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

Non-notable child actor with a few very minor roles to his credit. One of several created by an editor who has no reliable sources for these BLPs. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:30, 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 delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Herr

Jordan Herr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neoaztlan

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

I decline a CSD because journals don't fall under A7. However, it does not assert notability, and all I could find on Google were the Neoaztlan homepage, Twitter, Myspace, etc., but no reliable sources, so delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Honestly, A7 and A9 should be merged to simply cover any subject that does not assert some shred of importance/notability. The fact that we have to discuss this article because it is about a journal instead of a person or a song is a waste of time. Anyway, a dirty Google search turns up nothing but their own website, blog entries, Twitter/MySpace garbage and the like. Obvious delete. I admit I am very inclined to IAR speedy this anyway, but since it's been declined I'll forbear. Shereth 22:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it should be expanded. But every time it's brought up at CSD talk, the proposal gets rejected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I barely find anything on this, just a (completely tangential) mention here: [6]. Cazort (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteno library seems to know of it. The reason for not doing these by speedy is that it often turns out that some book or the like is in fact notable, though the first two people to look haven;t heard of it. A9 works because in that particular field, there's a safe criterion. . I've seen nationally known nominating prize winning children's books nominated for speedy, and similar. It takes time to let more people see the article. DGG (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability found. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability concerns. Matt Deres (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. AngelOfSadness talk 17:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Aranton

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

No sources and marginal notability. Barely outside speedy criteria. PROD tag previously removed by sole author The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:20, 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 redirect to

Valley Zoo. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Lucy (elephant)

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

Hopelessly biased; although it's a long article, cleaning out the POV-pushing would reduce it to a stub consisting essentially of the first two sentences of the lead. Normally something like this would be cleaned up, but in its current state this would effectively mean wiping it and starting again – and I'm not convinced there's anything particularly notable about this elephant as opposed to any other zoo animal.  – 

iridescent 20:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Redirect to
    Valley Zoo where there should be a neutral encyclopaedic summary of this POV screed written. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everything the nominator is saying is true except that there is enough neutral information to support a stub at the minimum and there is significant in-depth coverage of Lucy in reliable sources (meaning main-stream press) even in the reference list of the article to support notability and verifiability. Granted, you have to go a ways down. The article is POV but I'm not sure there really is an opposing point of view, I don't know too many people knowledgeable about elephants who think they should be kept solitary in zoos. The solution would be to clean the article up and present the campaign to rescue her in a neutral tone. (Even the campaign itself would be notable but let's don't go down that road.) Drawn Some (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. "I'm not convinced there's anything particularly notable about this elephant as opposed to any other zoo animal." The article states that she is one of very few elephants in zoos who is kept completely alone and that Bob Barker and Margaret Atwood, among many others, have written to the zoo asking for her release. Most zoo animals don't get that much attention by a mile. The article could use some work but is certainly not as POV as it's made out to be in the above comments. The zoo's arguments that she is fine could be given more space and maybe quoted, but they are mentioned. There are apparently not celebrities and nonprofits calling for her to remain in the zoo, so it would be difficult to write the article without mentioning that so many have called for her to be removed from the zoo. It sounds like it is a significant ongoing controversy in Canada among animal welfare groups and zoo advocates and merits an article.--Gloriamarie (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    Valley Zoo, per DGG. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Adequately sourced, notable event. Needs further cleanup to remove POV —G716 <T·C> 14:23, 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 Speedy keep per

Non-admin closure.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Microgrant

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

Improper use of the term; "Microgrants" is trademarked to the non-profit Microgrants (see http://www.microgrants.net/index.html). Common law trademark rights are established through first use in commerce on 10/26/07. Verity50 (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, probably speedy; this isn't a reason for deletion in our
    deletion policy, and the article seems to be a valid stub. If anything, it could be transwiki'd to Wiktionary. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete, although improper use of a trademark is not explicitly listed in the deletion policy, Wikipedia should not allow improper use of a trademark; additionally, this reason for deletion is analogous to copyright infringement, which is a valid reason for deletion. Verity50 (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote by the nominator was disregarded in closing.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I unPRODded this with the rationale that this is a regular word/concept in extensive use and not trademark (the reason provided by the AfD nominator during PROD nomination) and also added one ref. The nomination appears to be
    talk) 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Keep as information is verifiably not copyvio.--
    Talain (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speed Keep. Well-documented in reliable sources: [7] shows that the use of the term went back WELL before 10/26/07. I doubt that trademark would hold up in court...and that's irrelevant to this discussion anyway, as the term was widely used before the trademark even came into being. Cazort (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, aside from anything else, we have articles on trademarked topics. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep as nominated without any basis on policy whatsoever, and, for that matter, with assertions that seem to be contrary to the actual facts. The article needs watching to make sure that any claim for trademark status is presented in the context of it being only a disallowed claim. DGG (talk) 08:26, 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. This argument essentially follows the same lines as the other AfD beneath this in the log. Existing is not sufficient for an article, and we have no policies or guidelines to support an exemption in the case of geographical entities Fritzpoll (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common End, Colkirk

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

The place to which this article relates is not a village, as the article asserts, but a small place within a village. It is not shown on many online mapping services, and only appears on Ordnance Survey maps at the same significance as farms and woods or common land. It has no specific notability in its own right because of any events or notable people. ClickRick (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep looking at the air photograph, this is a group of about 5 houses with a church and a farm. Although it would be described as a hamlet near Colkirk, rather than a village in it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real place in the Ordnance Survey. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Yes, indeed it does, as I said in the opening. Specifically, it has it on this OS map. However, it has it with no more significance than the nearby farms, and specifically with less significance than a village. ClickRick (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to have no hope of expansion. Unless this locality has a distinct culture/history from a containing entity, we don't need a separate article. Mention it as part of a list in the parish article. --Polaron | Talk 03:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge, only because it would be impractical for Wikipedia to have an article on every cluster of houses outside of another settlement. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: what's to merge? If there were something notable enough about Common End that was worth merging into Colkirk I'd not have raised the AfD discussion. As it is, all we have is "there's a place that's named on one map". ClickRick (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Colkirk article and mention the place there. Delete (after seeing AfD below this one...) Yes it's a place; no it doesn't need it's own article unless there's something interesting or noteworthy about it because it's too small. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to whatever village it is in (which I do not know myself), per
    WP:R, given that this is another name for part of a notable area. Sebwite (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge perhaps to Colkirk: "village" articles often deal with the parish of which it is the principal place. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sebwite
    Talk 16:15, 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. Very weak arguments for retention amounting to an

WP:ITEXISTS argument. The five pillars argument fails to emphasis the word "incorporating" in the quotation, which is not a term meaning that Wikipedia should have all of everything. Lacking a policy argument, the consensus here is to delete - a merge would be, as several commentators indicate, pointless as there is nothing to merge from this article Fritzpoll (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Common End, Fulmodeston

Common End, Fulmodeston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The place to which this article relates is not a village, as the article asserts, but a small place within a village. It is not shown on many online mapping services, and only appears on Ordnance Survey maps at the same significance as farms and woods or common land. It has no specific notability in its own right because of any events or notable people. ClickRick (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; article is trivially short, no references, no evidence of notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fulmodeston. This looks likely to be a deserted village, possibly the original location of Fulmodeston, judging by the landscape and ruined church. There isn't anything to merge at the moment, but the redirect will allow a section to be created when information is found and ultimately to become a full article if it ever warrants it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Ordnance Survey has it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I said at the outset that it appeared on the OS map. My point is that "Common End" is written in the same size text—i.e. is written with the same significance—as woodland or a farm, and smaller than the writing for a village. ClickRick (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: How does deleting this adhere to Wikipedia's Five Pillars, particularly the first: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." (emphasis mine). If the OS gazetteer has this and WP determines not to have it that decision seems to be at odds with the first pillar - perhaps WP doesn't want to be what it says it is. Sad, really. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I hear your argument. But at that level of "settlement" I'm unconvinced that OS maps provide the detail required to determine if it's a placename in actual use. Does anyone know this place as Common End? Is that name used in any way in day to day useage? Is it even used on postal addresses? Knowing the way the OS uses place names I'd argue that this isn't necessarily so - it's entirely possible that the place name marked on the map is referring to an individual dwelling for example, such as Lower Clipstone, about 2km south-west of Common End. I think I'd want to see some other use of the name to suggest notability. Sorry - I get your general point entirely. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to have no hope of expansion. Unless this locality has a distinct culture/history from a containing entity, we don't need a separate article. Mention it as part of a list in the parish article. --Polaron | Talk 03:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge, only because it would be impractical for Wikipedia to have an article on every cluster of houses outside of another settlement. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: what's to merge? If there were something notable enough about Common End that was worth merging into Fulmodeston I'd not have raised the AfD discussion. As it is, all we have is "there's a place that's named on one map". ClickRick (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and mention the place name in the main article. Unless something important happened there then it's too small already. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - though there is little to merge - with the village whose parish it is in - presumably Fulmodeston. My guess is that Common End is or was a squatter settlement on the edge of a common, hecne no more than a hamlet - but I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (redirect) as appropriate.
    Talk 16:17, 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. MBisanz talk 22:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Lane and Nevaeh

Ashley Lane and Nevaeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Teamed together approximately 9 or 10 times in Shimmer. All the relevant information is already located in the articles for the individual members. One Shimmer Tag Team Championship reign is not enough to create notability for the team outside of the individual members' articles. Nikki♥311 20:18, 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 redirect to iCarly#Characters. MBisanz talk 22:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Pearson

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

Unsourced BLP. Actor's most notable role seems to be Jeremy on iCarly, which is not significant. Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources neither provided nor found.

talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom; actor has held no notable roles and is not the subject of any independent coverage. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now to iCarly#Characters; this will preserve the history. Borderline notability at best now and on the wrong side of the border, but plausible search term and the history will be there if he ever makes it big. Redirects are cheap. JJL (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete at the moment (

BWilkins ←track) 10:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Ches-Mont League

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

Contested prod; contested on the grounds that similar articles on other leagues in the area exist. I see no notability for either this league, nor the other ones used to back up including this, so am nominating the set; there are literally thousands, and likely hundreds of thousands, of similar leagues worldwide.

Also nominating

Philadelphia Catholic League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Philadelphia Public League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
iridescent 19:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:High_school_sports_conferences_and_leagues_in_the_United_States

Are you proposing that all high school sports conferences and leagues in the US have their pages deleted on this basis? I imagine very few of them match up to your definition of "notability," if that's the basis you're wiping the Philadelphia area leagues out on. - The Amendment (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless there's evidence of notability. I support the inclusion of schools, generally, as they tend to have substantial impacts on the wider community they serve; the same isn't the case for minor athletic leagues. I entirely support the extension of the existing
iridescent 20:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comparing football notability guidelines to high school athletics conferences is impossible, for starters. It's not the same structure. And media coverage exists for high school athletics conferences which allow them to meet the primary criteria for notability. High school conference leagues aren't the same as a league of 5-a-side teams. For one, the usually span all sports, which make trying to judge them based on one sports' guidelines entirely unfair.
matt91486 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep. We have many such articles (
reliable sources including newspapers particularly. The subject is of interest to people in the relatively large geographic areas they serve, as well as surrounding areas. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I get that it's not about a person or team. Apparently you don't get my point. I know I'm a minority, but I don't believe that local coverage establishes notability. Local papers have to cover local events. That's their job. They have to fill space, especially in a market where there are competing papers. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Local papers do not simply cover them. Major papers of record in states cover them. The difference between being covered by the
    matt91486 (talk) 00:21, 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 redirect to Toys in the Attic. AngelOfSadness talk 17:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Salty

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

Unreferenced, and possibly non-notable, non-single that lacks charts, awards, or covers. Only featured in Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, besides the album Toys in the Attic. DisturbedNerd999 (Delete!) 19:02, 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 speedy delete A7 (by

says you, says me 14:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Island Scene

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

Contested speedy, so here we are. Reads like PR material and completely unsourced, I wasn't able to verify any of the award winning claims - google turns up their website, and gnews brings up a report of an award that a company who advertised in Island Scene won and not much else. -

says you, says me 18:54, 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 delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Magee

Brandon Magee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. AngelOfSadness talk 17:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial conflict

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

Non-

reliable source without success. The article creator opposed a proposed deletion and offered reasons to keep the article at the talk page. -- Atamachat 18:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No evidence of notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two game of the month awards are enough to say that the game is notable. Imsome (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - If you look at the references to third-party sites, they are only listings for the games and barely describe them. They don't come anywhere near significant coverage from reliable sources. -- Atamachat 07:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability, nothing from the article points you towards anything either (NN game awards not withstanding). -
    talk) 07:26, 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. The subject passes

WP:ATHLETE, that means we keep the article. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Donatas Navikas

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

A fairly nonnotable Lithuanian soccer middlefielder. Nobody knows him and looks like nobody wants him. - Altenmann >t 18:19, 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 Speedy deleted

G3 as a blatant hoax. NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

2009 African Cup of Nations

2009 African Cup of Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax. The African Cup of Nations is held every two years in even numbered years. The 2009 Cup doesn't exist -- qualification matches for next year's Cup are being held this year, but the article seems to be referring to a tournament that doesn't and never existed. ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted as a blatant hoax, i.e. vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 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 delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond The Milky Way

Beyond The Milky Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The information presented is already dealt with in

talk) 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Redirect to galaxy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as noted. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the content replicates what is available at galaxy, the title itself is not a suitable redirect name. (the article title is a more appropriate description of Extragalactic astronomy) 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete relatively sparse article, constructed in apparent disregard of existing articles. I do not think there is anything worth merging, and the article title suggests copy and paste. DGG (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if nothing is worth merging to the several other articles it replicates. My first thought was the same as DGG - the title suggests it's probably copied whole from another source or is some kind of essay. Cosmo0 (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree for this deletion. There will ofcourse be information about what i say here in galaxy. because beyond the milky way are galaxies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ob9889 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whatever your opinion, your are not allowed to remove the AfD template until this discussion is over.
    talk) 12:32, 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 Speedy delete. 16:44, 26 June 2009 UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) deleted "Glurple" ‎ (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glurple

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

Dictdef, at best. Looks like hoax. Outside scope. DurovaCharge! 18:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I wish this could be speedied. — Jake Wartenberg 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete It is a dictionary definition, running afoul of
    verifiability. The claimed German cognate "Dassanaugeshraub" comes back in a Google search only to this article. Speedy delete as category G1, patent nonsense. Edison (talk) 19:01, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 22:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiago Rodrigues Reis de Queirós

Hiago Rodrigues Reis de Queirós (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable writer per

WP:AUTHOR. No independent reliable sources prove notability. It's a case of cross-wiki spam (see comments below). Algébrico (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Strong delete It is a clear case of cross-wiki vanity/spam. All his books were self published, and almost all (if not all) were published by Clube dos Autores, where anyone can publish a book without any fee or reviewing. The author hasn't been convered by RS: no results at google books or Scielo. The article does not present any RS, only pages created by Hiago himself and a link to web 2.0 site where anyone can post reviews about any book. As Algébrico explained, the article has been deleted several times on wiki.pt per lack of notability and has only been kept this time because the discussion was influenced by sockpuppetry and strong canvassing. Lechatjaune (talk) 18:23, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WiFi GRID

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

unreferenced how-to guide Beach drifter (talk) 17:53, 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 delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Rayne

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

Non-notable pornographic actress. See WP:PORNBIO. Guidelines have changed since last afd nomination. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 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 delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dellin Betances

Dellin Betances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Class-A baseball player, has not had any notable accomplishments to this point. Spanneraol (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:51, 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 Speedy deleted

G12 as a copyvio, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Strength of glass

Strength of glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

copyright violation; unlinked, loquacious, absurdly overcharged with references nobody can check in reasonable time, part of

Paula Pilcher (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

For the copyright violations, see e.g. http://www.globalspec.com/reference/39540/203279/Chapter-24-Mechanical-Strength-and-Reliability-of-Glass-Fibers and http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15264137.

For the context, see "what links here": only other borderline articles used by

Paula Pilcher (talk) 17:31, 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. Cleanup issue - refer back to me if there are still problems in a couple of months Fritzpoll (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fondul Proprietatea

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

Attack page. My own speedy was declined. Guy0307 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--

talk
) 22:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC) -
talk) 11:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • response to user:Guy0307
    I do not understand why you wiped out the "Contestation" paragraph. It is full of accurate and verifiable information. Court decisions are final and irrevocable. Why do you consider this should not be included in this article? Without this part, the article is incomplete and misleading. Better to scrap it entirely! The fact that Proprietatea is not working for the beneficiaries it had been craated for is a fact, not a journalist suspicion and is an essential statement. Nobody contests that. Do you know what mean ECHR decisions? Are you aware of The European Union concerns about this? Would you find fair an article about the Communism wihout the Goulag part or the Moscow trials or even more striking an article on the Nazi party without the Nuremberg trial? Certainly not.

--

talk) 08:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Responded at user's talk page. Guy0307 (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a very problematic article, needing to be rewritten from a NPOV. First of all, based on the financial statement in the article, it is not an independent fund, or created by a popular movement, or a joint stock company in the usual sense, but an agency owned almost entirely by the Ministry of Economy and Finances. To say as the article does "it does not get any finance from the state budget" when the ministry owns 80% of the shares seems a little contradictory. The actual operation of the "fund" needs to be elucidated from neutral sources.I trust neither the defense nor the attack here as being objective, and the combination in the article is unclear. The article needs to be rewritten by someone who understands the issues involved, and can express them in comprehensible English. But AfD is not cleanup. Or maybe it is--it does seem an effective way of getting attention to articles like this.DGG (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your remark is accurate. This fund has been managed directly by the state from the beginning and a been a complete failure. So recently the government of Romania decided to put the management into private hands. All the financial information regarding the fund comes directly from the website of the fund itself. It may be very difficult to find a neutral source of information since the subject is very disputed and the fund is constantly changed by the authorities. On one side you have Romania and its ex-communists dignitaries who live in the stolen houses and are often senators or deputy, on the other side, you have around 150.000 plaintiffs all around the words (family of real owners...). However I have just been informed that the European Parliament has very recently decided to finance a survey on the situation regarding the restitution of properties in ex-communist countries. The part of the study that deals with Romania and Bulgaria will be done by the Societatea Academica Romana. The latter already done a survey (I mention it in the article). Anyway it may take quite a long time before this survey is available.

--

talk) 11:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Again, you are being POV. Guy0307 (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Guy0307 - POV? Two many acronyms kill meaning. Anyway because of you personal socialist 'etiquette', you seem to be proud of, I do not trust you to judge this article in which you personal political point of view may interfere with your judgment. In deed it is a socialist regime that lead to this painful situation.
  • For others: I have complete the Management paragraph and the text is now clearer:Until the appointment of a selected administration, the Property has been managed provisionally by the Ministry of Public Finance through the Board of Supervisors. After selecting through an international public tender, a management company will take over the powers of the administrator of the Fund property.Following a tender selection process, a Selection Commission has recently designed on June 9th, 2009 Franklin Templeton Investment Management Ltd as the manager of the fund.
    I have also added more sections.
    It is true that this theme is complex because the governments of Romania changed frequently the law regarding this fund and also because it has been challenged in internal juridiction, ever before being challenge at the ECHR. So you will find tons of comments and opinions on this fund (unfortunately generally in Romanian).
    My position is that it seems fair enough to tell about ECHR judgements because it gives an unbiased light on the efficiency of the fund. I do not believe it would be fair to let think readers that this fund is a panacea to the property abuses in Romania. Moreover, It is not only about one single judgement but dozens if not more. I only selected the very last ones. A succession of juridical decisions, all in the same way, has a true significance that must not be ignored.
    Endly, on what basis would Wikipedia scrap all information about trial and court judgements? Would you for instance ignore the Madoff trial because it is subject to controversy?
    I understand your concern and your will to avoid article which show biased opinions or which are closer to a political forum that an encyclopedia, but it shall not blind you on relevant information. Moreover since the information you are wary of are (final) court judgements, there is absolutely no risk of lawsuits from anybody. Should you wish to have these judgement presented another way, tell me:)
    I will travel in Romania the next days and will unfortunately not be able to connect myself to internet easily. So you may get no more answer or information from me that will not mean I have nothing to add. I hope this article will still be alive and not amputated when I come back :))

--

talk) 14:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC) <br\ >[reply
]

Wooooooow. Slow down buddy. Yes, I do consider myself a socialist, however to be honest, I don't really give a damn what's going on in Romania (no racism meant of course), nor do I know what regime currently controls there (or in other words, who won the last elections). My ultimate goal is to make Wikipedia perfect. According to our current
WP:NPOV policy, articles must be neutral. What that section did is attack the organisation, and only that. You see I don't say any of the statements in that section are false. What I'm saying is that it does not attempt to be neutral. Anyone who would read that section would think that whoever wrote it was against that organisation. And one final thing, thank you for looking through my user-boxes. Guy0307 (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Hello again Guy0307. Sorry to be a bit harsh but what I saw in Romania either national heritage destruction or organized fraud and corruption (communism results) made me very touchy of this matter. Moreover my family suffered particularly from communism.
    Anyway, I think we can agree on an objective: to have clear and accurate article, as objective as possible. Thus, to include events directly related to the subject of the article and having a direct effect on it is not something negative or biased. It enriches it. For instance, it would be very relevant to add a new section on the article regarding the American Reserve and its failure to prevent to financial crisis. Same remark for the SEC.
    So, when true and precise information exists on the fact that Fundul Proprietatea does not work as design exist, I see no reason to discard it. Finally the article is now very developed and the ECHR part is only a section of it, not the main part as it was when I started to write this text.

--

talk) 18:12, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WiFi GRID

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

unreferenced article that is a how-to guide Beach drifter (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
article has reference; informative/descriptive 12:47, 26 June 2009 (CST)

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Oneal Warren

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

BLP sourced entirely to the subjects own page (no independent sources). No apparent significant roles. Creator says he has significant role in upcoming

talk) 16:59, 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 delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

El Salvadorian Thriller

El Salvadorian Thriller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD (tag removed by the creator without reason) about a non-notable card game. It may even violate

WP:MADEUP, as I can't find anything on Google about it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless references are added. Beach drifter (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete No references and seems to be written like a guide.

play 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No evidence of widespread play or publication of rules by a notable source. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absolutely no Ghits for "El Salvadorian Thriller". No references. Violates
    WP:MADEUP. —LedgendGamer 06:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lavarnway

Ryan Lavarnway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Renata (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Capital Cities of the european union

List of Capital Cities of the european union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable intersection point to where I really don't see any use to the list for non-trivial purposes. Being a member of the European union has nothing to do with the country's capital city. If someone wanted to know the capital city of a European country, they can just type in the name of the country and the answer would be in the infobox. Tavix |  Talk  16:08, 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 delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kubach

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

Not notable. All minor roles, no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources provided or found.

talk) 16:07, 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 (article improved, nom withdrawn); nac. JJL (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Jones

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

No claim to notability, currently an A7 candidate. The history reveals older, longer versions which appear to have been cut down for BLP or POV problems; at any rate, those that I looked at did not clearly establish notability either.  Sandstein  16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn following Andrew's rewrite, thanks!  Sandstein  05:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--

talk) 03:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment Nominator has withdrawn as he is satisfied with a recent rewrite. However, there are still outstanding "delete" !votes. More comment is needed on the rewrite. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets
    talk) 01:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Oops!... I Did It Again. Notify me if this becomes problematic - thisredirect is in lieu of deletion, and should not be overridden Fritzpoll (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girl in the Mirror

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

Unsourced single, previously deleted and non-notable song ♫Smanu!

It's quite disruptive to the article and annoying to the editors who have to continuously remove this. With this article deleted, people will finally get it that this is not a single, and will refrain from adding it to the template. If it's redirected, they'll still add it (it'll just redirect to the album page), and those viewing the template within her main article will see that it's a single, when it really is not, once again hurting Wiki's credibility.
The only way I would choose a redirect in this case is if this song was part of a current album, thus possibly becoming a single or noteworthy. For example,
Lace And Leather are all songs from Britney's current album "Circus" that are not singles, but could potentially become singles in the near future, and so therefore have been redirect, not deleted. "Girl In The Mirror" is a song (a bonus track, to be exact) from an "album" that was released 9 years ago. There's little to no chance at all that this song will ever become worthy of its own article almost 10 years later, and therefore may as well be deleted entirely. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 13:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The relevant guideline here clearly says to redirect. If it keeps getting recreated, the redirect can be fully protected. People could recreate just as easily if the page were deleted entirely. --
Chiliad22 (talk) 13:40, 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 merge to Pittsburgh Pirates minor league players. MBisanz talk 22:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Black

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

Recently drafted player, does not meet

speedy deleted yesterday. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete- Fails on

Hitro 19:48, 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 Speedy delete. 17:13, 26 June 2009 UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) deleted "Brain to height ratio curve" ‎ (Blatant hoax) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain to height ratio curve

Brain to height ratio curve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google is silent about Ruben Von Gritz. No medical study needs 500,000 participants. The curve is exceedingly suspicious. Etc. I suggest hoax. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:10, 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 delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Liu (Canadian police officer)

Kai Liu (Canadian police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A police chief. That's it. No attempt to explain any argument for why he should have an encyclopedia article, and he is apparently not noteworthy for any controversies or accomplishments of any sort. Only coverage is strictly local and merely proves that he exists. DreamGuy (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very small town with a very small police force. Beach drifter (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy candidate, no assertion of notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probably a great guy but fails notability. Can't even claim to be the first Chinese Canadian chief. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    Gananoque Police Service if it survives its AFD. If it gets merged, then merge into Gananoque. The subject is not independently notable. However, being the first Asian police chief in Ontario has garnered coverage, and as an individual, has recieved a minor award even before getting the police chief job. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 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 redirect to

Gananoque, Ontario . Fritzpoll (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Gananoque Police Service

Gananoque Police Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

It's a police service that can be confirmed to exist, but no notability is even really argued for in the article, and the article is completely lacking in independent sources, let alone the multiple reliable nontrivial coverage establishing noteworthiness for an article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Expand Notability is stated (one of the few small town rural forces that still exist, and have not been contracted to OPP). As well, protection from crime due to local casino. Yes, this article needs a lot of work, but I just found it today. (
    BWilkins ←track) 16:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment The above reasoning for notability doesn't make much sense to me. The article only claims it is one of the few small town forces in the immediate Ontario area that still exist, and this is not sourced. This doesn't make it any more notable than the police force of any other small town. I'm not well versed on deletion criteria for this type of organization, at one point I assumed that any police department was inherently notable enough for inclusion. However going strictly by wp:org this one fails. Beach drifter (talk) 17:28, 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 redirect to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASIO File

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

There is already an article about the

original research. I suggest merge, delete and redirect to the main ASIO article. Papa November (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree, any controversy about agency practices belongs in the ASIO article, not in an article called "ASIO file". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs some work but I see no reason to delete, redirect or merge. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Nick-D. Any sourced, relevant and encyclopedic material should be merged to ASIO. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. A section on the contents and appearance of the files is certainly valid in that article, but this article is too narrow in focus and looks like soapboxing to me. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:08, 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

WP:Snowball delete. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson

Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Unnecessary fork to Michael Jackson. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article due to the high number of significant figures who are commenting upon the story, the internet reaction that cannot be summarised in a short section in Michael Jackson's article. This is gaining coverage in reputable sources. Things such as the Jackson, Michael, MJ etc. being the most popular tags on Twitter need to be expanded. World leaders are commenting upon his death, and I feel it is necessary to stop the main article becoming too long. I want people to start adding information and we can create a useful page. 03md 14:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, what you are basically saying is that the reaction to MJs death has not been the subject of coverage by multiple third party sources? Amazing. Unbelievable even. I think I have honestly stepped into an Afd timewarp, where all the normal arguments are turned upside down. MickMacNee (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The death of Michael Jackson is notable. The reaction to the death of Michael Jackson - the subject of the article in question - is not notable. It makes sense to report on the event, not on the people reacting to the event, unless they react in some notable way. - Brian Kendig (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as long as the Death article is salted. It's one fork too far, unfortunately. Sceptre (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirected. As this shotgun Afd has succesfully made this article a stillbirth, and nobody is apparently now willing to work on it, given its current poor state (a lede and empty sections), I'm redirecting it to Michael Jackson#Death until such time as people either come to their senses, and realise from the talk pages and from the old media, that wikipedia is currently way behind the curve here, or it gets deleted. If it is deleted, it would be helpful if the closing admin userfies the article history to a link to the main article talk page (choose any number of the current threads requesting a fork of the expanding reaction material), because I don't think anyone else is that bothered in making sure the information already added isn't lost. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I believe that is probably the right outcome in the end, this discussion is still ongoing (indeed it has only been open for a few hours) so I've reverted your edit as premature. I suggest letting the discussion run, at least for a few days, and then taking the appropriate action when the discussion is closed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is currently crap, orphaned, is not being added to, and now it gets to sit there for all on Google to see for the next 5 days or more as a shining example of Wikipedia not being able to collect and present timely information that the rest of the world is seeing 24/7. Seriously, if this topic cannot be created into an article on Wikipedia, we might as well make it policy that there can exist no Reaction to ... articles at all where there is a parent article, because you aren't going to get more reliable sources than for reactions to this. Except maybe Reactions to World War III. But then its pretty much moot. MickMacNee (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would have been possible before the Afd, but not during it. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section will be trimmed back, forking it out solves nothing. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed back? Which 'newsy' part are you going to trim exactly? The minutes silence in Congress? The condolences from Barack Obama etc. The crashing of Google? MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my God; will you
calm down? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I think it probably can, because it's a common sense solution. The title can stay as a redirect and the content isn't a matter for AfD anyway. Deletion is only ever about titles. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think this title should persist. Cazort (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Cazort. No need for redirect. This redirect could be deleted as unnecessary. Lets just clean it up.
    talk) 13:23, 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

other apparently similar biographies exist. The strength of argument thus favours deletion. Following deletion, a redirect is likely to be necessary for search purposes, as identified in the debate, which I will instate. The choice of redirect target is not binding, and is subject to usual editorial process. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Maria Belen Shapur

Maria Belen Shapur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Person only notable for having an affair with a politician.

talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

This article could be improved because there is information about the woman's company and her life that could be used. An article shouldn't be deleted if poorly written, just improved. User F203 (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly-written has nothing to do with it. She's not notable except for this affair with the governor. Maybe there should be an article on the Governor's mishaps, instead of a just a section in his article. That would be consistent with covering the event, not the individual whose notability derives solely from it. On the two examples you cite, I would support
Rielle Hunter appears to be more than just a one-event article; there's stuff about horse murders, being the basis for a fictional character and an acting career. Those might just be fig leaves for an article on her just because of the Edwards fling, and if that's the case, I would likewise support moving it into John Edwards extramarital affair. TJRC (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. This is a classic
    WP:BLP1E. She is notable for one thing and one thing only, something which happens to not be particularly flattering in most cultures. Unless her notability changes for some reason, there is no way we should have an article about this woman just to say that she had an affair with a well known politician—that goes to the core of our BLP policy. If there's a strong consensus to delete I think a speedy deletion is completely appropriate - we don't need to let this sit around for a week if it's an obvious delete. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Completely non-notable woman who is having her 15 minutes of fame because of an affair. Tovojolo (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! Bossk-Office (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mark Sanford. No need to keep this article, there's nothing notable about the subject except this single event. Chamal talk 12:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dating a notable person isn't even
    talk) 13:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Are you serious? An extramarital affair is not the same thing as dating. Especially when the affair destroys a prominent politician's career. — Red XIV (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the merits of merge: I am still not taking a stance on delete versus keep. However, google lists near 50,000 hits in 2 days for the 2 spellings of the name, Maria Belen Shapur/Chapur. So there are more merits to a merge than a delete. User F203 (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is a former TV journalist. Other more obscure TV reporters have articles, such as Gene Sherman (sportscaster). The article should not be picked on because she is a woman or because she is an embarrassment to a popular American politician whom many supporters would love to get rid of in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Amthernandez (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note
    talk) 06:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Article does not currently assert that she was well-known in Argentina before the Sanford affair. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm having a hard time seeing how the article "does a good job of showing" that she was well known in Argentina before the Sanford story broke -- unless being a brunette and exercising regularly automatically make one famous in that country. The article, as it currently stands, doesn't even claim that she was well known, and certainly has no citation to that effect that antedates the Sanford affair. Unless such claims and citations are added to the article, it should be deleted. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She was previously so unknown in her own country that the reporters camped out in the lobby of her building had no idea which woman going in or out might be her, and a bar owner claimed she was a blond. Several women were put forward by the media as the possible "Maria Belen" or "Maria Shapur" in question. Edison (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.
    WP:BLP1E all the way. Those claiming her notability as a journalist should take note that nobody cared to write the article before she was found in the affair and that when the article was written, the authors own edit summary was: "is a woman from Argentina, who had an extramarital affair with South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanford.". Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
interesting comment! An article creator writing an edit summary of "notable Argentine woman" would not necessarily qualify as an article to keep. Nearly all of the murderer articles are the same way (remain unwritten until a flurry of news stories) even though some obscure murderer articles do pass AFD. Note: I am still officially neutral regarding this AFD. User F203 (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When it becomes a sufficiently major story with extensive highly respectable national coverage because of the political importance, the person becomes notable. At this point everything can be sourced well enough to comply with the requirements. As for her notability as a journalist, this would need to be further investigated. At any event, this would be a redirect, not a delete, since she is appropriately significantly mentioned in the article on the governor. DGG (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:BLP1E
    , and we shouldn't have articles on people when, as in this case, they say hardly anything more than the article about the event does. I'm not convinced that Maria Belen Shapur is notable as a reporter separately from this event; therefore, this should be a redirect. That way, the article can always be recreated if independent notability can subsequently be demonstrated. Can't seem to find the tilde button on this computer... Hopefully Sinebot will sign this post.
  • Delete. If you want to keep this article, then you should also want to keep this one, since they both have the same notability: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcus_Solis.Jarhed (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is an example of
WP:AADD.--Xoloki (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, just trying to add data to the discussion.Jarhed (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At this time, I do not believe she merits her own article or has established notability outside of an apparent affair. As of yet, that Sanford had an affair is the important issue in most news coverage, not who it was with.--Gloriamarie (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Due to the extreme level of interest in this case, this page will become more and more popular. Once photos of this woman are released, she will become even more of a focus of tabloids and media (especially if she is attractive -- just being realistic). And if her relationship with the governor continues, then it will not be a one-time event. Give it 2 weeks and then decide. laurap414 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please not that
WP:ONEEVENT doesn't specify a "one time event" per se. Further, the "extreme level of interest" in this case is because of Sanford, his position and his erratic behavior, not because of her. Any woman could have been his mistress and had he done the same thing, the sotry would have generated the same interest. That's how I can say she is notable only because of the event. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. Better to merge the information into
WP:ATA#CRYSTAL.Grover cleveland (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
This does not establish notability under
WP:CREATIVE. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge with the Sanford affair article and then: delete. Recentism. We will have to wait somr time whether she desreves her own article. At present, certainly not.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • History Merge Required — assuming it survives, of course. See here and here. History is now split between Maria Belen Shapur and María Belén Chapur. Isn't it great that *anyone* can edit? No prerequisites at all. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.
    WP:BLP1E than Ms. Chapur. Lewinsky, after all, has no notability that's not directly derived from her affair with Bill Clinton. Yet no serious user would suggest deleting her article. Chapur, on the other hand, was a reporter in Argentina long before the affair even started, let alone became known to the public. The only reason she didn't already have an article is regional bias toward the United State. Which is in no way a policy, it's just an result of most users of the English version of Wikipedia being from the US. Also, WP:BLP1E specifically says "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." Both of those exceptions to BLP1E clearly apply here. The affair has most likely ended the political career of a man who was, just a week and a half ago, one of the rising stars of the Republican Party and a likely Presidential candidate, and as the woman he was having the affair with she's obviously central to the event. — Red XIV (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I think the comparison between the two is inapt. Lewinsky inserted herself into the incident by saving evidence, and was in the news cycle for a couple of years, not a couple of days. Further, the relative fame of Clinton and Sanford is extremely different.Jarhed (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong request to those who assert Shapur is notable outside the Sanford affair. PLEASE supply some evidence for this and add it to the article! So far, there is no claim that she was notable pre-affair in the article. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I state no opinion, but am keep coming back to this article because of recent interest as per google (no hits before, now many) User F203 (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her role in a significant political event? Her role was having sex with a guy who happened to be notable. That doesn't scream notability to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per

WP:SNOW. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Media Take Out

Media Take Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Anyone who takes a solid look at MTO knows that it's a liars' website. They lack basic English grammatical skills, lie about several stories, and demand instant credit (bordering on racketeering) for their stories. I kept re-inserting that criticism section because it's THE TRUTH, but these admins (well-meaning, but misguided) kept deleting it because of "no source". JUST LOOK AT THE SITE LIKE I AM FORCED TO DO AS A JOURNALIST, and you'll see why it should not be dignified with an article (in short, the site doesn't come close to being notable). Tom Danson (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 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 delete. Combined concerns about inaccuracy, triviality and copyright violation lead to a definite consensus. ~ mazca talk 10:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SLAM Magazine's Top 75 Players of All-Time (NBA)

SLAM Magazine's Top 75 Players of All-Time (NBA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another Wikipedian listed this as a speedy, citing the fact that it has no sources other than forum posts. While I agree that it should be deleted, I think a fuller discussion here would be appropriate first. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick FYI: An updated ranking (June 2009) with reliable sources has been added to Wikipedia. See SLAM Magazine's Top 50 Players of All-Time (NBA). Zodiiak (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Will happily restore/userfy awaiting evidence that the film has a title, per the consensus here Fritzpoll (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Nancy Meyers Project

Untitled Nancy Meyers Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a film so early in the production process that it has no title. Only source is IMDB, which isn't reliable for these kind of things in general, as all sorts of bizarre rumors get in there. Per

WP:CRYSTAL, it should be deleted until such time as there's something encyclopedic to say about it and multiple independent reliable sources talk about it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep - The film has already completed filming and was called Something Good. Within a few weeks, the title will be permanent as advertising is scheduled to start in early August in anticipation of it's Christmas release. If it's deleted, it will only be redone in a few weeks.
    Donmike10 (talk • contribs) [reply
    ]
This editor voted twice, once without signing his name. I have removed one of the votes and combined the two. DreamGuy (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why is that a reason to keep? DreamGuy (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and note the nominator's lack of quite easy
    probable music albums does not.. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It never ceases to amaze me how you can come up with a Leep vote for even the most obvious Deletes. When there's something to tal abot we'll have an article until then it's pointless. DreamGuy (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That something called the "Untitled Nancy Meyers Project" IS being discussed in-depth AND in reliable sources is plain. The amazment is mine at your
attack on my reasoning, rationale, and efforts to improve the project through use of guideline and available sources. Please cease. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:33, 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incrediball

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

WP:ONEDAY \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I have put the references on the page can you show me how to reference properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkms99 (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I-meet

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

Contested prod. This is yet another niche-specific social networking site with no evidence of notability, created by SPAs as an advertisement for a startup which was launched late last year. Originally claimed to be the first of its kind but that's now been removed, so why is this article here? Very few relevant Google hits and nothing other than the usual PR material. No references other than PR, either. Fails

WP:N andy (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, this is my first time using this wikpedia and i'm new to navigating it. I didn't know posting article like this would piss so many people off. Our company would like to introduce i-Meet to the world, which is making waves in our meeting industry and has many unique features that are specific only for our industry. We have over 9000 members now in a short 6 months and the largest organization in this industry space is Meeting Planner international with around 30k.

Regarding notablity, how do i make my article more notable, Our PR releases contains quotes from large companies in our industry space, such as Starcite and influential people in the industry such as Rod Marymor and even featured in the Philadelphia inquirer, one of the largest newspaper in philadelphia.

I will edit the references to make it more notable and the article to tone down the tone and i hope everyone will take a second look at it Killrek (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)— Killrek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


You cannot make an article more notable. Notability refers to the subject of the article and is explained clearly in

WP:N. I'm also very concerned that this is yet another account that you're using to edit this article - four so far - why do you keep changing your identity? andy (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Looking over your recent edits to the article, I don't see that you're establishing notability. They all seem to be write-ups based on press releases, mostly dating from the launch of the site. Some of the references are very thin - e.g. one says only that "In my next column, I’ll write about the latest entry to the social networking melee, www.i-Meet.com" and nothing more - and others are completely unacceptable, for example one is a link to a Twitter page. andy (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As andy says, the issue is not the notability of the article, but of the company. Either the company meets the notability requirements or it does not. At the simplest, you need to provide multiple reliable, independent, non-trivial references to establish your company's notability. Each of those three bolded words is critical. If a reliable news organization did an independent, non-trivial write-up about the company, then that would go a long way towards showing that the company is notable. However, if a reference fails any of the three, then it is worthless for showing notability. Press releases, and any direct reporting of such, are not "independent". Nor are your company's own web pages. Blogs would not be considered "reliable". A brief mention in an article where the company is not the real subject would be a "trivial" mention. If no coverage exists that meets these requirements, then you are likely fighting a losing battle here, as your company most likely just does not meet Wikipedia's required levels of notability.
On a related subject, you mention wanting to introduce your company to the world. Wikipedia is expressly not supposed to be used for such purposes. Wikipedia's purpose is to document things/people who are already notable, not to be used for reaching notability in the first place. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the notablity criteria on a company, can you make it more specific? If our company works with major tourist boards and major players in our industry and is reported in the magazines related to our industry, will it meet the notability criteria? If it is the largest social network in our industry which indicate that a lot of people in our industry are interested and supporting it, is it notable? Our company founder was interviewed in a mainstream press by the philadelphia inquirer, does that contribute to the notablity criteria? Btw, this will be the final account i will be using because i just took over my colleague, who updated the previous entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killrek (talk • contribs)

Read
WP:NOTE. The notability criteria for companies, web sites, and anything in general are spelled out there. If you meet one of the listed criteria, and can show that you meet it, then your company is notable. If the company does not meet any of the criteria, then it simply is not notable. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 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 delete. promotional, POV, and unreferenced DGG (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DC Drive

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

Content fork from

promotional style by a user whose name suggests a Conflict of interest, as the company of the same name is a supplier of DC motors. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • LOL- what does this mean?

"DC drives do not rely on mathematical models to enhance their performance a" Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources, nothing but ad copy... Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with
    WP Physics} 00:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Conflict, unverifiable
    247 08:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Swift

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

This article appears to be a prima facie case of

usual notability criteria Ohconfucius (talk) 09:31, 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 delete.

247 08:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Habsburg-Reuter

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

This is a

hoax. After the opening sentence, the first half of the article is a straight description of the House of Habsburg, and is indeed copied from House of Habsburg. The second half, about the "House of Habsburg-Reuter" is, as far as I can discover, fiction. There is nothing in Scholar or Books, all the Google results seem to be Wikipedia mirrors, and "Reuter" does not appear in this list
. A few more searches are listed on the article talk page.

The article as first input by

CAT:HOAX for an article claiming for him an incredible list of grand titles which was deleted at AfD in January. The deletion debate
has been courtesy-blanked, but can be read in the history; it was over-written in April by IP 138.251.95.1 with a complaint that it was slanderous. That IP, which is registered to the University of St Andrews, also edited this article the day after it was input; the IP which added the two lines about James C-C is also registered to the University, where, according to his previous article, he is a student.

There is an impressive-looking reference to "the Almanach de Gotha on-line". However, our

reliable source
?

WHOIS does not disclose the owner, but there is a sister site www.imperialcollegeofprincesandcounts.com - same layout, same type-face, they both play the Emperor waltz - which also lists James C-C as Graf and Freiherr von Reuter, and WHOIS for that one shows its owner as His Imperial and Royal Highness Prince Karl Fredericke of Germany, Royal Mail Post Office 276, Teddington, Middlesex. To complete the picture, this website, at the foot of the page, quotes this ad from TIME, 30 December 2002:

"NOBLE TITLES OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE Certain Noble Titles, Styles, and Appellations etc, will be, formally Created and Conferred by The Sovereign Act of Letters Patent in exchange for a Financial Stipend by Private Treaty The Noble Titles of PRINCE, DUKE, MARQUIS, COUNT, VISCOUNT, BARON, LORD and KNIGHT, with the associated Appellation Styles of HIGHNESS, SERENE HIGHNESS and EXCELLENCY, accordingly. Title Particulars £10.00 (UK) $20.00 (US) For further information please contact The Private Office of HIS IMPERIAL AND ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE KARL FREDERICKE VON DEUTSCHLAND, PO BOX 276, TEDDINGTON, MIDDLESEX, ENGLAND"

Conclusion: this is a known hoaxer, the source cited is not reliable, searches find no confirmation. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a hoax based on one of the more thorough pre-AFD research efforts I've seen in a while. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL: What site is absent from Whois? I did the one you mention and the admin contacts are on hotmail and msn. Quite nice to see royalty using free US based eemail accounts for web contact points. tracert has them somewhere behind register-1.border1.nyj001.pnap.net. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "almanachdegotha.org", the one cited in the article, all WHOIS gives is an address in Funchal, Madeira and contact via "Domain Discreet". It needed finding "imperialcollegeofprincesandcounts.com", which is an obvious sister site and also lists J C-C as Graf von Reuter, to establish the connection with HI&RH Prince Karl who confers titles for a "financial stipend", and suggest an answer to the question how come J C-C is listed in this official-looking site. The Prince also has "almanachdeholyromanempire.org" and no doubt others. JohnCD (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • they seem to be behind the same pnap.net machine...

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thanks to nom for the thorough work to expose this hoax. Johnuniq (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as recreation per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown Eyes (Lady Gaga Song).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Eyes (Gaga Song)

Brown Eyes (Gaga Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A completely unsourced fancruft. The creater has done this thing previously also, creating the same article and was blocked. This should be speedy delete. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Browy - this song is an album on lady aga's album and legolas knows that and how can it be unsourced if the song is on i tunes, interscope on the fame album peview etc.... i did NOT claim this song as a Fancruft single and it has not violated any terms with wikipedia policy's. Their is nothing wrong with this article and it does not need to be deleated or redircted like he did with the other songs from her album. Also he has no right to say what i can say and can't do on wikipeida.

  • Delete per comments above.--
    Sky Attacker 12:39, 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 no consensus. 3 deletes, but appears work has been done to address intial concerns thus the latter !votes rank equal as they require valid consideration.

247 08:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Nathan Parsons

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

Article previously deleted in AfD, no new info to assert broader notability, and no sources in this restored version either — TAnthonyTalk 08:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of the old article
here, as I was working on it during the 1st AfD. As you can see, it had many references (more than this version) but was still deleted.— TAnthonyTalk 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, thank you for the link. In your previous work on the article, you were able to show him easily meeting the requirements of
WP:GNG. Yet the opinions at the previous AfD centered on WP:ENT as a reason to exclude rather than noting the easy passing of both the GNG and the Basic Criteria of WP:BIO. The closer made no opinion of the discussion. Just "result was delete". The improvements made by yourself were exemplary, and his closure felt like he was doing a head-count. No need to rehash the drama, but I was surprised it was not taken to DRV, as all issues discusses at the previous AfD had been addressed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I previously improved/defended the article in good faith with no personal attachments, accepting its deletion per policy/consensus and obviously nominating it again here upon its inappropriate resurrection. Since you seem to suggest above that the deletion may have been premature or discussed elsewhere, for the sake of this "new" AFD I've restored the article to its pre-deletion and most defendable form.— TAnthonyTalk 19:24, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Hammond

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

Fails

WP:N. Article seems to focus more on the daughter, and simply being her mother does not warrant Carolyn an article. Google search on all her works listed in the article turned up nothing. Several portions a direct C&P of info from MySpace page link. SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:22, 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 Speedy delete g5, article (and this AFD) created by same banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cruisin' Gang

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

Not notable enough for article failing notable guidelines for music.

Bored of the world (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Maybe put it up for CSD?  Cargoking  talk  08:45, 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 no consensus. 3 each way and nothing overly convincing to sway.

247 08:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Triumphant Institute of Management Education

Triumphant Institute of Management Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable Cybercobra (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Cybercobra! Thanx for your message.

Can you explain exactly why you are interested in deleting this article (other than the less-than-meagre references)? As far as I can see, it is a well written article, requiring a lot of editing. I do know that references play a major role, but consider it again. I have no problems if the article gets deleted after an intensive debate.

Thanks.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has
which is not what Wikipedia is for. If there are indeed good sources that I somehow missed (which is entirely possible since I don't speak Hindi), please add them to the article as they would invalidate the rationale for this AfD. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, note that it is possible the All India Mock CAT may be notable in its own right (and thus merit an article) even if TIME is not notable. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the company is a premiere testing company in India. Of course most coverage is about the tests they administer / the results they produce, rather than the company itself, but in these case the two can't be separated - the company is its tests/test training. That said sources to establish notability include: *The Hindu story mentioned above
  • this coverage was establishes that the company had 90 learning centers in 59 cities as of 2005 (they now have 186 in 92 cities)
  • this The Hindu story
  • This story is about a training exhibition they hosted
  • Story about a quiz they sponsored
  • Story about another quiz contest they hosted
  • Add in the 100+ times they are quoted as a quizzing authority by Indian papers and it is pretty clear this is a notable company.

Additionally, there are presumably lots of non-English language sources as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI doubt that you will find any non-English sources, no matter how hard you try. Grad and post-Graduate education is in English in India(with the exception of MA courses in local languages)--Deepak D'Souza 17:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Even if they are famous and boast of large enrollments,the fact is they are just a coaching institute and hence not admissible at wikipedia.Too insignificant.--Shashankgupta (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • talk) 00:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zuzaku

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

This article has no content or context and trying to look up details for this "populated place" online has been fruitless. I'm not sure if this is a town, a village, a homestead or what, and the "reference" leads me nowhere. This map leads to what looks like a barren field with perhaps a few huts. I understand our inclusion guidelines are rather lax for populated places, but unless a figure can be listed on how many people live in a place, I think this would violate

WP:NOTDIR. ThemFromSpace 06:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

That information isn't anything more than I found before nominating this. Not all real places should have an article; my backyard is a real place yet is clearly isn't
notable enough for an article. If this were shown to be a small settlement that would be one thing, but currently there is no information on this other than it is an "inhabited place", which to me isn't the amount of context required even for a stub. ThemFromSpace 18:52, 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.

247 08:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

SLAM Magazine's Top 50 Players of All-Time (NBA)

AfDs for this article:
SLAM Magazine's Top 50 Players of All-Time (NBA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is yet another "X's List of Top X" type article. It has the same problem they all do, which is that there is no reliable sourcing here. It's basically a list made up by some editors of a magazine. It's non-notable fancruft type stuff. As I've said before, if it's Billboard magazine, it's different because they have a reliable, secure basis for their charts. These articles are basically a bunch of editors in a room deciding who is fantastic without any criteria. User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 05:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they have a ton of criteria. The article has the sources and each person listed has a detailed explaination on why they are ranked in such order, i.e. impact, statistical output, championships, team chemistry, era, coaching effects, etc. I added the article to replace the old list because the top 75 list was sourced via a forum and was 6 years out dated. This however, is sourced from the magazine and was just recently released. Most of the stuff on Wikipedia is sourced from "some editors in a magazine" or newspaper. From the NYTimes to Reuters, etc. it's all from various editors. Zodiiak (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even besides all of that, I'm not even remotely convinced that it's notable: Rolling Stone (as much as they may be disagreeable) is an incredibly notable magazine, and its lists there are oft used as benchmarks for later "greatest music" lists; I fail to see any similar historical relevance for this list. A list on its own, even in a notable magazine, does not inherently infer notability. No coverage in third party sources = delete.
talk | contribs) 09:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No
    independent reliable sources have been provided that discuss this list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

247 08:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Benjamin Heckendorn

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines. Article is an unsourced biography of a living person. Bkellihan (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article [37] is one of many examples of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The notability strikes me as being a slam dunk. I have no idea why this is at AfD other than that the article needs quite a bit of work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found that exact article in my initial search, but that single article plus the few others I was able to find don't constitute significant coverage. You can't prove notability by citing a single source and stating there are many. Can you provide substantial verifiable sources to back up notability? In my searches I've come across a few articles here and there, but the bulk of what's out there are blog posting and articles written by the subject. I just can't find enough verifiable sources to reasonably substantiate general notability. Bkellihan (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Passing mentions =/= significant coverage, and actual references instead of raw Google links would be more persuasive. --Calton | Talk 18:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? He wasn't using Google as a reference. He was linking you to Google books showing that Heckendorn has been published. He has written his own books, and those books have been reviewed. I love WP deletion-mongers. They've already made up their mind before read the discussion. Thehondaboy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 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

King David's Warriors#The Three. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Josheb-Basshebeth

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

I prodded it, but I believe it should be deleted (Do not want to CSD) It has no sources, it's hardly encyclopedic, and has little content. (I used a prod, because I was unsure if the author would improve it.) SparksBoy (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, I guess I wasn't clear, I said might be a good option, I didn't recommend it as the best course of action, because, quite honestly I have no clue about Biblical characters/aspects etc. -
    talk) 20:15, 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 Redirect to

talk) 05:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Mian Tufail Mohammed

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

Already exist at Mian Tufail Mohammad so it should be merged and deleted. yousaf465 04:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to existing article; no discussion required, no new information to merge. Hairhorn (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What will happen this article ? Do it then.yousaf465
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumberjacks: The Musical

Lumberjacks: The Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable high school musical. No coverage from third-party sources. No claim to notability. Disputed PROD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:41, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fraize

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

Not enough

notability. Was tagged for CSD:G12 due to confirmed COPYVIO. I cleaned up the COPYVIO, however my research on subject's notability was inconclusive. I did find several articles[38] on the subject, however they are all PPV, so I am unable to determine just how much of the articles are about the subject. —  X  S  G  04:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note I have a paid subscription to Highbeam Reasearch and have personally accessed the entire articles listed in the references. Apart from the article about the 2000 Wammie Award, the articles are predominantly about the subject. Voceditenore (talk) 09:08, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Kanpur

List of shopping malls in Kanpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Could you imagine an article such as "List of shopping malls in New York City"? RunningOnBrains(talk page) 03:39, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Cummings

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

Only one claim to fame: co-cartoonist for Blondie. No sources found to verify anything else than that. Only cite in article is a 404. Doesn't seem worthy of a redirect, as I have found other possibly-notable people with the same name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:35, 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 G3 Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meteor Garden (Philippine TV series)

Meteor Garden (Philippine TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax article. No reliable sources found for this article. The presented reference in the article is just rumor. Bluemask (talk) 03:25, 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 delete. I read a fairly strong consensus for deletion here. The argument that this is not up to snuff in terms of

WP:N is valid and mentioned by several in the delete camp, whereas DGG is really the only editor who articulates a keep rationale, and it is not particularly persuasive or rooted in policy but rather more akin to personal opinion (it's not necessarily a bad point though). DGG is obviously right that AfD can be quite erratic (particularly when it comes to this kind of fictional universe stuff), but that's the process we have and the consensus on this article seems to be to delete. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Jak & Daxter vehicles

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

I propose this article be deleted because:

  • The assertion of notability is not stated
  • There are no sources
  • It's too much in-universe cruft
  • It's listed like a game guide

Magiciandude (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm going
    WP:IAR and relisting this; it really can't be called a consensus to delete given the keep !votes at the end. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Actually it should be deleted, DGG just said keep it because "there are better things to do for Wikipedia than AfD for harmless articles" and that is NOT a valid reason to keep an article. The next two just referred to DGG's illogical comments. Drawn Some (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliably-sourced content worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:27, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay History Project

Gay History Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Notability asserted but not backed by

reliable sources. Google search of "Gay Project" and "Clevesy" returns nothng. Other similarly named projects exist, but are not affiliated with this one. Seems to be designed to promote an iPhone app. Wperdue (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

When I google searched him another site came up showing his app. It did only just come out and it is the first and only of its kind and is spreading the word on gay rights. I say leave the article up. If you do search gay history on the app store his is the only one truly spreading awareness and not social networking or photos of half naked men. Also, you have to know how to use google properly if you are looking something up that is brand new and hasn't been out long enough for crawlers to pick it up. For example searching "gay history project john clevesy" instead of each on their own does bring up a few websites. The website i found first was at: http://www.apptism.com/apps/lgbt-history-project which is neither of the sources the writer provided but still seems like a reliable source. And another at http://148apps.com/app/318764084. Another at http://appshopper.com/education/lgbt-history-project and so on... It appears that the project was originally called LGBT History Project which may have also put a snag in your searching... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.220.246 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete as non-notable. Lacks reliable sources for notability or verification. Drawn Some (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article is deleted, its redirect at
    Gay history should also be deleted. Scratch that, he just retargeted the redirect to his new article. I've reverted as it was a redirect created in 2006 pointing to LGBT history. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You should read
WP:OR. Until you can provide reliable, verifiable third party sources that speak to the notability of this application, the article can't be kept. That's our rules. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Do not Delete Sorry but looking on the itunes store with your own eyes and seeing that there is only one Gay History App on there is not an original thought, or any other violation of the WP:OR. Because any user can go see these search results for themselves when clicking the provided link to the iTunes store, they can see that it is literally the ONLY app focused on gay history. Since when is Apple not creditable with their information and why is a (poorly executed) google search permissible as research to take down the article but actual raw data (showing any and all apps that come up in a search for gay history) which verifies what the article says is not enough evidence to leave the article up? Also, some of the information is coming from the App itself; it is a published non-fictional work and therefore serves as additional, reliable, unoriginal thought straight from the creator of the app himself. NO ADDITIONAL RESEARCH is needed outside of the links provided as sources to this article therefore it should remain on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.220.246 (talk • contribs)
Firstly, I've indented your comment because it made it look as if you !voted twice. Secondly, you have still not provided any reliable and verifiable third-party sources for why this application is notable. Until you do, the article will be deleted. Also, when you post comments here or anywhere else, please place ~~~~ at the end of your comment so that it will automatically sign your comment. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genia Stevens (Host of online lesbian and gay radio show SistersTalk Radio. Founder of social network GayWallet.com.) has written about and confirmed the Gay History Project as the first of its kind. Her article from SiterTalk has been used as a source.

The source that you added is a blog and, therefore, not a
reliable source. Please read the linked section for what constitutes a good source. I would not like to see you spending time and energy finding unreliable sources if others that are better exist. I hope this was helpful. Wperdue (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was '. Nom withdrawn. Yes I !voted, but this is procedural close. StarM 23:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Historic Fleet, Core Collection

National Historic Fleet, Core Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Arbitrary and capricious list with no verifiability of its assertions ("Core Collection"? Sez who?) Orange Mike | Talk 01:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Says the
    Benea (talk) 02:00, 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 delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant City

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

Non-notable web app Orange Mike | Talk 01:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not when the article is trivial. Or the source isn't that notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Hobit, please review the notability guidelines. It needs significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. It can't just be trivial coverage or coverage in unreliable sources or reprints of press releases, etc. The sources you point out don't even make a borderline case for notability. Drawn Some (talk) 14:49, 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 merge to Ron Paul. MBisanz talk 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Sovereignty Restoration Act

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

Second nomination; still non-notable legislation, now stale as well - sources tend to be Ideological extremist sites. Bill never passed, never had a snowball's chance of passing; it only survived the prior AfD because of the Ron Paul worshippers admirers (some of whom are nice people) taking it much more seriously than it deserved. Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the RP worshippers? I think the sponsorship of this bill can be interpreted far differently than that, depending on one's own biases. The article could use some more care for balance, but I see no reason to delete it. DGG (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability was already established last time. National Review is not an "extremist site". Gigs (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title needs to be changed if this sticks around; it's not an act. Hairhorn (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007". That's its name. To reuse an example from the last AfD, we still call the ERA an amendment, even though it never passed. Gigs (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but where's the trouble with calling it a bill? That's what it is: a proposed act, not an actual one. Hairhorn (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, okay, sorry for the confusion. Here in Canada we call bills "bills" and acts "acts" so I guess that's the standard I'm used to. Hairhorn (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good article, but
    T/C) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Non-aligned? Everything is "aligned" somehow. The New York Times is aligned. That doesn't make it an invalid source. The
Yale Law Journal is a significant source with regard to legal expertise, even in a footnote. There are numerous other sources. Your attempt to say that my vote should be disregarded because I support Ron Paul (which I do not) is a strawman argument.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Check the sources if you don't believe me. When I say aligned, I mean the sources actively support Ron Paul as the one last hope for humanity. The rest of the sources are trivial mention. Find one that doesn't stump for Ron Paul and gives the bill more than a paragraph. Last AFD, John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) put every single hit from Google news, no matter how trivial, in the article. Burzmali (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Alphabet Bodor Cristian

The result was Speedily deleted. I just noticed that this user has a long history of creating pages like this and using WP as a personal webhost, so this is a clear case. Sorry about the false alarm. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet Bodor Cristian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable alphabet made up by someone; the author of the article is Cristian Bodor himself, so the article is self-promotion and the author is in a

speedy-able, but I figured it is borderline enough that I want to make it clear there is strong consensus to delete it, and don't want to see it being re-created on Wikipedia. And as a side note, as a linguist, I can say confidently that this alphabet is very poorly designed and would make English learning far more difficult than it already is; but that is neither here nor there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs
01:11, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Clockwork in the Stars

A Clockwork in the Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Book with no assertion of notability. Only reference is where to buy it on Amazon. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:09, 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 delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Shankar

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

BLP about an actress that has only had one minor part (nonstarring role in a Canadian production in only the most recent of seasons - buried way at the bottom of the 'list of insignificant characters in this show' article) and a rumored part (announced through Twitter) in a YTV sitcom that's not out yet. That's it. Does not rise to the level of significance required by

WP:ACTOR at this time. DreamGuy (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I couldn't find anything at

WP:ENT says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." She is in the eighth season of Degrassi: The Next Generation, and is a top-billed cast member - not a minor part. Additionally, what does the fact that it's a Canadian production have to do with anything? Are Canadian productions somehow less notable than American ones? Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

It all goes toward "significant" roles -- but then they need multiple significant roles, and she doesn't have that even if we generously extend significance to that role. DreamGuy (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a top billing cast member as said above. I even watch Degrassi and see her credited on the opening credits. And she has also appeared in multiple films, stage performances and other productions, (as said above) She will even play the lead role in an upcoming show How to Be Indie. She is a notable actress. RIPMichaelJackson (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user's block-evading sock. Invalid !vote per
WP:BAN. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 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 keep. Consensus seems to be that her notability, while possibly marginal, is sufficiently well-covered to produce a verifiable article. I would strongly encourage that the sources found by ThaddeusB be incorporated into the article, as it's currently bordering on an unsourced

BLP. ~ mazca talk 15:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Tilly Greene

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

Another recently prodded/deprodded article. As far as I can tell, these ebook/print publishers her work is through are essentially vanity presses. No reliable sources given. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Not a very notable writer, but appears to be just notable enough for inclusion. Much of her work has been reviewed by Romance specific organizations that at least have some standards (i.e. don't review every book they receive), have editorial control, and certainly are independent of the subject. A small representative sample: [40][41][42][43][44][45]. Also has been interviewed by similar level of quality sources: [46][47][48]. She won an award for best BDSM novel of 2008 from Romance Studio: [49] --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the comments posted above, is notable enough to get a number of reviews; the format of distribution of the work shouldn't discredit them.Fuzbaby (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources listed above appear to be enough. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I only find marginal notability, but there is coverage out there. Gigs (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lexico

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

Another article with no reliable sources or any indications that such exist that was prodded, deprodded for no reason and listed here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 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 delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gui4Cli

Gui4Cli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously prodded by another user with "No evidence of notability" as reason, deprodded by someone with no rationale given. There are no reliable sources given, it's freeware software and basically just advertising/self-promotion. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for the above reasons, poorly sourced, sounds promotional, subject seems to lack notability. --Mysidia (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shameless wikiadvertising. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing notability out there... one or two blog posts. Amiga freeware of pretty limited interest. Gigs (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, advert. JJL (talk) 02:43, 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 Delete.

vecia 16:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Chris Edge

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

Previously prodded by another user with reasoning "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in

notability." and I agree. Prod removed by yet another serial deprodding account for no reason. Quick look at article shows no reliable sources at all (just IMDB listing) and nothing like an argument that would demonstrate notability (shows have lots of writers, they need something more to be worth mentioning). DreamGuy (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources do not establish notability; there is a lack of significant content. There is even a lack of a credible claim of significance or importance, "provided material for a significant/notable show", is akin to saying a person worked as an employee for a notable company, this is borderline CSD A7 material. --Mysidia (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find anything to indicate notability. Looks like a 'oh look, I've got my own wikipedia' page. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity page with no particular claim to notability given. Gigs (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, and per the complete lack of hits in Google News--certainly a notable person famous for a post-stone age show would appear at least once. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twittersphere

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

I deprodded to put on AfD. I'm putting this on afd because while the term gets thrown around occasionally and it requires consensus, although I don't believe it's notable (despite its use in mass media).

The original version of the page suggested it had been created today; that part has been removed Shadowjams (talk) 00:18, 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 delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Shapiro (programmer)

Jonathan Shapiro (programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article does not appear to meet

talk) 14:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

A quick look at those hits shows many references belonging to other people with the same name; in the case of the Google Books, a couple of essays co-authored by the subject were simply reprinted in multiple publications. A Google News search only turned up a very brief mention in eWeek.
talk) 15:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hapka

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

BLP of a young actor with yet no significant roles in the industry. Closest has been an ongoing role in one of those online-online productions that take place side by side with the plot of an actual TV show but is not the show, and an alleged starring role in a still in-production project with next to know information on IMDB - clearly not attached to any major studio. Fails

WP:ACTOR and there's nothing in the article to suggest he'd be notable in any other way, and certainly no independent, reliable sources to that effect. DreamGuy (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Banned user's block-evading sock. Invalid !vote per
WP:BAN. DreamGuy (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, I'll say it: his role on Days of Our Lives is not significant. Mere returning characters are not significant. We're looking for starring roles, not individual appearances you can call "guest star" spots and from then on refer to as "starring roles." If the future lead projects pan out as actual, notable prouctions instead of the web-only amateur films you've been promoting on articles, then a Wikipedia article would be justified. That's not now. DreamGuy (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being in 60 episodes (so far) on one of the most notable daytime soaps is definitely significant, as not exactly a walk-on or a guest spot. Time for a little perspective. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "miss" the actual TV series, it's just a minor appearance (not a starring role) that fails
WP:ACTOR. And, frankly, your idea of "not helpful" is pretty bizarre. How exactly is it not helpful to know that the only starring role is in an unreleased indie film by nobody important? DreamGuy (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
What you term a minor appearance has itself received in-depth coverage in reliable sources. So it must be that their reasons for covering his inclusion in the series were not because they felt it "minor". And please, why do you keep linking to
significant coverage in reliable sources, and I will trust a closing admin to make a determination based upon the article and guideline, and not weight of numbers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - The article, of course, tells us that it's a "lead recurring role", whatever that might be. Incidentally,
talk) 01:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It is so much as mentioned in the in-depth article on Hapka in Back Stage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. The otherwise completely unknown film is mentioned in passing. -
talk) 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It's lucky then that the AfD is not about a film, but a person... and luckier still that the person in question has been the subject of more-than-trivia coverage in reliable sources, so as to meet the inclusion criteria of
WP:BIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:05, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Oberon

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

Article is regularly proposed for deletion, so might be an idea to discuss here and get it settled one way or the other. The main issue is notability - The game has not been the subject of significant, reliable, third-party coverage. The closest thing seems to be this short writeup in CHIP magazine. Marasmusine (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The game is talked about much more than it is written about in journals, so its notability isn't solid. As it passes into community nostalgia, I'm confident that its influence on later projects will become better documented. If it wasn't open-source, there'd be no shortage of articles about it.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that an argument for deletion? Marasmusine (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More like
WP:DEADLINE#View two. --AuthorityTam (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete - Ghits aren't notability. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks the multiple reliable secondary sources to satisfy notability. The only secondary source in the article worth a damn is the Chip listing, which is a couple of sentences culminating in "However, you should (not yet) expect too much. The units are not yet fully animated, and the control is still a bit complicated, especially in higher resolutions. Also, the enemy intelligence very immature, so that it is only worthwhile to stand against human players." It's of precious little use. Though I'd normally be very happy to see IndieGames used as a source, this one is a cross-posting from a backwater site. The review is also poorly written, the opening sentence: "Dark Oberon is a solid programmed RTS-game with unique grafics." I like to argue the reliability case for the more usable sites dealing with indie gaming in general, but I wouldn't touch this one with a bargepole. Someoneanother 11:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ridgwell

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

No

notability. He wrote a number of blog posts for the UK Guardian newspaper in 2007, but in Google News, Books, and Scholar I can find no evidence of significant coverage of him. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly either an A7 or G11 speedy deletion. No evidence of notability presented, written in a very promotional and unencyclopedic way, likely heavy conflict of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goat (musician)

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

Artists seems to fail

WP:BAND. This persons only real claim to fame is having appeared on a movie soundtrack, and a compilation album. magnius (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 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 Delete.

vecia 15:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Kealin Ireland

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

Non notable local politician, who served on a local authority for 3 years from 2004-2007. Did notable during term of office or since. Fails

talk) 09:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I don't deny that you are probably right. --
    •wicke 22:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ok, so she has a name in the paper. Otherwise, I can't really see anything significant that would merit inclusion. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If she gets no coverage except for the event of retiring, she fails the
    one-event policy. Nyttend (talk) 19:39, 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) 14:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tab Mix Plus

Tab Mix Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was nominated for deletion but reverted citing additional links for notability which is debatable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varun21 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not additional notability, simply two more refs which do nothing more than give the personal opinion of two internet writers. "Top 10 must-have Firefox extensions" and "Best Firefox extensions" are not notable achievements but columnists making lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varun21 (talk • contribs) 19 June 2009

Please back this statement up with policy. The general notability guideline specifically cites "published peer recognition" as one criteria to establish notability. Some subject-specific policies cite awards as evidence of notability. I don't think you have any basis to dismiss this categorization in notable publications. --Karnesky (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Step 2 of the AfD listing process was not completed properly. It has been fixed. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty obviously notable: [56].. 185 news articles. Several books [57] Gigs (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has multiple secondary sources that clearly state that it is an important Firefox extension. Fences&Windows 00:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 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.

Eve Laurence

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. wL<speak·check> 05:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO. One nomination in 2007 and that's it for this retired actress. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources and random editors keep inserting BLP sensitive information without the support of reliable sources (because they probably don't exist). Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She's retired? Is there somewhere public where this is mentioned? Tabercil (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consistently read from people claiming to be Laurence that she is still in the industry, but I have not seen any new films with her in them.
  • Weak keep This is based on interpretation of policy. She barely passes the first criteria of WP:PORNBIO, by her AVN win, but could possibly fail the
    notability is not temporary
    .
Comment Just wanted to note that she was nominated for an award but did not win it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Couldn't find a way to comment on this issue however I thought it may be more viable to edit the page and add a 'comment'? I've had business dealings with Eve Laurence [

redacted ], and video journals (as Eve Laurence). I obtained the journals as originally I was asked to code her official site (originally evelaurence.com) but declined because I didn't have backend coding experience at the time. Hopefully this information may help with this issue of deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.199.241 (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • DeleteChecking her two main names: AVN [58], [59]; Xbiz [60]. Envi on XBIZ keeps returning hits for "environment", searched as keyword [61]. Nothing on fleshbot. I don't see anything vaguely resembling significant coverage. Since she didn't win the award, fails Crit 1. Nothing even suggesting she hits or approaches any of the other additionals. Horrorshowj (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 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 Delete.

vecia 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Pentaphobe

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

fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSIC. very little third party coverage [62], [63], Google search mainly shows directory and mirror sites. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Has an Allmusic entry, includes discography of two albums.
  2. Has an IMDb entry indicating at least three roles on Australian TV including on-going character of Miles on Raw FM.
Appears to pass
WP:MusicBio criteria #1, #5 & #10.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both albums were released by non-notable labels, Allmusic entry does not, by itself, establish notability. IMDb is also not a reliable source, and the show appears to possibly be non-notable, too.
    vecia 16:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete not notable at this time--AssegaiAli (talk) 10:07, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian Linux User Group

Peruvian Linux User Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG miserably. unreferenced. very little coverage in Spanish and English. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 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 delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Davenport (Drummer)

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

Prod declined by IP without changes or comments. I'll repeat my prod comments: Not notable. No independent sources given. Warpath have no wiki page and no label, neither do the other bands cited. Also, the "controversy" section has absolutely no controversy in it. Hairhorn (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per nom, no label, no independent sources The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. Of course it doesn't prove nonnotability, but when a long list of Myspaces is given as references, that's a hint that there's nothing more reliable than Myspace. Nyttend (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 00:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The article's been expanded, but there's still no sign of notability; I don't even see any commercially available releases, just demos and Myspace content. His bands don't even have wiki pages.Hairhorn (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability in
    reliable sources for this musician or either of the bands he claims to have played with. Astronaut (talk) 14:03, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

AfDs for this article:
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Principal Photography haven't started yet Kikkokalabud (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep with prejudice against renomination. Is this a joke? This is a major motion picture, part of a highly successful notable series of films based on a highly successful notable series of books. Per [[Category:Upcoming_films]][64], this certainly qualifies within the "Category for films that are not released as of yet, but are factually planned to be filmed/released in the near future".--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While not official policy, contributors to this AfD debate may find it valuable to refer to the WikiProject Films page regarding
    Future Films.-Markeer 14:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to
    talk) 15:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks. At
WP:NFF also says, "films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable" [emph added]).--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:39, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_26&oldid=1142644369"